Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 2,524,499 to Weir in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4,880,080 to Brockman.
Claim 1, Weir discloses a hammock stand comprising a connector defined by a ring 19; a horizontal support 5 attached to the connector at a first end; a leg junction attached to the horizontal support at a second end; the leg junction comprising: a plurality of legs 20. Weir is silent to the legs pivoting relative to a horizontal support. Brockman discloses a horizontal support 2 having a junction defined by bracket 20 with an attachment port defined by a pivot block 40 and a knuckle 46 disposed below the horizontal support that allows a leg assembly 4 to pivot from a vertically to horizontally parallel orientation with the horizontal support (fig. 5)(fig. 9-11). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the bracket portion and support portions in Brockman with the hammock stand of Weir with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an improved portable hammock assembly that is easily extended from a compact collapsible configuration into a self-supporting structure (col. 1 lines 40-47).
Claim 2, Weir discloses the hammock stand wherein the plurality of legs are telescoping legs (col. 2 lines 28-31 & 39-40).
Claim 3, Weir discloses the hammock stand wherein the connector further connects to a roof rack of a vehicle defined by a strap 13.
Claims 4-5, Weir discloses the hammock stand wherein the horizontal support is comprised of a plurality of detachably connected sections (5,6,7,8)(col. 1 lines 45-55 & 1-4).
Claim 6, Weir discloses the hammock stand wherein the connector further comprises: an attachment point (fig. 2).
Claim 7, Wier discloses the hammock stand wherein a hammock is connectable to the attachment point at a first end and the attachment port at a second end (fig. 1).
Claim 8, Wier discloses the hammock stand wherein the attachment port is a bar disposed on the leg junction (fig. 5).
Claim 9, Wier discloses the hammock stand wherein the attachment port is a ring defined by openings disposed on the leg junction (fig. 5).
Claim 10, Wier discloses the hammock stand, wherein the attachment point is an aperture (fig. 5).
Claim 12, Wier, as modified, discloses the hammock stand wherein the leg junction of Brockman further comprises a pivot pin 26.
Claim 13, Wier discloses the hammock stand wherein the plurality of legs have openings capable of pivoting on the pivot (fig. 6).
Claim 20, Wier discloses the hammock stand wherein the connector further comprises a strap 13.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 2,524,499 to Weir in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4,880,080 to Brockman, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 755,039 to Patten.
Claim 11, Wier discloses the hammock stand, but is silent to the connections system comprising a ball and socket. Patten discloses a hammock stand having a ball and socket connection (page 2 lines 37-91)(fig. 5). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the ball and socket connection disclosed in Yu with the hammock stand of Wier with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed greater freedom to adjust the hammock stand of Wier.
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 2,524,499 to Weir in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4,880,080 to Brockman, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,418,577 to Murphey.
Claims 14-19, Weir discloses the hammock stand of claim 13, wherein the leg junction further comprises a lower lock pin 25 positioned away from the horizontal support, but is silent to a push lock or a plurality of push locks. Murphey discloses an upper and lower push locks 66 (fig. 4) (col. 4 lines 18-38). Selecting from a plethora of known locks is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the push lock in Murphey with the hammock stand of Wier with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed greater freedom to adjust the hammock stand of Wier. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. PRINCIPLES OF LAW "Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.'" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). "If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 1740. Contrary to the Applicant’s argument, Brockman clearly discloses a horizontal support 2 having a junction defined by bracket 20 with an attachment port defined by a pivot block 40 and a knuckle 46 disposed below the horizontal support that allows a leg assembly 4 to pivot from a vertically to horizontally parallel orientation with the horizontal support (fig. 5)(fig. 9-11). As previously stated, the combination of references as a whole would have provided a reasonable expectation of success to improve portable hammock assembly that is easily extended from a compact collapsible configuration into a self-supporting structure.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 6,892,860 to Gibson et al. discloses an apparatus having a horizontal support with collapsible legs.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,640,386 to Hall an apparatus having a horizontal support with collapsible legs.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached on (571) 272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights