DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 4th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-3 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendments to the disclosure and claims have overcome the objections to the claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 4th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Ln. 8, “a base” should read --the base--
Claim 1, Ln. 8-10, “a pair of perpendicular arms, forming a cross at the base from the ends of which four respective vertical struts extend” should read --a pair of perpendicular arms, forming a cross at the base; the fixation support further comprises four vertical struts wherein each of the four vertical struts extends from a separate distal end of the perpendicular arms--
Claim 1, Ln. 11, “which vertical struts” should read --the vertical struts--
Claim 1, Ln. 11, “hooks” should read --the hooks--
Claim 1, Ln. 12, “horizonal” should read --horizontal--
Claim 1, Ln. 13, “the lower side” should read --a lower side--
Claim 2, Ln. 2, “a cord” should read --the cord--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1, Ln. 13-15, “the reel has an annular base on the lower side on the support of which there are two or more diametrical and perpendicular recesses or grooves at the point of contact with the bottom of said support” is vague and indefinite. Is the annular base located on the lower side referring to the location of the annular base on the reel or to the underside of the annular base? Additionally, “the lower side,” “the support,” and “said support” lack antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, “lower side” is assumed to refer to the location of the annular base on the reel and “the support,” and “said support” are assumed to refer to the fixation support. This claim limitation recitation is grammatically confusing. Examiner suggests dividing the elements being claimed into more concise and clear parts (e.g. the reel has an annular base on a lower side of the reel, wherein the annular base further comprises two or more diametrical and perpendicular recesses or grooves which are configured to be: (a) able to fit on and contact the arms of the fixation support and (b) able to be separated from the arms of the fixation support).
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2, Ln. 1, the language “finished off at the top” is vague and indefinite. If meant to describe an arrangement of components, Examiner suggests including language which defines the arrangement between these components. For the purpose of examination, the upper base is assumed to be arranged at the top of the reel.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim is indefinite due to its dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Flynn (U.S. Patent No. 4,254,579) and further in view of Corbin (U.S. Patent No. 4,471,921), Dearo (WIPO Publication No. WO 02/30176 A1), and Agullo (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0096487).
Regarding Claim 1, Flynn, Figure 1, teaches a device for plant staking (See Flynn, Col. 1, Ln. 50-59), consisting of:
a reel 8; and
a fixation support 1 connectable to a corresponding horizontal wire 6 by way of respective hanging hooks 5; and
said reel 8 made up of a hollow cylindrical tubular piece 10, upon an outer cylindrical face of which a cord 9 is wound in order to be fixed to a plant to be hung by a free extremity of said cord 9;
said reel 8 can be displaced both axially in relation to said fixation support 1 and in rotation on a vertical pin 4 provided on a base 2 of said fixation support 1 (See Flynn, Col. 1, Ln. 50-59);
a pin 4 that emerges from the base 2 of said fixation support 1 is hollow (See Flynn, Col. 3, Ln. 23-28).
Flynn teaches all of the elements of the plant staking device except for the reel operating in the middle of the fixation support, arms and struts of the fixation support, the reel having an inner shaft that moves on the pin on the fixation support, the struts ending in hooks, and the base of the reel having recesses which can mate with the arms on the fixation support.
PNG
media_image1.png
267
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 2 from Corbin
However, Corbin, Figures 1-5 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a reel 15 that operates in the middle of a fixation support 20,
the base 21 of said fixation support 20 comprises a pair of perpendicular arms 26a, 30a, forming a cross at the base 21, from the ends of which four respective vertical struts 22b, 26b, 30b, 34b extend, determining a form of open wraparound for the reel 15 (See Corbin, Fig. 1, Col. 2, Ln. 49-55), and inside the tubular body 110 of said reel 15 there is an inner shaft 140 that moves around said pin 135 (See Corbin, Fig. 5, Col. 3, Ln. 18-23).
Although Corbin teaches pin 135 as a solid post in its preferred embodiment, it is implied that the post can be made hollow as long as it can receive the tubular bearing member located on the reel (See Corbin, Col. 4, Ln. 38-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Flynn with arms, struts, an inner shaft of the reel, and a pin, as taught by Corbin, for the purpose of smoothly and efficiently supplying the wire without kinks of bends (See Corbin, Col. 1, Ln. 39-41).
Dearo, Figure 2, teaches a vertical strut 17 extends above the reel 11 itself and ends in a hook 20 used to hang said fixation support 10 on said corresponding horizontal wire 3 (See Dearo, Abstract);
Although Dearo teaches a single extended vertical strut with a hook, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Flynn in view of Corbin with at least two hooks located on the struts, as taught by Dearo, for the purpose of attaching the fixation support to the horizontal wire (See Dearo, Col. 1, Ln. 39-41).
Agullo, Figures 1-4, teaches these struts 26 interact with said reel 14, as the reel 14 has an annular base 22a, 27 on the lower side on the support 12 of which there are two or more diametrical and perpendicular recesses or grooves 29 at the point of contact with the bottom of said support 12 and that can be fitted into and removed from said arms 30, 36 of said base 32 of said fixation support 12 (See Agullo, Para. 0040, Ln. 1-9);
Although Agullo teaches a single strut and arm, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Flynn in view of Corbin and Dearo with a reel which has recesses that mate with the arms of the fixation support, as taught by Agullo, for the purpose of increasing simplicity safety of operation (i.e., disengaging the brake and paying out the cord) (See Agullo, Para. 0013-0017).
Regarding Claim 2, Flynn in view of Corbin, Dearo, and Agullo are advanced above.
Flynn further teaches wherein said reel 8 is finished off at the top with a disc-shaped upper base 11 that serves as a stopper for the winding of a cord.
Flynn in view of Corbin, Dearo, and Agullo teach all the elements of the plant staking device except for the hole being located in the upper base.
However, Flynn teaches an aperture 16 located in the wall of the tubular portion 3 of the stem portion which supports the reel 8 (See Flynn, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Flynn in view of Corbin with a hole located directly on the reel’s upper flange rather than on the support structure for the purpose of stabilizing a loose end of the cord (See Flynn, Col. 3, Ln. 23-28). The difference between these locations is a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 3, Flynn in view of Corbin, Dearo, and Agullo are advanced above.
Corbin further teaches a casing that constitutes the fixation support 20 for said reel 15 further comprises a reinforcement ring 80 that joins said struts 26b, 30b (See Corbin, Fig. 5, Col. 3, Ln. 18-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Flynn with a reinforcement ring, as taught by Corbin, for the purpose of smoothly and efficiently supplying the wire without kinks or bends (See Corbin, Col. 1, Ln. 39-41).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 1-3, filed September 4th, 2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the objections to the Claims, Applicant has submitted acceptable amendments. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn. However, new objections are raised based on the amendments.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant has amended the claims. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome all of the previously set forth rejections. Therefore, these rejections have been maintained.
Applicant asserts “In relation to the lack of clarity of claim 1, in so far as it relates to the inclusion of a support for attachment to a horizontal wire, the support is in fact connectable to the horizontal wire so as to be suspended from it, the reel being movable with respect to said support only when it is released - by pushing it upwards - in order to release part of the cord that is wound on said reel. In turn, the connection is established by means of the hooks 13 subsequently described in said claim 1. As such, Applicant has amended claim 1 to further clarify this feature.
As for the arms and vertical struts, it has been clarified that the arms extend vertically into the vertical struts and that said hooks extend from said struts. At least two are required to include the hanging hooks (13), although more of these elements could be added to the device to increase its rigidity.”
These amendments add sufficient clarity to their respective limitations.
Applicant asserts “Regarding the annular base of the reel, this annular configuration ensures that its lower face or point of contact with the support is the one that includes the grooves that fit into the "cross" formed in the support, and that locks and prevents the rotation of the device when it is at rest. Claim 1 has therefore been amended to make this feature as clear as possible.”
The limitation “the reel has an annular base on the lower side on the support of which there are two or more diametrical and perpendicular recesses or grooves at the point of contact with the bottom of said support and can be fitted into and removed from said arms of said base of said fixation support” is still grammatically confusing and it is unclear which component(s) “the support” (Claim 1, Ln. 13) and “said support” (Claim 1, Ln. 15) refer to.
Applicant asserts “Turning now to the content of claim 2, the description has been amended to make clear that the upper base is part of the reel, so much so that they form a single unit and constitute not a connection but a stopper that contains the cord, preventing it from slipping out at the top and from sliding during winding.”
The description “finished off at the top” is still indefinite language and the limitation “a disc-shaped upper base that serves as a stopper for the winding of a cord” does not clarify the arrangement of the components. The recitation of the claim appears to be directed towards a functional limitation of stopping the winding of the cord.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant has amended the claim. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues “Turning now to the novelty and inventive step of the application, the Flynn (US Patent No. 4,254,574) reference describes a device with the same purpose or practical scope as the device of the present application.
However, the solutions provided for in the two registers are completely different, and in no way equivalent, since the solution proposed in the present application has appreciable advantages over the one advanced by "Flynn".
Specifically, according to the "Flynn" reference, the device is locked when the farmer manually hooks and unhooks the cord (9) from the hook (18) of the support 3, whereas, in the present application, it is not necessary to manipulate or even touch the cord, so much so that it is sufficient to move the reel (1) axially on the pin (8) of the base of the support (2) simply using a finger to push the base upwards; this movement releases the reel from the arms (10) that lock it in place, enabling the reel to rotate and consequently adjusting the cord attached to it. When the reel is released, it will tend to be locked completely automatically by the downward tension of the cord and by gravity itself, and the arms (10) of the support are locked into the grooves (7) of the reel.
This automatic locking manoeuvre when the reel is released is not possible with the structure described in the "Flynn" document, where the cord must be manually secured to the hook (18) as part of a manoeuvre which requires some skill and operating time.”
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejections of claims 1-3 are based on a combination of teachings found in Flynn (U.S. Patent No. 4,254,579), Corbin (U.S. Patent No. 4,471,921), Dearo (WIPO Publication No. WO 02/30176 A1), and Agullo (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0096487) (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Additionally, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a “simply using a finger to push the base upwards; this movement releases the reel from the arms (10) that lock it in place, enabling the reel to rotate and consequently adjusting the cord attached to it” and “When the reel is released, it will tend to be locked completely automatically by the downward tension of the cord and by gravity itself, and the arms (10) of the support are locked into the grooves (7) of the reel”) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues “As for the "Corbin" reference (US Patent No. 4,471,921), while it is true that this reference and the present invention have features in common, the locking capacity achieved in the present invention with the grooves (7) of one of the device's two constituent parts into which the arms (10) of the other part fit, gives the reel a lockable character that is not presented in "Corbin". Consequently, even if the "Flynn" and "Corbin" references were combined, it would not be possible to produce a device capable of being locked and unlocked as simply and precisely as envisaged in the present application.
In short, it is not possible to arrive at the claimed solution simply by combining these two documents, as the solution is different from both, and presents appreciable advantages that therefore justify the non-obviousness of the application.”
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejections of claims 1-3 are based on a combination of teachings found in Flynn (U.S. Patent No. 4,254,579), Corbin (U.S. Patent No. 4,471,921), Dearo (WIPO Publication No. WO 02/30176 A1), and Agullo (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0096487). Agullo is relied upon to teach “the locking capacity achieved … with the grooves (7) of one of the device's two constituent parts into which the arms (10) of the other part fit,” (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Applicant further argues “As for the solution proposed by the patent of "Dearo" WIPO Publication NO. WO 02/30176 A1), it is completely different from the one set out here, to such an extent that the way of hanging the device could be considered the least important detail of the invention, and the means of locking and unlocking the reel are the fundamental feature on which the invention should focus. As such, this reference also fails to provide for the means of locking and releasing the reel, as claimed in the present application.”
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejections of claims 1-3 are based on a combination of teachings found in Flynn (U.S. Patent No. 4,254,579), Corbin (U.S. Patent No. 4,471,921), Dearo (WIPO Publication No. WO 02/30176 A1), and Agullo (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0096487) (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Applicant further argues “the "Agullo" reference (US Patent Application Publication NO. 2010/0096487) describes a mechanism in which the reel adopts a horizontal and not a vertical arrangement, as in the present invention.
In this respect, while the reel in the present application is "locked" by gravity itself, which makes it considerably easier to manoeuvre, in the "Agullo" reference it is necessary to move the reel horizontally in one direction or the other in order to unlock and lock it, such that this horizontal arrangement may cause the device to release unexpectedly if the cord ever vibrates, in contrast to what happens in the present application.
Furthermore, the structure envisaged in this device (Agullo) is much more complex and consequently more expensive than the one set out in the present application, in which only two parts are involved as opposed to the three parts considered in the "Agullo" device. This also greatly increases the complexity of its individual parts and results in a more expensive structure.”
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejections of claims 1-3 are based on a combination of teachings found in Flynn (U.S. Patent No. 4,254,579), Corbin (U.S. Patent No. 4,471,921), Dearo (WIPO Publication No. WO 02/30176 A1), and Agullo (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0096487). Flynn, Corbin, and Dearo teach reels having a vertical arrangement (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Regarding the rejections of Claims 2-3, the claims are dependents of rejected claim 1 and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
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 TIFFANY DOMONIQUE JEFFERSON whose telephone number is 571-272-0403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7:30pm ET.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at 313-446-4858. 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.
/T.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights