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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledged Receipt
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 10 November 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
The Drawing Objection(s) mailed on 13 June 2025 remain(s). The examiner maintains that which is shown in Figure(s) 8 & 25 “should be designated as – Prior Art -- because only that which is old is illustrated “ (See MPEP § 608.02(g)) and that the drawings must show ever feature of the invention specified in the claims.
The Specification Objection(s) mailed on 13 June 2025 remain(s) in order to correlate with the Drawing Objection(s) that remain.
The Claim Objection(s) mailed 13 June 2025 is/are overcome by the amendment filed on 10 November 2025. However, with respect to amended Claim language filed on 10 November 2025, there is/are now Claim Objection(s).
The 112 Rejection(s) mailed on 13 June 2025 remain(s) even with the amendment(s) to the Claim.
Status
In the amendment filed 10 November 2025, independent Claim(s) 1 has/have been amended. A Final Rejection is being issued in this paper with regards to Claim(s) 1.
Drawings
Figure(s) 8 & 25 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
The Claim, in line 2, “a ball hitch element having a receiver interface”;
The Claim, in line 4, “a pole support having a flat bottom surface”;
The Claim, in line 5, “a clamp”.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figs. 1-6 & 11-24: These figures require appropriately associated numerals to indicate what is being shown in the drawings in order to facilitate the invention.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The description(s) for Figure(s) 8 & 25 is/are missing “Prior Art” reference(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The Claim is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Claim recite(s) the limitation "the ball" (in line 5). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim so it should read “a ball”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The Claim is 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 The Claim: It is 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: It is unclear where “ a ball hitch element having a receiver interface” (line 2) is located in reference to the rest of the elements of the applicant’s invention . Furthermore, these elements are not shown in the applicant’s originally filed Drawings (see Drawings paragraph above) in order to facilitate the invention. The examiner understands that “a ball hitch element having a receiver interface” is recited in paragraph [0004], “The above disadvantage is addressed by a support for a vehicle accessory flagpole that comprises a ball hitch element having a receiver interface.”, however there is no further detail connecting the “ball hitch element having a receiver interface” with any of the other elements of the applicant’s invention. The claim does not provide further detail as to how or where “a ball hitch element having a receiver interface” is located in reference to the rest of the elements.
For examination purposes The Claim will be treated as a ball hitch element having a receiver interface located near a ball.
Examiner’s Notes
Regarding The Claim: With respect to the preamble, the preamble of the claim(s) has/have not been given any patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim(s) is/are drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim(s) following the preamble is a self – contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150,152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding The Claim: With regard to the intended use of the apparatus, e.g. the term “ball hitch” in “ball hitch element” can be interpreted that the “element” can be used in a " ball hitch " setting. Furthermore, the term “ball hitch” does not add any structural limitation to the term “element”, thus it does not provide enough patentable weight to the term “element”. It is understood with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. as discussed in MPEP 2103.1.C.
Regarding The Claim: With regard to the intended use of the apparatus, e.g. the term “pole” in “pole support” can be interpreted that the “support” can be used in a " pole " setting. Furthermore, the term “pole” does not add any structural limitation to the term “support”, thus it does not provide enough patentable weight to the term “support”. It is understood with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. as discussed in MPEP 2103.1.C.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Witsberger (US 1,574,461, see reference in its entirety).
As best understood: With respect to The Claim , Witsberger disclose(s): A support (Figs. 2-3) comprising:
an element (Fig. 3: element 8) having a receiver interface (Fig. 3);
the element having a plurality of flat facets (Fig. 3: element 8 has flat facets at the top and bottom);
a support (Fig. 2: support 10) having a flat bottom surface (Fig. 2); and
a clamp (Fig. 2: coupling 12 is considered a clamp) operably connected to the support (Fig. 2) and the ball (Fig. 2: ball 6) to bias the flat bottom surface against one of the facets (Fig. 2: clamp 12 is operably connected to the support 10 and the ball 6 to bias the flat bottom surface of the support 10 against one of the flat facets of the element 8).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera, can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/TC/
28 November 2025
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855