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 .
Drawings
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 “cable or string [which] runs through an interior of [the] extension portion” (claims 7 and 20) and “one or more springs” (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 136.
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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SYSTEMS FOR SECURING OF FLAGPOLES AND OTHER ELONGATE ITEMS.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims contain minor typographical errors. “Interior of extension portion” should read “interior of the extension portion.” 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 1-20 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 5 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of the relative term renders the degree to which the tab portion covers the u-shaped section indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the term “substantially” is interpreted to refer to any degree of coverage which would render the u-shaped section a closed loop.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the receiver" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 9 is interpreted as being dependent on claim 8, which establishes antecedent basis for a receiver, rather than claim 6, which does not.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Regarding claim 1, the structural relationship between the “extension portion” and the rest of the apparatus is unclear. Furthermore, the structural relationship between the “guide” and the “grabber portion” is unclear. Furthermore, the means by which “the sliding member is biased toward the loading zone in an unactuated state” is not disclosed in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the structural relationship between the “one or more springs” and the rest of the apparatus is unclear.
Regarding claim 10, the structural relationship between the “extension portion” and the rest of the apparatus is unclear. Furthermore, the means by which “the sliding member is biased toward the loading zone in an unactuated state” is not disclosed in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the structural relationship between the “guide” and the “device” is unclear.
Regarding claim 17, the structural relationship between the “guide” and the “grabber portion” is unclear.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected base claim 5.
Claims 11-20 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 10.
Claims 15-20 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected base claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christman (US 0747376 A).
Regarding claim 1, Christman teaches an apparatus comprising: a grabber portion (fig. member 2) having a loading zone (zone between fig. members 4 and 10) and a sliding member (fig. member 10); an actuator connected to the sliding member (fig. member 17); an extension portion comprising a pole (fig. member 1); and a guide removably attached to the grabber portion (fig. members 9); wherein the sliding member is biased toward the loading zone in an unactuated state (col. 2, lines 60-62), and the actuator is configured to move the sliding member so that the loading zone is open to receive an elongate item while the sliding member is in an actuated state (col 2, lines 75-80).
Regarding claim 2, Christman teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises a cable or string (fig. member 17).
Regarding claim 3, Christman teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the sliding member is biased toward the loading zone by one or more springs (fig. member 16).
Regarding claim 4, Christman teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the loading zone comprises a u-shaped section (zone between fig. members 7) and the sliding member comprises a tab portion (fig. members 15).
Regarding claim 10, Christman teaches a device for securing an elongate item comprising: a grabber portion (fig. member 2) having a loading zone (zone between fig. members 4 and 10) and a sliding member (fig. member 10); an actuator connected to the sliding member (fig. member 17); an extension portion comprising a pole (fig. member 1); and a reinforcing member connected to the loading zone (fig. member 14); wherein the sliding member is biased toward the loading zone in an unactuated state, and the actuator is configured to move the sliding member so that the loading zone is open to receive the elongate item while the sliding member is in an actuated state.
Regarding claim 11, Christman teaches the device of claim 10, further comprising a guide removably attached to the device (fig. members 9).
Regarding claim 13, Christman teaches the device of claim 10, wherein the loading zone comprises a u-shaped section (zone between fig. members 7) and the sliding member comprises a tab portion (fig. members 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christman as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kosta (US 9789506 B2).
Regarding claim 8 Christman teaches all limitations of claim 2, as shown above. Christman does not teach a guide comprising an extension arm and a receiver. Kosta teaches a guide comprising an extension arm and a receiver (fig. 2, member 46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Christman by adding an extension arm and receiver to increase the stability of the device’s grip.
Regarding claim 12 Christman teaches all limitations of claim 11, as shown above. Christman does not teach a guide comprising an extension arm and a receiver. Kosta teaches a guide comprising an extension arm and a receiver (fig. 2, member 46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Christman by adding an extension arm and receiver to increase the stability of the device’s grip.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christman and Kosta as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Moore (US 5769474 A).
Christman and Kosta teach all limitations of claim 8, as shown above. Christman and Kosta do not teach a receiver comprising a halved-pipe. Moore teaches a receiver comprising a halved-pipe (fig. 2, member 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the device by comprising the receiver of a halved-pipe in order to engage and release the periphery of a flag staff.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 14, 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not disclose the sliding member with a tab portion which covers the u-shaped section while in an unactuated state of claims 5, 14, nor does it teach the cable or string which runs through an interior of the extension portion of claims 7, 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR J LINDENBUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1483. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a-7:30p EST.
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.
/TAYLOR J LINDENBUSCH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights