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
Claims 1-13 are amended. Claims 14-16 are cancelled.
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 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) 1-5, 7-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,231,922 to Smith.
Regarding claim 1, Smith ‘922 discloses a device for supporting rods, pipes for implements in the household, yard and garden equipment , for brooms, rakes, shovels with a base element 32 to which a one-piece support element 18 is movably arranged, wherein the one-piece support element 18 comprises means 24 which is suitable for giving the device independent stability, characterized in that the base element 32 is elongated arranged and has at least one groove-like, triangular, trapezoidal or polygonal cross-sectional shape.
Regarding claim 2, Smith ‘922 discloses, characterised in that at least one means 28, a joint 28, is arranged on the base element 32, which serves for the movable articulation of the one-piece support element 18.
Regarding claim 3, Smith ‘922 discloses, characterised in that at least one bend 22 along the longitudinal axis of the support element 18, which is arranged in the end region of the support element 18.
Regarding claim 4, Smith ‘922 discloses, characterised in that at least one bend 22 on the support element 18 encloses a predetermined angle a to the longitudinal axis of the pivot element 18.
Regarding claim 5, Smith ‘922 discloses, characterised in that the support element 18 is movably attached to the base element 32 with a hinge-like fastening element 28, the hinge-like fastening element 28 being arranged in the region of a bend 26 of the support element.
Regarding claim 7, Smith ‘922 discloses, characterised in that a limiting element 26 is arranged in the end region of the support element 18, which limits or defines the pivoting range of the support element 18.
Regarding claim 8, Smith ‘922 discloses, one end of the support element 18 is enlarged in order to increase the stability of the mounted device 14.
Regarding claim 9, Smith ‘922 discloses, characterised in that a holding element in the form of a magnet or a locking element 26 is arranged on the base element 32 and/or on the support element in order to hold the support element 18 easily detachably on the base element 32.
Regarding claim 11, Smith ‘922 discloses, characterised in that the base element 32 is attached to handles, pipes of the devices in the home, yard and garden using an easily detachable fastening means 46 and is designed as a clamp or reusable plastic band.
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) 6 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,231,922 to Smith.
Regarding claim 6, Smith ‘922 could disclose, characterised in that the one-piece support element 18 is made of a rigid material in the form of steel, aluminum, plastic or wood. Noting that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the device from a rigid material in the form of steel, aluminum, plastic or wood in order to support the object sturdily, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Concerning method claims 12-13 in view of the structure disclosed by Smith ‘922, the method of operating the device would have been obvious, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the device could be used.
Regarding claim 12, Smith ‘922 discloses a method for producing a device for supporting sticks, rods, pipes 14 for appliances in the private or commercial field of application in the house, in the yard, in the workshop or on the street or on building sites, wherein in particular at least the support element 18 and/or the base element 32 could be produced using laser technology by cutting out the support element and/or the base element from a flat sheet, wherein in a first method step the one-piece element is cut out of the flat sheet and then the one-piece part is subjected to deformation, wherein the deformation can be cold or hot deformation.
Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 13, Smith ‘922 discloses, characterised in that a means (5) is implemented, with a bent limiting element 26 arranged at one end of the support element/pivoting element 28.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,231,922 to Smith in view of US 8,714,497 to Bricker.
Regarding claim 10, Smith ‘922 discloses a protective element 46 is arranged in the groove-like cross-sectional shape of the base element.
Smith ‘922 discloses the claimed invention except that the protective element is a screw 46 instead of adhesive. Bricker ‘497 shows that screws and adhesive are equivalent structures, known in the art (col. 4, lines 43-45). Therefore, because these two elements were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute adhesive for the screws.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the rejection under Smith ‘922, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632