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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, Figures 1-6 and 11-18 in the reply filed on February 25, 2026, is acknowledged. Claim 10 is withdrawn and Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending.
Drawings
Figures 1-8 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(m) for using shading that will not reproduce well. Applicant should use line shading so the figures can be accurately reproduced.1 Alternatively, Applicant should remove all shading and simply provide line drawings.
Figures 11-18 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(b) for using black and white photographs. Photographs are only normally permitted when they are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. Here, photographs are not the only practicable medium but rather line drawings would be more appropriate. These figures will not reproduce clearly and Applicant should replace these figures with line drawings.2 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.
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 16-19 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.
Claims 16, 18 and 19 recite the limitation "the first coupler." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claim should be amended to recite “the mechanical coupler.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said attaching" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation appears to refer back to a claimed method step. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites “the planar portion of the first external object no longer resides in the insert space of the coupler.” This is incorrect because it is the planar portion of the second external object not the first external object. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 10,219,616 to Van Dyne (Van Dyne), which cites and entirely incorporates US Patent No. 9,629,491 to Van Dyne (Van Dyne ‘491).
PNG
media_image1.png
685
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
432
292
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
590
321
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11: Van Dyne discloses a stand, comprising: a stem member (See Annotated Fig. A); a support member (See Annotated Fig. A) rotatably coupled to a distal end of the stem member such that the support member is transitionable between a collapsed position (See Figure 7) in which the support member extends substantially parallel to the stem member and an extended position (any position that is not shown in Figure 7) in which the support member (See Annotated Fig. A) extends substantially perpendicular to the stem member, wherein the support member is configured to structurally support a first external object when in the extended position; and a mechanical coupler (See Annotated Fig. A) disposed at a proximal end of the stem member (See Annotated Fig. A) and configured to removably attach the stand to a second external object (See Annotated Fig. A), wherein the mechanical coupler comprises: a receiver (See Annotated Fig. B) with an insert space (See Annotated Fig. B) sized and shaped to slidingly receive a planar portion of the second external object, and a resilient member (See Annotated Fig. C) disposed in the receiver (See Annotated Fig. B) and configured to apply a compression force to the planar portion of the second external object while located in the insert space; wherein the support member (See Annotated Fig. A) is further configured to suspend the first external object above the second external object when the support member is in the extended position and the stand is attached to the second external object.
Note: Annotated Figures B and C are from Van Dyne ‘491 which is incorporated by reference within Van Dyne ‘616. (See Col. 7, lines 52-54) As a result, even though Van Dyne 9,629,491 is a separate reference, it is not being used as a modifying reference. Rather it is part of the full disclosure of the Van Dyne ‘616 patent. This is why this rejection is technically a 102 rejection and not a 103 rejection.
Regarding Claim 12: Van Dyne ‘616 discloses a stand according to claim 11, wherein the stand is detachable from the second external object by causing the planar portion of the second external object to slide out of the insert space (See Annotated Fig. B) of the mechanical coupler (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 16: Van Dyne ‘616 discloses a stand according to claim 11, wherein the compression force is applied using a resilient member (See Annotated Fig. C) disposed in the insert space of the first coupler.
Regarding Claim 17: Van Dyne 616 discloses a stand according to claim 16, wherein: the resilient member (See Annotated Fig. C) is transitionable from an uncompressed state to a compressed state during said attaching, wherein the resilient member (See Annotated Fig. A) is compressed between a sidewall of the coupler and the second external object when in the compressed state; and the resilient member (See Annotated Fig. A) is transitionable back from the compressed state to the uncompressed state when the planar portion of the first external object no longer resides in the insert space of the coupler.
Regarding Claim 20: Van Dyne 616 discloses a stand according to claim 11, wherein the support member (See Annotated Fig. A) is configured to cool (See Annotated Fig. A) or heat the first external object.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dyne 616.
Regarding Claim 13: Van Dyne 616 discloses a stand wherein the second external object is a table (See Col. 7, line 49) but does not disclose that the first external object is a food serving tray, platter or plate. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Dyne 616 by using the device to support a food serving tray, platter or plate, as a matter of design choice. Doing so would enabler a user to support dishware while working.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19: Van Dyne 616 discloses the mechanical coupler being interchangeable due to the ability of the stem member (See Annotated Fig. A) being inserted or removed from the mechanical coupler (See Annotated Fig. A). However, Van Dyne does not disclose a plurality of second couplers configured to respectively attach the stand to planar structures with different thicknesses.
Nonetheless, changing the size of the mechanical coupler is not patentably distinct over the prior art and is an obvious matter of design choice. Here’s why.
First, Courts have held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”3 Here, Van Dyne 616 via Van Dyne 491 discloses a mechanical coupler that may be other shapes and sizes to accommodate virtually any mounting surface.4
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Dyne by using a differently sizes mechanical couplers to accommodate differently sized mounting surfaces while still allowing for easy and quick mounting oof the coupler and stem. Such modifications would not cause any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would enable a user to easily mount and dismount the stem to a variety of different mounting surfaces, as intended by Van Dyne.
Regarding Method Claims 1, 2 and 5-9: In view of the structure disclosed and taught by Van Dyne, the method of operating the device would have been obvious and implicitly taught, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the device could be used. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill and/or implicitly taught by the prior art reference at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention. When the prior art device is arguably the same as the claimed invention it can be assumed the device will implicitly perform the claimed process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited prior art, considered alone or in combination, discloses or teaches a retention of the support member in the extended position is achieved exclusively using direct contact between a first surface of the support member and a second surface of the stem member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 10591108.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
1 See 37 CFR 1.84(m).
2 See 37 CFR 1.84(b).
3 See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
4 See Col. 10, lines 53-56 of Van Dyne 491.