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 claw-like structures each extending from said horizontal posts” (note that the drawings appear to show a claw-like structure on only one of the horizontal posts e.g., Figs. 6-7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Objections
Claims 5 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears that “first” should be replaced with “horizontal” in lines 1 and 2 (see para. [0039] of the specification).
Claims 6 and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, “comprises” should be replaced with “comprising”.
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.
Claims 1, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, applicant appears to be positively reciting what appears to be a living tree as well as the ground. If the applicant intends this claim language to be intended use then such language, e.g., configured to or the like, should be added.
Claims 13-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claims 13-18, the phrase "claw-like structures" renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by the exemplary language: "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 14 and 15 recite the limitation "said claw-like structures" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claims 14 and 15 were intended to depend from claim 13.
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 2-11, 13, 17, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US4148376) in view of Carter (US4120379).
2: A tree stand, comprising: first posts (14, 16) positioned in parallel to each other; horizontal posts (25, 26) positioned perpendicularly to said first posts at the top and bottom of said first posts; shoulder straps (40) connected to said horizontal posts at one side of said first posts (col. 4, lines 4-5: “secured to top cross member 26” and col. 4, lines 9: “attached either to the eyelets of studs 28 or 30); and a U-shaped frame (20) hingedly connected (23) to said first posts, wherein said U- shaped frame positions opposite to said shoulder straps at another side of said first posts (Fig. 1), wherein said first posts position at an elevated position from the ground against a tree (Fig. 4), wherein said U- shaped frame extends perpendicularly to said first posts (Fig. 4) allowing a user to stand on said U-shaped frame, and wherein said U-shaped frame folds (Fig. 2 dashed lines), and said shoulder straps allow the user to carry said tree stand as a backpack when not in use (Fig. 2 dashed lines).
Campbell discloses the shoulder straps being used to connect the posts to the tree. To the extent that Campbell’s shoulder straps do not render obvious the use of a rope to connect the posts to a tree, Carter teaches, in the context of portable tree stands, wherein said first posts (12, 13) connect to said tree (20) via a rope (25, 26, see also col. 2, line 61, and Fig. 1). It 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 to have included wherein said first posts connect to said tree via a rope in the tree stand disclosed by Campbell according to the teachings of Carter in order to use the stand with trees having a larger trunk diameter.
3: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the tree stand of Claim 2, wherein each of first posts comprises first loops (Carter, Fig. 1, 27, 28) for receiving said rope.
4: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the tree stand of Claim 2, wherein each of said horizontal posts comprises second loops (Carter, Fig. 1, 35, 36) for connecting said shoulder straps.
5: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the tree stand of Claim 2, wherein said first posts are curved such that said first posts align with the shape of said tree, and allow the user to carry said tree stand on the back of the user as the backpack (see objection to claim 5 above, first posts should be horizontal posts – see Carter, Fig. 1, horizontal posts 14 and 19).
6: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the tree stand of Claim 2, further comprises an extended portion (see Campbell at 25) at a distal end of each of said first posts, wherein said U-shaped frame connects (23) to said extended portions.
7: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the tree stand of Claim 6, wherein said extended portions extend an angle from said first posts (see Fig. 2 of Campbell, the angle appears to be 90 degrees).
8: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the tree stand of Claim 2, wherein said U-shaped frame comprises support bars (24), and wherein said support bars support the user to stand on said U-shaped frame (Campbell, col. 1, line 45: “provide the hunter with a portable tree stand”).
9: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the tree stand of Claim 2, wherein said U-shaped frame may be used to support the weight of hunted game while said tree stand is attached to said tree or being worn as a backpack (Per MPEP 2114.II, a claim containing a "recitation 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim). Here, since claim 9 adds only the intended use of supporting hunted game in the tree stand and/or back pack mode, Campbell in view of Carter disclose the limitations of claim 9 in the same manner as claim 2.
10: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the tree stand of Claim 2, wherein said U-shaped frame may be used as a seat when said tree stand is placed on the ground. (Per MPEP 2114.II, a claim containing a "recitation 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim), Here, since claim 10 adds only the intended use of the U-shaped frame being used as a seat when the tree stand is placed on the ground, Campbell in view of Carter disclose the limitations of claim 10 in the same manner as claim 2.
11: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the tree stand of Claim 2, further comprises a connector (Carter, Fig. 1, 51) connecting said U-shaped frame and said first posts.
13: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the tree stand of Claim 2, further comprises claw-like structures (Carter, Fig. 1, 33), each extending from said horizontal posts, wherein said claw-like structures penetrate into said tree and provide required grip for said tree stand to rest against said tree (Carter, col. 3, lines 10-15: “In order to assist the cables 25 and 26, a pair of cleats 33 and 34 are mounted on the rear surfaces of the side frame members 12 and 13, and the cleats 33 and 34 are provided with sharp points, so that they can be inserted into the surface of the tree 20 to prevent the frame member 11 from slipping down upon the tree trunk 20“).
17: Campbell discloses a tree stand, comprising: first posts (14, 16) positioned in parallel to each other; horizontal posts (25, 26) positioned perpendicularly to said first posts at the top and bottom of said first posts; shoulder straps (40) connected to said horizontal posts at one side of said first posts (col. 4, lines 4-5: “secured to top cross member 26” and col. 4, lines 9: “attached either to the eyelets of studs 28 or 30); and a U-shaped frame (20) hingedly connected (23) to said first posts, wherein said U- shaped frame positions opposite to said shoulder straps at another side of said first posts (Fig. 1), wherein said first posts position at an elevated position from the ground against a tree (Fig. 4), , wherein said U- shaped frame extends perpendicularly to said first posts (Fig. 1) allowing a user to stand on said U-shaped frame, and wherein said U-shaped frame folds (Fig. 2, dashed lines), and said shoulder straps allow the user to carry said tree stand as a backpack when not in use (Fig. 2).
Campbell discloses the shoulder straps being used to connect the posts to the tree. To the extent that Campbell’s shoulder straps do not render obvious the use of a rope to connect the posts to a tree, Carter teaches, in the context of portable tree stands, wherein said first posts (12, 13) connect to said tree (20) via a rope (25, 26, see also col. 2, line 61, and Fig. 1). It 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 to have included wherein said first posts connect to said tree via a rope in the tree stand disclosed by Campbell according to the teachings of Carter in order to use the stand with trees having a larger trunk diameter.
Campbell fails to disclose claw-like structures, each extending from said horizontal posts wherein said claw-like structures penetrate into said tree and provide required grip for said tree stand to rest against said tree. Carter also teaches claw-like structures (Carter, Fig. 1, 33), each extending from said horizontal posts wherein said claw-like structures penetrate into said tree and provide required grip for said tree stand to rest against said tree. It 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 to have included claw-like structures, each extending from said horizontal posts wherein said claw-like structures penetrate into said tree and provide required grip for said tree stand to rest against said tree in the tree stand disclosed by Campbell according to the teachings of Carter in order to enhance the tree stand’s capacity to maintain an elevated position on a tree. (Carter, col. 3, lines 10-15: “In order to assist the cables 25 and 26, a pair of cleats 33 and 34 are mounted on the rear surfaces of the side frame members 12 and 13, and the cleats 33 and 34 are provided with sharp points, so that they can be inserted into the surface of the tree 20 to prevent the frame member 11 from slipping down upon the tree trunk 20“).
20: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the tree stand of Claim 17, wherein each of first posts comprises first loops (Carter, Fig. 1, 27, 28) for receiving said rope.
21: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the tree stand of Claim 17, wherein each of said horizontal posts comprises second loops (Carter, Fig. 1, 35, 36) for connecting said shoulder straps.
22: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the tree stand of Claim 17, wherein said first posts are curved such that said first posts align with the shape of said tree, and allow the user to carry said tree stand on the back of the user as the backpack (see objection to claim 5 above, first posts should be horizontal posts – see Carter, Fig. 1, horizontal posts 14 and 19).
23: Campbell discloses a method of providing a tree stand integrating a backpack, said method comprising the steps of: providing first posts (14, 16) positioned in parallel to each other; providing horizontal posts (25, 26) positioned perpendicularly to said first posts at the top and bottom of said first posts; providing shoulder straps (40) connecting said horizontal posts at one side of said first posts (col. 4, lines 4-5: “secured to top cross member 26” and col. 4, lines 9: “attached either to the eyelets of studs 28 or 30); providing a U-shaped frame (20) hingedly connecting (23) said first posts, said U- shaped frame positioning opposite to said shoulder straps at another side of said first posts (Fig. 1); positioning said first posts at an elevated position from the ground against a tree (Fig. 4); extending U-shaped frame perpendicularly to said first posts (Fig. 1) for allowing a user to stand on said U-shaped frame; and folding said U-shaped frame (Fig. 1, dashed lines), and configuring said shoulder straps to be put on the back of the user to carry said tree stand as a backpack when not in use (Fig. 2 dashed lines).
Campbell discloses the shoulder straps being used to connect the posts to the tree. To the extent that Campbell’s shoulder straps do not render obvious the use of a rope to connect the posts to a tree, Carter teaches, in the context of portable tree stands, wherein said first posts (12, 13) connect to said tree (20) via a rope (25, 26, see also col. 2, line 61, and Fig. 1). It 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 to have included connecting said first posts to said tree via a rope in the method of providing a tree stand disclosed by Campbell according to the teachings of Carter in order to use the stand with trees having a larger trunk diameter.
24: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the method of Claim 23, wherein said U-shaped frame may be used to support the weight of hunted game while said tree stand is attached to said tree or being worn as a backpack (Per MPEP 2114.II, a claim containing a "recitation 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim). Here, since claim 24 adds only the intended use of supporting hunted game in the tree stand and/or back pack mode, Campbell in view of Carter disclose the limitations of claim 24 in the same manner as claim 23.
25: Campbell in view of Carter disclose the method of Claim 23, wherein said U-shaped frame may be used as a seat when said tree stand is placed on the ground. (Per MPEP 2114.II, a claim containing a "recitation 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim), Here, since claim 25 adds only the intended use of the U-shaped frame being used as a seat when the tree stand is placed on the ground, Campbell in view of Carter disclose the limitations of claim 25 in the same manner as claim 23.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US4148376) in view of Carter (US4120379) and further in view of Robertson (US3885722).
12: Campbell in view of Carter fail to disclose the tree stand of Claim 2, further comprises center rods connecting said horizontal posts, wherein said center rods provide support to said horizontal posts. Robertson teaches, in the context of pack frame suspension means, center rods connecting the horizontal posts (Robertson, Fig. 4, 26, 30). It 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 to have included center rods connecting the horizontal posts in the tree stand disclosed by Campbell in view of Carter according to the teachings of Robertson in order to increase the strength of the tree stand.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US4148376) in view of Carter (US4120379) and further in view of Hunt (US5590738).
14: Campbell in view of Carter fail to disclose the tree stand of Claim 11, wherein said claw-like structures swing down such that said claw-like structures draw through and position facing down in said U- shaped frame, when said tree stand is not in use. Hunt teaches, in the context of tree stands, wherein said claw-like structures (72) swing down (Hunt, col. 4, lines 55-63: “The stabilizer means 38 is preferably in the shape of a bar and pivotally connected at is one end 39 to a step member 16 by any suitable hinge or pivot means such as bearing flanges 68 welded on the step member on either side of bar 38 which is pivotally attached thereto by pin 70. When the apparatus is in its folded transport condition, bar 38 is pivoted down against the ladder steps 16 and temporarily secured thereto by any suitable quick disconnect means.”) such that said claw-like structures draw through and position facing down in said U- shaped frame. It 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 to have included wherein said claw-like structures swing down such that said claw-like structures draw through and position facing down in said U- shaped frame, when said tree stand is not in use in the tree stand of Campbell in view of Carter according to the teachings of Hunt in order to make the tree stand safer for transport.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US4148376) in view of Carter (US4120379) and further in view of Braun et al. (US5975389).
15. Campbell in view of Carter fail to disclose the tree stand of Claim 11, wherein each of said claw-like structure comprises a straight section, and curved portions extending from said straight section. Braun et al. teach, in the context of portable tree stands, wherein each of said claw-like structure (Braun et al., Fig. 8, 53) comprises a straight section (63), and curved portions (55) extending from said straight section. It 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 to have included wherein each of said claw-like structure comprises a straight section, and curved portions extending from said straight section in the tree stand of Campbell in view of Carter according to the teachings of Braun et al. in order to better “prevent the frame member 11 from slipping down upon the tree trunk 20” (Carter, col. 3, lines 14-15).
16: Campbell in view of Carter and further in view of Braun et al. disclose the tree stand of Claim 15, wherein said curved portions (55) comprise teeth (Braun et al., Fig. 8, 56), and wherein said teeth penetrate into said tree and provide grip for the tree stand to rest against said tree (Braun et al., col. 4, line 10: “ tree claw 53 is shown in use against a tree 68”).
18. Campbell in view of Carter fail to disclose the tree stand of Claim 17, wherein each of said claw-like structure comprises a straight section, and curved portions extending from said straight section. Braun et al. teach, in the context of portable tree stands, wherein each of said claw-like structure (Braun et al., Fig. 8, 53) comprises a straight section (63), and curved portions (55) extending from said straight section. It 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 to have included wherein each of said claw-like structure comprises a straight section, and curved portions extending from said straight section in the tree stand of Campbell in view of Carter according to the teachings of Braun et al. in order to better “prevent the frame member 11 from slipping down upon the tree trunk 20” (Carter, col. 3, lines 14-15).
19: Campbell in view of Carter and further in view of Braun et al. disclose the tree stand of Claim 18, wherein said curved portions (55) comprise teeth (Braun et al., Fig. 8, 56), and wherein said teeth penetrate into said tree and provide grip for the tree stand to rest against the tree (Braun et al., col. 4, line 10: “tree claw 53 is shown in use against a tree 68”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ben Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571)272-9656. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 7 to 5.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/BAP/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634