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 .
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) 1-2, 4-6, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ye et al. CN 111567220 A.
Independent Claim 1: Ye discloses a tree shaking device (see annotated Fig. 2 below) comprising:
an engagement member (top hook 1) having a first portion (one of the four hooks 101 seen in Fig. 2) having a first concave region and adjacent second portion (another of the four hooks 101) having a second concave region; and
a coupling portion (the unnumbered sleeve shown in Figs. 2-3, at the bottom of engagement member 1) located between the first portion and the second portion and configured to couple to a pole (8), as per claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claims 2, 4-6, 13-14: Ye further discloses wherein the first concave region (seen above) opens in a direction (a vertical direction, see Fig. 3) and wherein the coupling portion (seen above) is configured to attach to the pole (8) extending in the direction (as seen in Fig. 3, also the vertical direction), as per claim 2;
wherein at least one of the first concave region or the second concave region (both seen above in annotated Fig. 2) is configured to at least partially receive a tree branch (disclosed as the branch of a chestnut tree), as per claim 4;
wherein both the first concave region and the second concave region (both seen above in annotated Fig. 2) are configured to at least partially receive a tree branch (disclosed as the branch of a chestnut tree), as per claim 5;
wherein the engagement member (1) is at least partially S-shaped when viewed from a side (one half of an S, as seen in Fig. 3), as per claim 6;
wherein the coupling portion (seen in annotated Fig. 2 above) is located opposite the first concave region (the concave region of the first portion as seen in Fig. 2 above, opposite in a lateral direction), as per claim 13;
wherein the coupling portion (seen in annotated Fig. 2 above) is located adjacent the second portion (seen in Fig. 2 above), as per claim 14.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young KR 475315 Y1.
Independent Claim 1: Young discloses a tree shaking device comprising:
an engagement member (20) having a first portion (right portion 23 as seen in Fig. 3) having a first concave region (see Fig. 3) and adjacent second portion (left portion 23 as seen in Fig. 3) having a second concave region (Fig. 3); and
a coupling portion (21) located between the first portion and the second portion and configured to couple to a pole (10), as per claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-6, 13-15: Young further discloses wherein the first concave region (of right portion 23 as seen in Fig. 3) opens in a direction (a vertical direction, see Fig. 3) and wherein the coupling portion (21) is configured to attach to the pole (10) extending in the direction (as seen in Fig. 2, also the vertical direction), as per claim 2;
wherein at least one of the first concave region or the second concave region (both seen Fig. 3) is configured to at least partially receive a tree branch (say of an apple tree), as per claim 4;
wherein both the first concave region and the second concave region (both seen Fig. 3) are configured to at least partially receive a tree branch (of an apple tree), as per claim 5;
wherein the engagement member (20) is at least partially S-shaped when viewed from a side (the second portion, left-side 23, is one half of an S, as seen in Fig. 3), as per claim 6;
wherein the coupling portion (21) is located opposite the first concave region (of the first portion in a vertical direction), as per claim 13;
wherein the coupling portion (21) is located adjacent the second portion (seen in Fig. 3), as per claim 14;
wherein the first concave region (of right-side 23 as seen in Fig. 3) has a first radius, wherein the second concave region (of left-side 23 as seen in Fig. 3) has a second radius, and wherein the first radius is greater than the second radius (seen in Fig. 3), as per claim 15.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 13-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coe 3,081,591.
Independent Claim 1: Coe discloses a tree shaking device comprising:
an engagement member (Fig. 3) having a first portion (top portion 36 as seen in Fig. 3) having a first concave region (top region 40 as seen in Fig. 3) and adjacent second portion (bottom portion 36 as seen in Fig. 3) having a second concave region (bottom region 40 as seen in Fig. 3); and
a coupling portion (the unnumbered threaded neck seen in Fig. 3) located between the first portion and the second portion and configured to couple to a pole (18), as per claim 1.
Dependent Claims 3-6, 13-14, 16-17: Coe further discloses wherein the coupling portion (the unnumbered threaded neck seen in Fig. 3) is at least partially threaded and is configured to screw onto threads of the pole (18), as per claim 3;
wherein at least one of the first concave region or the second concave region (both seen Fig. 3) is configured to at least partially receive a tree branch (as seen in Figs. 1, 3), as per claim 4;
wherein both the first concave region and the second concave region (both seen Fig. 3) are configured to at least partially receive a tree branch (as seen in Figs. 1, 3), as per claim 5;
wherein the engagement member (Fig. 3) is at least partially S-shaped when viewed from a side (as seen in Fig. 3), as per claim 6;
wherein the coupling portion (the unnumbered threaded neck seen in Fig. 3) is located opposite the first concave region (of the first portion in a vertical direction), as per claim 13;
wherein the coupling portion (the unnumbered threaded neck seen in Fig. 3) is located adjacent the second portion (seen in Fig. 1), as per claim 14;
wherein the engagement member (Fig. 3) has a first end proximate the first portion (top portion 36 as seen in Fig. 3) and wherein the first end is at least partially beveled (seen in Fig. 3), as per claim 16;
wherein the engagement member (Fig. 3) has a second end proximate the second portion (bottom portion 36 as seen in Fig. 3) and wherein the second end is at least partially beveled (seen in Fig. 3), as per claim 17.
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) 3, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. in view of Fu et al. CN 105850375 A.
Dependent Claim 3: The device is disclosed as applied above. However, Ye fails to disclose wherein the coupling portion is at least partially threaded and is configured to screw onto threads of the pole, as per claim 3.
Fu discloses a similar device wherein the coupling portion (3, Fig. 1) is at least partially threaded (seen at 42 in Fig. 2 and in the boxed text of page 2 of the attached document) and is configured to screw onto threads of the pole (41, Fig. 2), as per claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the threads of Fu on the coupling portion of Ye in order to removably and fixedly connect the engagement member to the pole.
Independent Claim 18: Ye discloses a tree shaking device (see annotated Fig. 2 below) comprising:
an engagement member (top hook 1) having a first portion (one of the four hooks 101 seen in Fig. 2) having a first concave region and adjacent second portion (another of the four hooks 101) having a second concave region; and
a coupling portion (the unnumbered sleeve shown in Figs. 2-3, at the bottom of engagement member 1) located opposite the first concave region (in a lateral direction),
wherein the first concave region opens in a direction (a vertical direction as seen in Fig. 3) and wherein the coupling portion is configured to attach to the pole (8) extending in the direction (also the vertical direction, as seen in Fig. 3), and
wherein the engagement member is at least partially S-shaped when viewed from a side (half of an S-shape as seen in Fig. 3), as per claim 18.
However, Ye fails to disclose the coupling portion being at least partially threaded and configured to screw onto a pole via threads, as per claim 18.
Fu discloses a similar device wherein the coupling portion (3, Fig. 1) is at least partially threaded (seen at 42 in Fig. 2 and in the boxed text of page 2 of the attached document) and configured to screw onto a pole (41, Fig. 2) via threads, as per claim 18.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the threads of Fu on the coupling portion of Ye in order to removably and fixedly connect the engagement member to the pole.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Fu et al. CN 105850375 A.
Dependent Claim 3: The device is disclosed as applied above. However, Young fails to disclose wherein the coupling portion is at least partially threaded and is configured to screw onto threads of the pole, as per claim 3.
Fu discloses a similar device wherein the coupling portion (3, Fig. 1) is at least partially threaded (seen at 42 in Fig. 2 and in the boxed text of page 2 of the attached document) and is configured to screw onto threads of the pole (41, Fig. 2), as per claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the threads of Fu on the coupling portion of Young in order to removably and fixedly connect the engagement member to the pole.
Independent Claim 18: Young discloses a tree shaking device (Fig. 6) comprising:
an engagement member (20) having a first portion (left-side portion 23 as seen in Fig. 6) having a first concave region (at its underside) and adjacent second portion (right-side portion 23 as seen in Fig. 6) having a second concave region (at its underside); and
a coupling portion (21) located opposite the first concave region (in a vertical direction), wherein the first concave region opens in a direction (a vertical direction) and wherein the coupling portion is configured to attach to the pole (10) extending in the direction (also in a vertical direction as seen in Fig. 5), and wherein the engagement member is at least partially S-shaped when viewed from a side (at least half of an S-shape at the first portion, as seen in Fig. 6), as per claim 18.
However, the coupling portion being at least partially threaded and configured to screw onto a pole via threads, as per claim 18.
Fu discloses a similar device wherein the coupling portion (3, Fig. 1) is at least partially threaded (seen at 42 in Fig. 2 and in the boxed text of page 2 of the attached document) and configured to screw onto a pole (41, Fig. 2) via threads, as per claim 18.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the threads of Fu on the coupling portion of Young in order to removably and fixedly connect the engagement member to the pole.
Dependent Claim 19: Young further discloses wherein the first concave region (left-side portion 23 as seen in Fig. 6) has a first radius (see Fig. 6), wherein the second concave region (right-side portion 23 as seen in Fig. 6) has a second radius (seen in Fig. 6), and wherein the first radius is greater than the second radius (Fig. 6), as per claim 19.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al.
Dependent Claims 7-12: The device is disclosed as applied above. However, Ye fails to disclose wherein the engagement member has a length of between eight and ten inches, as per claim 7;
wherein the engagement member has a length of about nine inches, as per claim 8;
wherein the second concave region has a width of between 0.8 inches and 1.2 inches, as per claim 9;
wherein the second concave region has a width of about 1.0 inches, as per claim 10;
wherein the first concave region has a radius of between two inches and four inches, as per claim 11;
wherein the first concave region has a radius of about three inches, as per claim 12.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engagement member with a length between 8-10 inches and about 9 inches, as per claims 7-8, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second concave region with a width between 0.8-1.2 inches and about 1.0 inches, as per claims 9-10, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first concave region with a radius of between 2-4 inches and about 3 inches, as per claims 11-12, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young.
Dependent Claims 7-12: The device is disclosed as applied above. However, Young fails to disclose wherein the engagement member has a length of between eight and ten inches, as per claim 7;
wherein the engagement member has a length of about nine inches, as per claim 8;
wherein the second concave region has a width of between 0.8 inches and 1.2 inches, as per claim 9;
wherein the second concave region has a width of about 1.0 inches, as per claim 10;
wherein the first concave region has a radius of between two inches and four inches, as per claim 11;
wherein the first concave region has a radius of about three inches, as per claim 12.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engagement member with a length between 8-10 inches and about 9 inches, as per claims 7-8, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second concave region with a width between 0.8-1.2 inches and about 1.0 inches, as per claims 9-10, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first concave region with a radius of between 2-4 inches and about 3 inches, as per claims 11-12, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coe.
Dependent Claims 7-12: The device is disclosed as applied above. However, Coe fails to disclose wherein the engagement member has a length of between eight and ten inches, as per claim 7;
wherein the engagement member has a length of about nine inches, as per claim 8;
wherein the second concave region has a width of between 0.8 inches and 1.2 inches, as per claim 9;
wherein the second concave region has a width of about 1.0 inches, as per claim 10;
wherein the first concave region has a radius of between two inches and four inches, as per claim 11;
wherein the first concave region has a radius of about three inches, as per claim 12.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engagement member with a length between 8-10 inches and about 9 inches, as per claims 7-8, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second concave region with a width between 0.8-1.2 inches and about 1.0 inches, as per claims 9-10, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first concave region with a radius of between 2-4 inches and about 3 inches, as per claims 11-12, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed. Claim 20 requires a comprehensive tree shaking device comprising the combination of an engagement member with a first concave portion having a radius greater than that of a second concave portion, the first concave portion also having a partially beveled end, and a pole and attachment to the engagement member that extends in the same direction in which the first concave region opens. The three rejections under 35 USC 102 above are each needed to address these three limitations individually.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTOL-892. Londo 3,174,269 discloses a similar device with two oppositely-extending concave portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 March 5, 2026