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 because, in Fig. 12, the lead line from 1202 should extend to the cotter pin, see [0051] of the specification.
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,
“wherein the first length is not equal to the second length” of claim 7, and,
“a backrest coupled to the seat, wherein the seat comprises a slot, and the backrest comprises a projection inserted into the slot” of claim 15,
must be shown or the features canceled from the claims.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0043], second to last line, “o fthe” should be replaced with –of the--.
[0049], line 7, “to great” should be removed.
[0049], line 2, “on” should be replaced with –one--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, “than” should be –and--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without at least three legs, which are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claims. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
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.
Claim 17, and consequently its dependent claims 18-20, 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. The recitation of “extending each telescoping leg by coupling” in claim 17 is unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michalec (US20080223658).
1: A stand (Fig. 1, 100) comprising: a platform (140b) comprising a pivotable joint (500a, 500b, 500c); and a telescoping leg (240, 260, 280) coupled to the platform (140b) at the pivotable joint and rotatable between a collapsed position and a locked position ([0032: “As should be clear from comparing FIGS. 5 and 6, the first 240, second 260 and third 280 legs can be folded inwards”), the telescoping leg comprising: a removable rung (400) coupled to the telescoping leg (260, [0028]: “a set of climbing steps 400 is optionally fitted to at least one leg to allow a user to climb to platform 160”); a first segment (260t#1) of the telescoping leg; and a second segment (260t#2) of the telescoping leg partially captured within and slidably supported by the first segment ([0027]: “Referring to FIG. 1, the first 240, second 260 and third 280 legs are shown made up of second telescoping tubes thereby allowing the observation stand 100 to be compressed to a shorter length for storage and easy transport”).
2: The stand of claim 1, further comprising a foot coupled to the second segment of the telescoping leg, the foot comprising a guard coupled to the foot, the guard configured to support the foot in wetlands ([0026]: “An optional ground spike 380 can be fitted to one or more of the bottom ends 240b through 280b. The optional ground spikes 380 enable the bottom ends 240b through 280b to be securely attached to the ground”).
4: The stand of claim 1, wherein the telescoping leg is a first telescoping leg (240), and the stand further comprises a second telescoping leg (260) and a third telescoping leg (280), each telescoping leg comprising the first segment and the second segment partially captured within and slidably support by the first segment of the telescoping leg ([0027]: “Referring to FIG. 1, the first 240, second 260 and third 280 legs are shown made up of second telescoping tubes thereby allowing the observation stand 100 to be compressed to a shorter length for storage and easy transport”).
17: A method of erecting a portable observation stand comprising: carrying a platform (140b) coupled to a first telescoping leg (240), a second telescoping leg (260), and a third telescoping leg (280); rotating each telescoping leg into a locked position relative to the platform ([0032: “As should be clear from comparing FIGS. 5 and 6, the first 240, second 260 and third 280 legs can be folded inwards”); and extending each telescoping leg by coupling a second segment of each telescoping leg captured within a first segment of each telescoping leg ([0027]: “Referring to FIG. 1, the first 240, second 260 and third 280 legs are shown made up of second telescoping tubes thereby allowing the observation stand 100 to be compressed to a shorter length for storage and easy transport”).
19: The method of claim 17, further comprising: attaching a first foot to the first telescoping leg; attaching a second foot to the second telescoping leg; and attaching a third foot to the third telescoping leg ([0026]: “An optional ground spike 380 can be fitted to one or more of the bottom ends 240b through 280b. The optional ground spikes 380 enable the bottom ends 240b through 280b to be securely attached to the ground”).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalec (US20080223658) in view of Fursac (FR933288).
Michalec fails to disclose the stand of claim 1, further comprising a fastener extending through the pivotable joint, wherein tightening the fastener moves the telescoping leg radially outward from the platform and moves the pivotable joint from the collapsed position to the locked position and secures the telescoping leg in the locked position. Fursac teaches, in the context of stands, a fastener (5) extending through the pivotable joint, wherein tightening the fastener moves the telescoping leg radially outward from the platform and moves the pivotable joint from the collapsed position to the locked position and secures the telescoping leg in the locked position (see [0004] of the MT of Fursac: “A 30-hole 6 or mortise is fitted in the hole in the pole for the passage of the bolt 5, on the inner face, arranged so that the foot of the pole 1 can move closer or further away from the other two feet 4 of the ladder, while still being able to pivot around the central bolt 5 forming the axis”). 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 a fastener extending through the pivotable joint, wherein tightening the fastener moves the telescoping leg radially outward from the platform and moves the pivotable joint from the collapsed position to the locked position and secures the telescoping leg in the locked position in the stand disclosed by Michalec according to the teachings of Fursac in order to render the ladder easily and immediately placed on any terrain, even very uneven or very sloping, without risk of loss of balance of the ladder when climbing its rungs”, [0004] of the MT of Fursac.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalec (US20080223658) in view of Bench (US20030042075).
5: Michalec fails to disclose the stand of claim 4, wherein the second segment of each telescoping leg comprises a foot coupled to a guard. However, Michalec does disclose added ground engaging structure at the second segment of each telescoping leg, specifically, at [0026] Michalec discloses that “An optional ground spike 380 can be fitted to one or more of the bottom ends 240b through 280b. The optional ground spikes 380 enable the bottom ends 240b through 280b to be securely attached to the ground”. Bench teaches, in the context of stands, that “Foot pads (17, 18 and 19) and (35, 36 and 37) may be connected to the legs”, see Bench at [0019] and Figs. 3 and 4. 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 the second segment of each telescoping leg comprises a foot coupled to a guard in the stand disclosed by Michalec according to the teachings of Bench in order to allow “for the interchange of specific foot pads for a particular use or activity”, see [0019] of Bench.
Claims 6, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalec (US20080223658) in view of Robertson (US5275257).
6: Michalec fails to disclose the stand of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of fastener openings in the first segment and the second segment of the telescoping leg, wherein the plurality of fastener openings are spaced by a first length in the first segment than a second length in the second segment of the telescoping leg. Robertson teaches, in the context of stands, a plurality of fastener openings in the first segment and the second segment of the telescoping leg, wherein the plurality of fastener openings are spaced by a first length in the first segment than a second length in the second segment of the telescoping leg (col. 6, lines 1-7: “A large hole and a small hole are disposed adjacent one another on each side of the ladder section as seen most clearly in FIGS. 1 and 12 so that a step can be mounted either on one side or the other side of the ladder section at any location”). 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 a plurality of fastener openings in the first segment and the second segment of the telescoping leg, wherein the plurality of fastener openings are spaced by a first length in the first segment than a second length in the second segment of the telescoping leg in the stand disclosed by Michalec according to the teachings of Robertson in order to provide all of the ladder sections “with suitable holes for mounting the steps in position, see Robertson at col. 5, lines 56-58”).
7: Michalec in view of Robertson disclose the stand of claim 6, wherein the first length is not equal to the second length (see Robertson at col. 6, lines 8-28: “A double step arrangement is shown in phantom line in FIGS. 8 and 9 and the double step arrangement in the assembled stand is clearly shown in FIG. 3 of the drawing wherein the double steps have been given the reference numerals 140', 140'' and 140 '''. It should be understood that each of the three ladder sections is provided with suitable holes 144 and 146 in the opposite sides thereof along the length thereof to support steps in desired positions which generally alternate at opposite sides of the ladder sections except where double steps are provided”).
18: Michalec fails to disclose the method of claim 17, further comprising: attaching a first rung to the first telescoping leg in a first direction; attaching a second rung to the first telescoping leg in a second direction opposite the first direction; and climbing the first rung and the second rung. Robertson teaches, in the context of stands, attaching a first rung to the first telescoping leg in a first direction; attaching a second rung to the first telescoping leg in a second direction opposite the first direction; and climbing the first rung and the second rung (col. 6, lines 1-7: “ A large hole and a small hole are disposed adjacent one another on each side of the ladder section as seen most clearly in FIGS. 1 and 12 so that a step can be mounted either on one side or the other side of the ladder section at any location”). 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 attaching a first rung to the first telescoping leg in a first direction; attaching a second rung to the first telescoping leg in a second direction opposite the first direction; and climbing the first rung and the second rung in the stand disclosed by Michalec according to the teachings of Robertson in provide a ladder section “with suitable holes for mounting the steps in position, see Robertson at col. 5, lines 56-58”) so that the stand may be climbed with the telescopic leg centered on the body during ingress and egress of the platform.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalec (US20080223658) in view of Robertson (US5275257) and further in view of Kates (US3220766).
8: Michalec in view of Robertson fail to disclose the stand of claim 6, wherein the removable rung comprises a projection inserted through the plurality of fastener openings to couple the removable rung to the telescoping leg, however, note Robertson at col. 5, lines 58-69: “A series of holes are provided including an enlarged hole 144 formed in one side of each ladder section and an opposite smaller threaded hole 146 formed on the opposite side of the ladder section so that a step can be inserted through the larger hole and threaded into the smaller hole opposite thereto to mount the step. Each pair of holes 124 and 126 also include an enlarged hole formed in one side of the depending portion and a smaller threaded hole formed in the opposite side of the depending portion for receiving a T-bolt”. Also, Kates teaches, “One of the four legs 13 is provided with a plurality of U-shaped tubular members 16 that are secured to the same in vertically equal spaced relation to one another, in order to provide a means for one to climb into and out of this blind stand”. 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 a removable rung with a projection insertable to a plurality of openings to couple the removable rung to the telescoping leg in the stand disclosed by Michalec in view of Robertson according to the teachings of Kates in order to connect the rung to more than one hole.
Claims 9-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalec (US20080223658) in view of McCauley (US9072290).
9: A portable observation stand (Fig. 1, 100), comprising: a platform (140b) comprising a pivotable joint (500a, 500b, 500c); at least three telescoping legs (240, 260, 280) coupled to the platform at the pivotable joint (500a, 500b, 500c), each telescoping leg (240, 260, 280) being rotatable between a collapsed position and a locked position ([0032: “As should be clear from comparing FIGS. 5 and 6, the first 240, second 260 and third 280 legs can be folded inwards”), each telescoping leg comprising: a first segment (260t#1) of the telescoping leg; and a second segment (260t#2) of the telescoping leg partially captured within and slidably supported by the first segment ([0027]: “Referring to FIG. 1, the first 240, second 260 and third 280 legs are shown made up of second telescoping tubes thereby allowing the observation stand 100 to be compressed to a shorter length for storage and easy transport”).
Michalec fails to disclose a blind coupled to the platform and extending at least partially about the platform. McCauley teaches a blind coupled to the platform and extending at least partially about the platform (see McCauley Figs. 1-3 and col. 3, lines 52-54: “a portable hunting blind 10 comprises a chair 12, a canopy frame 14, a quick release mechanism 16 for a spring member 18 and a cover 20”). 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 a blind coupled to the platform and extending at least partially about the platform in the stand disclosed by Michalec according to the teachings of McCauley in order to conceal a hunter on the platform.
10: Michalec in view of McCauley fail to explicitly disclose the portable observation stand of claim 9, wherein the platform, the blind, and the at least three telescoping legs weigh less than 100 pounds. However, per MPEP 2113, “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”. Accordingly, 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 produced the portable stand of Michalec in view of McCauley wherein the platform, the blind, and the at least three telescoping legs weigh less than 100 pounds in order to produce the portable stand by a process that results in the portable stand weighing less.
11: Michalec in view of McCauley disclose the portable observation stand of claim 9, further comprising a footrest (Michalec, Fig. 1, 160) coupled to the platform (via legs 240, 260, and 280, see [0033]: “Any suitable means can be used to support the platform 160 such as, but not limited to: bolts 420. If used, the bolts 420 are used to affix the upper ends of first 240, second 260 and third 280 legs to the platform 160 as shown in FIG. 7”) and extending at least partially about the platform.
12: Michalec in view of McCauley disclose the portable observation stand of claim 9, further comprising at least three feet, each foot coupled to an end of each telescoping leg opposite the platform (see Michalec, Fig. 2 and [0026]: “An optional ground spike 380 can be fitted to one or more of the bottom ends 240b through 280b. The optional ground spikes 380 enable the bottom ends 240b through 280b to be securely attached to the ground”).
20: Michalec discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising attaching a seat (140). However, Michalec fails to disclose the method of claim 17 further comprising attaching a blind to the platform. McCauley teaches attaching a blind to the platform (see McCauley Figs. 1-3 and col. 3, lines 52-54: “a portable hunting blind 10 comprises a chair 12, a canopy frame 14, a quick release mechanism 16 for a spring member 18 and a cover 20”). 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 in the method disclosed by Michalec attaching a blind to the platform according to the teachings of McCauley in order to conceal a hunter on the platform.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalec (US20080223658) in view of McCauley (US9072290) and further in view of Robertson (US5275257).
13: Michalec in view of McCauley fail to disclose the portable observation stand of claim 9, wherein at least one of the telescoping legs comprises a series of fastener openings configured to receive a plurality of steps, wherein a first step is oriented in a first circumferential direction and a second step is oriented in a second circumferential direction opposite the first circumferential direction. Robertson teaches, in the context of stands, wherein at least one of the telescoping legs comprises a series of fastener openings configured to receive a plurality of steps, wherein a first step is oriented in a first circumferential direction and a second step is oriented in a second circumferential direction opposite the first circumferential direction (see Robertson, Figs. 1, 8, and 12 and col. 6, lines 1-5: “A large hole and a small hole are disposed adjacent one another on each side of the ladder section as seen most clearly in FIGS. 1 and 12 so that a step can be mounted either on one side or the other side of the ladder section at any location”). 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 at least one of the telescoping legs comprises a series of fastener openings configured to receive a plurality of steps, wherein a first step is oriented in a first circumferential direction and a second step is oriented in a second circumferential direction opposite the first circumferential direction in the stand disclosed by Michalec in view of McCauley according to the teachings of Robertson in order to provide for ingress and egress of the stand.
14: Michalec (US20080223658) in view of McCauley (US9072290) and further in view of Robertson (US5275257) disclose the portable observation stand of claim 9, further comprising a seat (140) coupled to the platform (140b) and extending vertically upward from the platform (see Fig. 5 of Michalec).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalec (US20080223658) in view of McCauley (US9072290) in view of Robertson (US5275257) and further in view of Hiroshi (JP2010264102).
15: Michalec in view of McCauley in view of Robertson fail to disclose the portable observation stand of claim 14, further comprising a backrest coupled to the seat, wherein the seat comprises a slot, and the backrest comprises a projection inserted into the slot. Hiroshi teaches a backrest coupled to the seat, wherein the seat comprises a slot, and the backrest comprises a projection inserted into the slot (see Hiroshi, Fig. 1 and MT at [0016]: “a long groove is formed along one side of a pair of opposing sides of the seat plate 1, and the engagement portion 5 of the back plate 2 is configured to be releasably fitted into the groove, and the groove forms the seating support portion 3”). 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 a backrest coupled to the seat, wherein the seat comprises a slot, and the backrest comprises a projection inserted into the slot in the stand disclosed by Michalec in view of McCauley in view of Robertson according to the teachings of Hiroshi in order to “provide a chair that can be changed between a seated position and a portable position without employing a hinge mechanism, and that can be folded and easily carried”, see MT of Hiroshi at [0006].
16: Michalec in view of McCauley in view of Robertson and further in view of Hiroshi disclose the portable observation stand of claim 15, wherein the seat and the backrest each pivot about a pivot axis extending centrally between the at least three telescoping legs and through the seat (note that the seat 140 of Michalec is disposed about an axis that extends centrally between the at least three telescoping legs and also note that Robertson discloses a rotating seat, see col. 4, lines 7-14, “The seat means includes a circular seat member 70 formed of aluminum upon which a person sits. A depending cylindrical portion 72 formed of aluminum is welded to the undersurface of member 70 and has internal threads thereon which engage the threads formed on the upper end of post 60. With this construction, the seat may turn through an angle of 360 degrees so that a person may view all of the surrounding area”).
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