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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, “the extending portion” lacks antecedent basis. It will be assumed this is referring to the first body. The reference to the extending portion in line 9 will also be assumed to be referring to the first body. Also in line 8, “the receiving portion” lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, in line 13, “the engagement portion” lacks antecedent basis, and it will be assumed this is referring to the second engagement portion.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 9A shows multiple views, of parts of the assembly being arranged into a final assembly, combined into a single view. These should be labeled separately and not have an arrow therebetween.
Figure 9C shows two views, including a magnification view. These should be separately labeled.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,684. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,684. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,684. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,684. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,684. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 11 – 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,684 in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0357717 (“Hendricks”).
Hendricks teaches a multi part artificial tree which includes first and second trunk section, with a first trunk section having a handle 112 which is rotatable with respect to the first trunk section as seen in Figure 2. It would have been obvious to include a handle as taught by Hendricks because the handle can be used to safely manipulate the trunk and move between a stowed position and a locked position during assembly of the tree.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,684 in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,209,546 (“Gibboney”).
Claim 4 claims the first and second electrical contacts, but does not claim one or more first and second wires in electrical communication with the respective contacts. However, Gibboney teaches a tree coupler system with rotating first and second connectors having first and second contacts, where first and second wires (38/48) are in electrical communication with the first and second contacts. It would have been obvious to provide wires in communication with the contacts because wires are a useful and cost effective way to connect to the various electrical elements spread out away from the connector contacts along the tree body.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,684 in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,209,546 (“Gibboney”) and U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0256898 (“Oceguda Gallaga”).
The wires at least partially disposed within their respective trunk sections is not claimed. However, Oceguda Gallaga teaches wires 500 which are engaged to contacts of a coupling member on an end of a trunk, and teaches disposing at least a partial section of the wires within the trunk (see Figs. 2A – 2CD). It would have been obvious to dispose the wires in their respective trunks as taught by Oceguda Gallaga because this protects the wires within the body of the trunk as they are extended to other parts of the tree assembly.
Claims 15 – 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,684. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 19 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,684. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gibboney.
Regarding claim 1, Gibboney discloses a coupler system for an artificial tree, the coupler system comprising:
a first coupler (18) comprising:
a first body (the housing of 24) having an outer diameter (see portion 70 having outer diameter, Fig. 7);
a first plurality of electrical contacts (78) affixed to the first body; and
a first engagement portion (68);
a second coupler (14) comprising:
a second body (housing of 14) having an inner diameter (see inner diameter of portion 32, Fig. 7), the inner diameter being greater than the outer diameter of the first body portion such that a receiving portion can receive at least a portion of the first body (see Figs. 3 – 4 and 9);
a second plurality of electrical contacts (76) affixed to the second body; and
a second engagement portion (64);
wherein the coupler system is configured such that when the first coupler engages the second coupler, the first engagement portion engages the engagement portion thereby causing the first coupler to rotate relative the second coupler until each electrical contact of the first plurality of electrical contacts aligns with a respective electrical contact of the second plurality of electrical contacts (see the abstract and Figs. 4 – 7).
Regarding claim 2, Gibboney discloses a first trunk section (20) comprising: the first coupler (18 is upon 20, see Fig. 4); and a first end (end of 20); and a second trunk section (16) comprising: the second coupler (14 is upon 16, see Fig. 4); and a second end (the end of 16).
Regarding claim 13, Gibboney discloses wherein each electrical contact of the first plurality of electrical contacts is in electrical communication with one or more first wires (48) and each electrical contact of the second plurality of electrical contacts is in electrical communication with one or more second wires (38).
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 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibboney in view of Hendricks.
Regarding claims 11 – 12, Gibboney does not disclose wherein the first trunk section further comprises a handle, and wherein the handle is rotatable with respect to the first trunk section.
However, Hendricks teaches a multi part artificial tree which includes first and second trunk section, with a first trunk section having a handle 112 which is rotatable with respect to the first trunk section as seen in Figure 2. It would have been obvious to include a handle as taught by Hendricks because the handle can be used to safely manipulate the trunk and move between a stowed position and a locked position during assembly of the tree.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibboney in view of Oceguda Gallaga.
Regarding claim 14, Gibboeny does not disclose wherein the one or more first wires are at least partially disposed within the first trunk section and the one or more second wires are at least partially disposed within the second trunk section.
However, Oceguda Gallaga teaches wires 500 which are engaged to contacts of a coupling member on an end of a trunk, and teaches disposing at least a partial section of the wires within the trunk (see Figs. 2A – 2CD). It would have been obvious to dispose the wires in their respective trunks as taught by Oceguda Gallaga because this protects the wires within the body of the trunk as they are extended to other parts of the tree assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Harshman discloses a camming connector with a slot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D BAILLARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-0676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571) 272-2009.
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.
/PAUL D BAILLARGEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2833
/renee s luebke/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831