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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 introduces “a biasing element” in line 6 of the claim, and claims 7 and 8 each reference “said biasing means”. In the context of the disclosure, it is understood that the “biasing element” of claim 1 is the same as the “biasing means” of claims 7 and 8, but the claims should be amended to use the same recitation (i.e. either “biasing element” or “biasing means” in each of claims 1, 7, and 8).
Claim 1 also introduces “a securing mechanism” in line 11 and claim 2 references “said securing means”. In the context of the disclosure, it is understood that the “securing mechanism” of claim 1 is the same as the “securing means” of claim 2, but the claims should be amended to use the same recitation to ensure appropriate consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “biasing element” and “securing mechanism” in claim 1. The limitation “securing means” as recited in claim 2 is also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “biasing means” in each of claims 7 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thevenet (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0338341) in view of Richey (U.S. Patent No. 9,516,874).
Regarding claim 1, Thevenet discloses a tree stand [FIG. 1] for hunting and observing game, said tree stand comprising:
a standing surface (28);
a support structure (62) having an upper end (top end of the flanges 62) and a lower end (lower end of the flanges 62, connected to the standing surface 28), said support structure attached to said standing surface on said lower end (the attachment between the lower end of the support structure 62 and the standing surface 28 is shown in at least Figures 1 and 2);
a biasing element (seat post assembly 10 including the gas spring described in paragraph 0015) attached to said support structure (the biasing element is attached via bolts 68 to the support structure 62);
a seat post (14) having a first end (at 16) and a second end (lower end slidably engaged in the cylinder 12), wherein the second end of said seat post telescopically engages said biasing element (the telescoping engagement is shown in at least Figures 3-4);
a securing mechanism (lever 22 and release button 16) for temporarily maintaining said seat post in a desired position (paragraph 0015);
a seat assembly [FIG. 2] including a seat member (26) attached to said seat post (via mount 20); and
wherein said biasing element applies force to said seat assembly to automatically urge said seat assembly upwardly when said securing mechanism is disengaged (paragraphs 0015 and 0022 disclose a gas spring configuration that biases the seat upwardly when the securing mechanism 16 is disengaged).
Thevenet does not disclose that the support structure is pivotally attached to the standing surface, or that the biasing element is adjustably attached to the support structure
Nonetheless, Richey discloses a tree stand comprising a support structure (110) that is pivotally attached (via pin 154; column 3, lines 10-12) to a standing surface (104) (via pin 154; column 3, lines 10-12) [FIG, 7]; and a seat assembly element (116) adjustably attached to said support structure (via bracket 168), said seat assembly element being vertically adjustable with respect to said support structure (column 4, lines 6-14; the element 116 is able to pivot relative to the support structure 110 such that a maximum vertical height of the element 116 is adjusted relative to the support structure, which reads on the claimed vertical adjustability).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stand of Thevenet to include a pivotable connection of the support structure and vertical adjustability of the biasing element, as taught by Richey, in order to provide a collapsible configuration to facilitate transport and installation, and to provide a wider range of adjustability to accommodate different installation locations or users.
Regarding claim 2, Thevenet discloses that said securing means allows for infinite adjustment of the height of said seat member (the limitation “infinite adjustment” is defined in the context of the application as a continuously adjustable height within the range of possible adjustments; the gas spring of the seat post assembly 10 is inherently capable of continuous or infinite vertical adjustment; paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 6, Thevenet discloses that said seat member is pivotally attached to said seat post (via seat mount 20, which is pivotal about an axis perpendicular to the post 10; paragraph 0021) so that said seat member may be raised and lowered [FIG. 6].
Regarding claim 7, Thevenet discloses that said biasing means within said housing comprises a pneumatic cylinder (paragraph 0015; the disclosed “gas spring” reads on a pneumatic cylinder).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thevenet (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0338341) in view of Richey (U.S. Patent No. 9,516,874), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amacker (U.S. Patent No. 5,332,063).
Regarding claims 3-5, Thevenet, as modified above, discloses the tree stand and the standing surface, but does not disclose a ladder.
Nonetheless, Amacker discloses a ladder (14) disposed between a standing surface (12) and the ground [FIG. 1], wherein said ladder is removably attached (via nut and bolt sets 53) to said standing surface [FIG. 1], wherein said ladder is collapsible (column 5, lines 53-66).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tree stand of Thevenet, as modified above, to include the ladder taught by Amacker, in order to allow a user to gain access to a higher elevation when hunting, and to provide means to easily access the tree stand and enter/exit the stand from the ground.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thevenet (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0338341) in view of Richey (U.S. Patent No. 9,516,874), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bach (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0303818).
Regarding claim 8, Thevenet, as modified above, discloses the biasing means within the housing, but does not disclose that it comprises a metal spring.
Nonetheless, Bach discloses a biasing means for a seat (paragraph 0004) comprising a metal spring (16; paragraph 0014 discloses a metal composition for the spring).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the biasing means of Thevenet, as modified above, to include a metal spring, as taught by Bach, in order to provide resilient and constant biasing force without requiring the use of pressurized fluid that is subject to leakage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABE L MASSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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.
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634