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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0037]: should read “stationary member [124 ] 126”;
Paragraph [0049]: should read “light source [134 ] 136”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 17 & 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 , in line 1, “device of claim 15” should read “device of claim 16”; currently Claim 17 depends on Claim 15 but it appears that it should have depended on Claim 16 due to the instance of lacking antecedent regarding “the wire mesh” (line 1 in Claim 17).
For examination purposes, the examiner understands that Claim 17 depends onto Claim 16.
Claim 20, in line 3, should read “to [a] the center attachment member”;
Claim 20, in line 4, should read “to [a] the protective arm”;
Claim 20, in line 6, should read “pushing [a] the hook”;
Claim 20, in line 7, should read “and a light source”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Notes
Regarding Claim(s) 1-20: With regard to the intended use of the apparatus, e.g. the term “plant” in “plant protection device” can be interpreted that the “protection device” can be used in a " plant " setting. Furthermore, the term “plant” does not add any structural limitation to the term “protection device”, thus it does not provide enough patentable weight to the term “protection device”. It is understood 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. as discussed in MPEP 2103.1.C.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Houle et al. (US 11532216 B2, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Houle disclose(s): A protection device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a center attachment member (50);
a protective arm (30); and
a hook (84).
Regarding Claim 2, Houle disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
Houle further disclose(s): wherein the center attachment member is a circular center attachment member (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Houle disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
Houle further disclose(s): wherein the center attachment member is comprised of a protective arm fastener (Fig. 15: bolt at pivot X1).
Regarding Claim 4, Houle disclose(s) the device of Claim 3.
Houle further disclose(s): wherein the protective arm fastener is comprised of a magnet, a screw, a bolt, an adhesive, a hook and loop fastener or a tongue and groove fastener (Fig. 15: bolt at pivot X1).
Regarding Claim 5, Houle disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
Houle further disclose(s): wherein the hook is comprised of a pointed end (Fig. 1: pointed end of 84).
Regarding Claim 6, Houle disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
Houle further disclose(s): wherein the protective arm is comprised of a stationary member (Fig. 1: 80).
Regarding Claim 7, Houle disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
Houle further disclose(s): wherein the protective arm is comprised of an adjustable member (Fig. 1: 90).
Regarding Claim 8, Houle disclose(s) the device of Claim 7.
Houle further disclose(s): wherein the adjustable member is comprised of a locking mechanism (Fig. 24: 85 ).
Regarding Claim 9, Houle disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
Houle further disclose(s): wherein the hook is comprised of a hook attachment fastener (see annotated Fig. 25 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
952
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 10-11, 13-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houle et al. in view of Ross et al. (US 7278375, hereinafter Ross ‘375, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 10, Houle disclose(s): A protection device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a center attachment member (Fig. 1: 50) comprised of a protective arm fastener (Fig. 15: bolt at pivot X1);
a protective arm (Fig. 1: 30); comprised of a stationary member (Fig. 1: 80), an adjustable member (Fig. 1: 90), and a locking mechanism (Fig. 24: 85 );
a hook (84) comprised of a hook attachment member (see annotated Fig. 25 below);
a light source (Fig. 7: 33).
PNG
media_image2.png
947
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Houle does not specifically disclose: a motion sensor.
However, Ross ‘375 teach(es) a protection device (Fig. 1) comprising: a motion sensor (33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Houle, with the teachings of Ross ‘375, for the purpose of providing the capability of triggering a light upon motion activity (col. 2, lines 44-67).
Regarding Claim 11, Houle and Ross ‘375 teach(es) the device of Claim 10.
Houle further disclose(s): wherein the light source is comprised of a LED light, a white light, a fluorescent light, an incandescent light or a neon light (Fig. 7 and col. 7, lines 1-4: LED 33).
Regarding Claim 13, Houle and Ross ‘375 teach(es) the device of Claim 10.
Houle further disclose(s): further comprising a battery (Fig. 22: 40).
Regarding Claim 14, Houle and Ross ‘375 disclose(s) the device of Claim 10.
The combination does not specifically disclose(s): wherein the light source is comprised of a solar panel.
However, Ross ‘375 further teach(es): wherein the light source is comprised of a solar panel (Fig. 1: 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Houle and Ross ‘375, with the further teachings of Ross ‘375, for the purpose of providing the capability of absorbing daylight to convert to electricity to a battery for storage (col. 6, lines 9-21).
Regarding Claim 15, Houle and Ross ‘375 teach(es) the device of Claim 10.
Houle further disclose(s): wherein the locking mechanism is comprised of a padlock, a deadbolt lock, a cam lock, a rim/mortise lock, a euro profile cylinder lock, an interchangeable core cylinder lock, a furniture latch lock, a rim latch lock, a biometric fingerprint scanning lock, an RFID key fob lock, a Bluetooth lock that unlocks via a smart device mobile application, a mechanical dial lock, a numerical combination lock, a pedestal lock, a draw lock or fixed core lock (Fig. 24: pedestal lock 85).
Regarding Claim 18, Houle and Ross ‘375 teach(es) the device of Claim 10.
Houle further disclose(s): wherein the light source is positioned on the protective arm (Figs. 1 &7).
Regarding Claim 19, Houle and Ross ‘375 disclose(s) the device of Claim 10.
The combination does not specifically disclose(s): wherein the hook is comprised of a stainless steel, an aluminum or a galvanized steel material.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventionIn re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960 ) where the court stated that a selection of a material on the basis of suitability for intended use of an apparatus would be entirely obvious.
Here the material of the hook (i.e. a stainless steel, an aluminum or a galvanized steel material) does not appear to be significant to the function of the device, thus noting the material is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the device of the combination.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the type of material of the hook in order to suit the needs of the user of the hook in order to decrease the cost of manufacturing by utilizing an inexpensive material.
As best understood: With respect to independent Claim 20, Houle disclose(s): The method of using a protection device (Fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 44-53), comprising:
placing a center attachment member (Fig. 1: 50) over an area (Fig. 1);
attaching a protective arm (Fig. 1: 30) to a center attachment member via a protective arm fastener (Fig. 15: bolt at pivot X1);
attaching a hook (Fig. 1: 84) to a protective arm via a hook attachment fastener (see annotated Fig. 25 below);
extending an adjustable member (Fig. 1: 90) and engaging a locking mechanism (Fig. 24: 85 );
pushing a hook into the ground (Fig. 10); and
turning on a light source (Fig. 7: 33).
PNG
media_image1.png
952
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Houle does not specifically disclose: a motion sensor.
However, Ross ‘375 teach(es) a method (Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 44-67) comprising: a motion sensor (33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Houle, with the teachings of Ross ‘375, for the purpose of providing the capability of triggering a light upon motion activity (col. 2, lines 44-67).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houle and Ross ‘375 further in view of Arman (US 8816863 B2, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Houle and Ross ‘375 disclose(s) the device of Claim 10.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the light source is comprised of a processor.
However, Arman teach(es) a device (Fig. 7) including wherein the light source is comprised of a processor (Fig. 7 and col. 7, line 65: processor in 703).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combined device of Houle and Ross ‘375, with the further teachings of Arman, for the purpose of providing the capability of providing varying light patterns (col. 7, lines 63-66).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houle and Ross ‘375 further in view of Ross ‘778 (US 4001778, hereinafter Ross ‘778, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Houle and Ross ‘375 disclose(s) the device of Claim 10.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the protective arm is comprised of a wire mesh.
However, Ross ‘778 teach(es) a device (Fig. 2) including wherein the protective arm is comprised of a wire mesh (Fig. 2 and col. 5, lines 9-10: 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combined device of Houle and Ross ‘375, with the further teachings of Ross ‘778, for the purpose of providing protection (col. 5, lines 3-4).
As best understood: Regarding Claim(s) 17, Houle, Ross ‘375 and Ross ‘778 disclose(s) the device of Claim 16.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the wire mesh is comprised of a copper, a brass, a bronze, a nickel, a titanium, a silver, a tungsten, a molybdenum, a molen, an Inconel, a nichrome, a vinyl, a galvanized steel, a stainless steel, or an aluminum material.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventionIn re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960 ) where the court stated that a selection of a material on the basis of suitability for intended use of an apparatus would be entirely obvious.
Here the material of the wire mesh (i.e. a copper, a brass, a bronze, a nickel, a titanium, a silver, a tungsten, a molybdenum, a molen, an Inconel, a nichrome, a vinyl, a galvanized steel, a stainless steel, or an aluminum material ) does not appear to be significant to the function of the device, thus noting the material is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the device of the combination.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the type of material of the wire mesh in order to suit the needs of the user of the wire mesh in order to decrease the cost of manufacturing by utilizing an inexpensive material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to protective device(s): Palmer (US 0058283); Braun (US 2731972); Ransom (US 20220235525 A1); Harger (2012/0227318 A1); Thomas (US 9072288 B1); Jabs (US 8381440 B1); Kim (US 9718401 B2); Nali (US 6609332 B1).
The following reference(s) relate to device(s) with arms: Jedlicka et al. (US 7392610 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera, can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/TC/
06 December 2025
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855