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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "each loop portion" in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The first instance where “a loop portion” is introduced is in Claim 5. In the interest of advancing prosecution, and in order to cure the lack of antecedent basis, Claim 6 is interpreted as if depending from Claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,480,382 A (hereinafter “PAGLIUSO”) in view of US D027665 S (hereinafter “BAILEY”).
Regarding Claim 1, PAGLIUSO discloses a kit for restraining a tripod along a surface, the kit comprising: three receptacles (20 or 20b; i.e., one for each leg of the tripod), each receptacle comprising: a body portion having a cavity (see Figs. 2 & 7), the cavity dimensioned and shaped to receive an operative distal end of a leg (2, 3) of the tripod.
PAGLIUSO does not disclose an underside of the body portion having one or more feet providing frictional engagement with the surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
917
979
media_image1.png
Greyscale
BAILEY teaches a tip for a pole or leg comprising: an underside (b) of a body portion (a) having one or more feet (see b1 & b2) providing frictional engagement with a surface (i.e., a surface with which it engages).
PNG
media_image2.png
417
1095
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify PAGLIUSO wherein an underside of the body portion has one or more feet providing frictional engagement with the surface as taught and/or suggested by BAILEY, since both references teach a similar receptacle comprising an underside, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one underside for the other to achieve the predictable result of frictionally engaging a surface therewith.
Regarding Claim 2, PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY does not explicitly disclose wherein each foot has a friction coefficient that is greater than one.
Nonetheless, PAGLIUSO discloses that “It is a highly desirable object to have a tripod leg having such a foot end structure that the leg can be reliably positioned by way of a rubber or rubber like toe without hazard of slipping on the engaged surface”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY wherein each foot has a friction coefficient that is greater than one, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e., the friction coefficient of each receptacle in order to avoid slipping) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 4, PAGLIUSO further discloses comprising a drain hole (20a) communicating a bottom surface of the cavity with the underside (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY does not explicitly disclose wherein each foot has a Shore A hardness between 15 and 35.
Nonetheless, PAGLIUSO discloses that “It is a highly desirable object to have a tripod leg having such a foot end structure that the leg can be reliably positioned by way of a rubber or rubber like toe without hazard of slipping on the engaged surface”. Furthermore, the Shore hardness of rubber measures its resistance to indentation, typically using a Shore A durometer for flexible, elastic, or soft rubbers. Measured on a scale of 0 to 100, common rubber items range from 20A (rubber bands) to 80A (car tires), with harder rubbers (90A+) measured on the Shore D scale.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY wherein each foot has a Shore A hardness between 15 and 35, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e., the Shore A hardness of each receptacle in order to optimize its resistance to indentation for its intended use and to exhibit a desired anti-slip characteristic) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 12, PAGLIUSO further discloses a method of restraining a tripod along a surface, the method comprising: providing the kit of claim 1; and placing the operative distal end of each leg (2, 3) of the tripod in the cavity (see Fig. 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2,612,335 A (hereinafter “SALTZMAN”).
Regarding Claim 3, PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY does not disclose wherein the underside provides a recess for each foot to protrude from.
SALTZMAN teaches an interchangeable tripod foot tip wherein the underside (24) provides a recess for each foot (25, 26) to protrude from (see also, Col. 2, Lns. 28-31: “an unyielding pointed tip on one end of the reversible element threaded in one end recess, a rubber tip on the opposite end thereof held in the other end recess,”).
PNG
media_image3.png
567
1358
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY wherein the underside provides a recess for each foot to protrude from as taught and/or suggested by SALTZMAN, since “In use, it is found that under varying conditions either the rubber tip elements 25 or the metallic pointed elements 26 may be most effective and appropriate for use.” (see SALTZMAN, Col. 2, Lns. 1-4). Therefore, it would be advantageous to provide a means by which each one or more feet can be replaced or interchanged depending on the surface being engaged; or for the purpose of replacing worn feet with new feet.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY and SALTZMAN as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2021/0085042 A1 (hereinafter “HU”).
Regarding Claims 5-6 (NOTE the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 6 above), PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY and SALTZMAN does not disclose further comprising three leg retainer clips, wherein each leg retainer clip comprises a loop portion and a U-clip portion; wherein each loop portion is dimensioned and shaped to circumscribe the operative distal end comprising an active leg portion and an unused leg portion disposed in a parallel arrangement thereto.
HU teaches a retainer clip for a collapsible pole wherein each leg retainer clip comprises a loop portion (7) and a U-clip portion (6); wherein each loop portion (7) is dimensioned and shaped to circumscribe the operative distal end comprising an active leg portion (indicated in annotated Fig. 16 below) and an unused leg portion (indicated in annotated Fig. 16 below) disposed in a parallel arrangement thereto (see Fig. 15).
PNG
media_image4.png
807
2925
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY and SALTZMAN to further comprise three leg retainer clips, wherein each leg retainer clip comprises a loop portion and a U-clip portion; wherein each loop portion is dimensioned and shaped to circumscribe the operative distal end comprising an active leg portion and an unused leg portion disposed in a parallel arrangement thereto as taught and/or suggested by HU, since HU teaches that a foldable pole or leg is simple in structure, and is convenient for storage after being folded and providing a retainer clip for each leg makes it less likely for the folded leg to get itself unfolded and it is thus more secure and convenient for carrying.
Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY as applied to the parent claim above, and further in view of KR 20120019337 A (hereinafter “KWON”).
Regarding Claim 7, PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY does not disclose wherein the surface is an upper surface of a raised campfire ring.
PNG
media_image5.png
904
630
media_image5.png
Greyscale
KWON teaches a tripod (300) engaging a surface wherein the surface (20) is an upper surface of a raised campfire ring (11’).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY wherein the surface is an upper surface of a raised campfire ring as taught and/or suggested by KWON, since such a modification would make use of said tripod to support a cooking vessel directly over said campfire (see HU, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claims 8 and 10, PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY does not disclose wherein each body portion is resistance to temperatures found near a campfire; wherein each foot is configured to withstand at least two-hundred degrees Celsius without melting or combusting.
HU teaches a tripod (300) engaging a surface proximate a campfire wherein each body portion (see 19, 320) is resistance to temperatures found near a campfire (inherent, this is its intended use); wherein each foot (see 19, 320) is configured to withstand at least two-hundred degrees Celsius without melting or combusting (inherent, this is its intended use; furthermore, barbecue fire pits typically burn between 600°F and 2,000°F, with temperatures heavily dependent on fuel type, oxygen flow, and pit material. Wood-burning pits usually reach 1,100°F–2,000°F, while gas-powered (propane/natural gas) fire pits operate between 900°F–1,800°F.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY wherein each body portion is resistance to temperatures found near a campfire; wherein each foot is configured to withstand at least two-hundred degrees Celsius without melting or combusting as taught and/or suggested by KWON, since such a modification would make said tripod useful for support a cooking vessel directly over said campfire (see HU, Fig. 2).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of SALTZMAN, HU and KWON.
Regarding Claim 11, PAGLIUSO in view of BAILEY, SALTZMAN, HU and KWON discloses the claim limitations as is evident from the discussion of the references above. Claim 11 is a combination of the limitations of Claims 1-10 and 12. In the interest of brevity, the same or equivalent claim limitations and the obviousness rationale for combining the references, as already discussed above, will not be repeated here.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven B. McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799