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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 160 (FIGS. 5 and 8) and 250 (FIG. 7).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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:
Paragraph 39, “Figure 8” should be changed to --Figure 9-- as that is the figure that actually shows what is described in the paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2, “square heat” should be changed to --square head--.
Claim 14, line 1, “rigid base” should be changed to --the rigid base--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20 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 20 recites “one or more stake holes” in the last two lines of the claim. However, “one or more stake holes” was not previously recited. Line 3 of the claim recites “three stake holes” specifically, not “one or more stake holes”. As such, it is unclear if the claim requires three stake holes or just “one or more” stake holes. Clarification is required.
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) 1, 2, 4-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoth Metallwaren GmbH (DE 202020104228 U1) in view of Baptiste (US 10,352,014 B1).
Claim 1: Knoth Metallwaren GmbH discloses a tent guyline securing system (1) comprising: a rigid base (2) configured to rest on a ground surface, the base including a guyline connector (4) and one or more stake holes (3) extending therethrough.
Knoth Metallwaren GmbH is silent on the type of stakes used in conjunction with the rigid base. Baptiste teaches a stake comprising: a head (60, 110) and a shaft (30, 50) extending downwardly from the head, the head including a lower portion comprising an integral washer (60) from which the shaft extends, and an upper portion (110), the upper portion configured to interface with an installation tool (17, 18). It would have been obvious to modify Knoth Metallwaren GmbH to include a stake, such as the one taught by Baptiste, so rigid plate can be held firmly in place on the ground surface with at least one stake that only requires a simple installation process.
It is noted that if the rigid plate of Knoth Metallwaren GmbH was used in conjunction with the stake(s) taught by Baptiste, it would be obvious to make the integral washer have an effective washer diameter greater than a hole diameter of the one or more stake holes so that the rigid plate would actually be held in place by the stake(s).
Additionally, while Baptiste is silent on the length of the shaft, it would have been obvious to make the shaft less than 12 inches in length since it has generally been recognized that changes in size involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137.
Claim 2: Baptiste teaches the stake as being an auger stake and the upper portion is configured to interface with at least one of a wrench, a ratchet with a socket, and an electric driver or drill (could be a wrench 11, FIG. 3; or alternatively, a ratchet 18 with a socket 17, FIG. 1) permitting a user to turn the auger stake to screw or unscrew the auger stake from the ground surface.
Claim 4: Baptiste teaches the upper portion comprises at least one of a hex head (113; FIG. 2), a square head and a socket head (112; FIG. 3).
Claim 5: Baptiste is silent on the length of the shaft; however, it would have been obvious to make the shaft less than 8 inches in length since it has generally been recognized that changes in size involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137.
Claims 6 and 7: Baptiste does not teach the auger stake to be made of plastic. However, it would have been obvious to make the auger stake of plastic, specifically nylon, since it has generally been recognized that selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 8: Baptiste teaches a tip (32) of the auger stake as being blunted (as seen in FIG. 1).
Claim 9: Baptiste is silent on the diameter of the auger stake tip; however, it would have been obvious to make the tip of the auger stake have a diameter of more than about 0.2 inches since it has generally been recognized that changes in size involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137.
Claim 10: Baptiste shows the tip as being semispherical (as seen in FIG. 1, the tip is rounded and therefore would encompass at least a portion of a small sphere.
Claim 11: Baptiste shows the auger stake as comprising a helical flange (40) having a maximum diameter about twice the maximum diameter of the shaft (as seen in FIG. 1, the diameter of the flange does not appear to be larger than twice the diameter of the shaft 30).
Claim 12: Knoth Metallwaren GmbH is silent of the material used to make the rigid base. However, it would have been obvious to make the rigid base substantially of plastic since it has generally been recognized that selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 13: Knoth Metallwaren GmbH teaches the rigid base as comprising at least four or more stake holes extending therethrough (as seen in FIG. 1, there are four stake holes).
Claim 14: Knoth Metallwaren GmbH teaches a bottom side of rigid base as being substantially flat (as seen in Fig. 1, the rigid base is mostly flat and the top surface is flat, so the bottom surface would be as well).
Claim 17: The combination of Knoth Metallwaren GmbH and Baptiste would teach a combination of a plurality of tent guyline securing systems and a tent (referenced in the English translation of the specification, “easily secure a tent to the ground with a system according to the invention”), wherein the tent is erected on a ground surface with each tent guyline securing system coupled to the ground and each guyline of a plurality of guylines of the pole tent secured to a guyline securing system of the plurality of guyline securing systems to hold the pole tent erect (as described in the English translation of the Knoth specification, such as by “The invention therefore also relates to a system for fastening tent cords, with at least two anchor plates according to one of the preceding claims”). While Knoth does not explicitly state the tent has pole(s), it would be obvious to have a pole tent, as such tents are old and well0known in the tent art.
Claims 18 and 19: Regarding method claim 18, the apparatus discussed above in relation to claim 2 would encompass the method steps of the claim, such as placing the rigid base on a ground surface at a desired location; placing a first auger stake through a first stake hole and screwing it into the ground surface using one or more of a wrench, a ratchet with a socket, and an electric driver or drill until the integral washer of the first auger stake contacts a surface of the rigid base; placing a second auger stake through a second stake hole and screwing it into the ground surface using one or more of a wrench, a ratchet with a socket, and an electric driver or drill until the integral washer of the second auger stake contacts a surface of the rigid base; and attaching the guyline to the guyline connector. When a user would want to dissemble the tent guyling system, the obvious method steps would reverse the steps above by: detaching the guyline from the guyline connector; and unscrewing the first and second auger stakes from the ground surface using one or more of a wrench, a ratchet with a socket, and an electric driver or drill.
Claim 20: Knoth Metallwaren GmbH discloses a tent guyline securing system (1) comprising: a rigid base (2) with a substantially flat bottom surface configured to rest on a ground surface (as seen in Fig. 1, the rigid base is mostly flat and the top surface is flat, so the bottom surface would be as well), the rigid base including a guyline connector (4) and three stake holes (3) extending therethrough.
Knoth Metallwaren GmbH is silent on the type of stakes used in conjunction with the rigid base. Baptiste teaches a stake comprising: a head (60, 110) and a shaft (30, 50) extending downwardly from the head and having a blunted tip (32), the head including a lower portion comprising an integral washer (60) from which the shaft extends, and an upper portion (110), the upper portion configured to interface with at least one of a wrench, a ratchet with a socket, and an electric driver or drill (could be a wrench 11, FIG. 3; or alternatively, a ratchet 18 with a socket 17, FIG. 1) permitting a user to turn the auger stake to screw or unscrew the auger stake from the ground surface. It would have been obvious to modify Knoth Metallwaren GmbH to include a stake, such as the one taught by Baptiste, so rigid plate can be held firmly in place on the ground surface with at least one stake that only requires a simple installation process.
It is noted that if the rigid plate of Knoth Metallwaren GmbH was used in conjunction with the stake(s) taught by Baptiste, it would be obvious to make the integral washer have an effective washer diameter greater than a hole diameter of the one or more stake holes so that the rigid plate would actually be held in place by the stake(s).
Baptiste does not teach the auger stake to be made of plastic. However, it would have been obvious to make the auger stake of plastic, specifically nylon, since it has generally been recognized that selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Additionally, while Baptiste is silent on the length of the shaft and diameter of the tip, it would have been obvious to make the shaft less than 10 inches in length and the tip have a diameter of more than 0.2 inches since it has generally been recognized that changes in size involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoth Metallwaren GmbH (DE 202020104228 U1) in view of Baptiste (US 10,352,014 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Double et al. (US 3,949,527).
The combination of Knoth Metallwaren GmbH and Baptiste is discussed above and teaches connector holes (5 in Knoth Metallwaren GmbH), but lacks a looped strap passing connector holes. Double et al. teaches an anchor comprising a rigid base (11) and a guyline connector comprising a looped strap (13, 14) passing through connector holes (12) in the rigid base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include a lopped strap passing through connector holes as the guyline connector, as suggested by Double et al., as an equivalent alternative that would provide the same results as allowing the guylines to attach to the rigid base.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoth Metallwaren GmbH (DE 202020104228 U1) in view of Baptiste (US 10,352,014 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 5,615,699).
The combination of Knoth Metallwaren GmbH and Baptiste is discussed above, but lacks a U-bolt as the guyline connector. Lee discloses a tent guyline securing system comprising a rigid base (through which 20 extends) and a U-bolt connector (as seen in FIG. 2) to which a guyline (38) is connected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include a U-bolt, such as taught by Lee, so that the guyline can be connected to the rigid base and extend from the base at any angle necessary based on a full range of 180 degrees of connection points provided by the U-bolt.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoth Metallwaren GmbH (DE 202020104228 U1) in view of Baumann (DE 4116738 A1).
Knoth Metallwaren GmbH discloses a tent guyline securing system (1) comprising: a rigid base (2) configured to rest on a ground surface, the base including a guyline connector (4) and one or more stake holes (3) extending therethrough.
Knoth Metallwaren GmbH is silent on the type of stakes used in conjunction with the rigid base. Baumann teaches a stake comprising: a head (26, 27) and a shaft (28) extending downwardly from the head, the head including a lower portion comprising an integral washer (29) from which the shaft extends, and an upper portion (27), the upper portion configured to interface with an installation tool and the upper portion is configured for striking with a mallet. It would have been obvious to modify Knoth Metallwaren GmbH to include a stake, such as the one taught by Baumann, so rigid plate can be held firmly in place on the ground surface with at least one stake that only requires a simple installation process.
It is noted that if the rigid plate of Knoth Metallwaren GmbH was used in conjunction with the stake(s) taught by Baumann, it would be obvious to make the integral washer have an effective washer diameter greater than a hole diameter of the one or more stake holes so that the rigid plate would actually be held in place by the stake(s).
Additionally, while Baumann is silent on the length of the shaft, it would have been obvious to make the shaft less than 12 inches in length since it has generally been recognized that changes in size involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2268. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11AM-7PM EST.
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, David Dunn can be reached at (571)272-6670. 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.
/DNJ/Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636