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 .
Specification
It is noted that the Applicant appears to have made an effort to amend the specification in the Remarks (filed 3/30/2026) in response to the specification objections in the Non-Final Rejection (mailed 10/1/2025). However, amendments to the specification are required to be on a separate sheet (similar to the amended claims) and not in the Remarks. As such, the specification objections listed below remain.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 5, paragraph 22, “bottom end 16” should be changed to --bottom end 14--.
Page 6, paragraph 23, “Figures 1, 2A, and 2b” should be changed to --Figures 1, 2A, and 2B--.
Page 8, paragraph 30, reference character 40 is used to reference the “flexible sleeve”; however, reference character 40 has already been designated for the attachments points (paragraph 23; FIG. 2A). It does not appear the sleeve is actually shown in the figures in order to warrant a reference character.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 8 and 16 recite “the hunting blind is removable from the hunting stick”; however, claims 1 and 13 already recite this feature in lines 5 and 4, respectively. As such, claims 8 and 16 do not further limit claims 1 and 13, respectively. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-5, 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabrielson et al. (US 8,051,864 B1) in view of Moore (US 3,007,581).
Claim 1: Gabrielson et al. teaches a hunting stick comprising: a walking stick (130, 110) having a length with a top end (132) and a bottom end (112) and configured, when in use as a walking stick, to support a user-applied load without bowing or breaking (see abstract); and a removeable hunting blind (60, 70’ removable as evidenced by FIGS. 1, 2, 5 and 10, wherein 60 can be removed from between 130 and 110) secured to the walking stick between the top end and the bottom end (FIGS. 4 and 5) and configured to transition between an open configuration (FIG. 1) and a closed configuration (FIG. 4).
Gabrielson et al. teaches the top of the stick to be configured to attach a camera (18) or such thereto when used in the configuration when the hunting blind is open (as seen in FIG. 1). However, Gabrielson et al. lacks a removable gun rest. Moore teaches a hunting stick comprising a stick having a length with a top end (24) and a bottom end (10) and a moveable gun rest (36) attached at or near the top end of the walking stick (36 can be moved via bracket/clamp 42 and therefore be located anywhere on the stick including at or near the top end; col. 2, lines 26-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gabrielson et al. to include a moveable gun rest, such as that taught by Moore, so the hunting stuck can be used to shoot game while concealing the hunter from prey.
Claim 2: Gabrielson et al. teaches at least one stability foot (220) attached near the bottom end of the walking stick (as seen in FIG. 2, 220 is located near bottom end 112) and configured to provide an additional point of contact with the ground to provide additional support when the hunting stick is used as a gun rest (if 120 was pushed far enough into the ground, element 220 would come in contact with the ground, thus providing another point of contact; col. 6, lines 4-10).
Claim 3: Gabrielson et al. discloses the walking stick as being configured to have an adjustable length (as seen in the configuration shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the length of the walking stick is shorter than the configuration shown in FIG. 4 with the addition of element 60between elements 130 and 110).
Claim 4: Moore teaches the gun rest as being moveable along the length of the walking stick (col. 2, lines 26-28).
Claim 5: Moore teaches the gun rest as transitioning from a stored configuration (FIG. 2) to a deployed configuration (FIG. 1).
Claim 8: Gabrielson et al. teaches discloses the hunting blind as being removable from the hunting stick (as seen in FIGS. 1, 2, 5 and 10, portion 60 can be removed from between 130 and 110).
Claim 10: Gabrielson et al. teaches a flexible sleeve (240) that slides over the closed hunting blind (FIG. 4).
Claim 11: Gabrielson et al. teaches a horizontal foot peg (220, which extends outward in a radial manner and therefore is horizontal) located near the bottom end of the walking stick to facilitate inserting the bottom end of the walking stick into a ground (col. 6, lines 4-10).
Claim 12: Gabrielson et al. is silent on the material use to make the walking stick. However, it would have been obvious to make the walking stick from a material selected from the group consisting of aluminum, carbon, steel, titanium, hard plastic, acrylic, and wood 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-15 and 17-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-20, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Mausen, Gabrielson et al., Brown, Gallo, Kendrick and any combination thereof have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gabrielson et al. and Moore for claims 1-5,8 and 10-12.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Gabrielson et al. does not teaches at least one stability foot configured to provide an additional point of contact (page 11, Remarks); it is noted element 220 provides an additional point of contact with the ground if the spike portion 120 is pushed far enough into the ground, as evidenced by the fact element is referred to a “stop” that limits the depth at which element can penetrate the ground (col. 6, lines 4-10 of Gabrielson et al.). Additionally, it is noted that element 220 is used to “facilitate inserting the bottom end of the walking stick into a ground”, as claimed in claim 11, since element 220 stops spike element 120 from penetrating the ground too deeply, thus ensuring the hunting stick can be kept at an appropriate height to conceal the user. As such, the Examiner maintains that Gabrielson et al. does teach claims 2 and 11 (which are analogous to claims 14 and 18, respectively, which were rejected under Gabrielson et al. in the non-final rejection).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Gabrielson et al. does not teach the walking stick to have an adjustable length due to the fact that “there nothing in Gabrielson that suggests that the combination of handle section 130 and the trekking shaft 110 alone can be used as a walking stick” (page 11, Remarks). However, it noted that whether or not the walking stick can be used as a walking stick when the length of the stick is adjusted to the shorter length is irrelevant as the claim language does not specifically recite that limitation. As such, the Examiner maintains the length of the walking stick is configured to be adjustable even if all lengths are not conducive to the walking stick being used as walking stick as opposed to a hunting/shooting blind and therefore reads on claim 3 (which is analogous to claim 15, which was rejected under Gabrielson et al. in the non-final rejection).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
