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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this application, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “wherein the diameter of each opening is smaller than the diameter of the respective ball bearing”. This should read “wherein a diameter of each opening is smaller than a diameter of the respective ball bearing” (emphasis added). 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.
Claims 9-10 are 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.
Claims 9 and 10 each use the phrase “including but not limited to”. This phrase is indefinite as it is open ended and therefore does not limit the element it is referring to.
Claim 10 recites “the apparatus is configurable to accommodate antlers from different species of animals, including but not limited to deer, elk, and moose, by providing mounting insert pins of various sizes and shapes suitable for the specific antler configurations of each species”. It is unclear if the pins of various size are being positively claimed. For purposes of examination, they have been interpreted as not being positively claimed and that the limitation is reciting an apparatus that is configurable to accept pins of various sizes.
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, 3, 5-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner (US 2014/0010974) in view of Eads et al. (US 2019/0275832).
In regards to Claim 1, Bittner discloses a mounting apparatus for displaying antlers, comprising: a false animal head structure (Bittner: Fig. 1-5; 14), the structure comprising a top portion (Bittner: Fig. 1-5; 46); a skull cap piece (Bittner: Fig. 1-5; 20) removably coupled to the top portion of the false animal head structure, the skull cap including at least a pair of openings (Bittner: Fig. 3; shows 20 with two openings); and a means for detachably connecting the skull cap piece to the false animal head structure (Bittner: [0037]; screws, adhesive).
Bittner fails to disclose a pair of ball bearings, each ball bearing disposed within a respective opening of the skull cap, wherein the diameter of each opening is smaller than the diameter of the respective ball bearing, thereby allowing the ball bearing to be retained within the opening while permitting rotational movement of the ball bearing; a pair of mounting insert pins, each mounting insert pin attached to a respective ball bearing and configured for insertion into an antler to secure the antler to the false animal head structure. However, Eads teaches a pair of ball bearings (Eads: Fig. 7-8; 312), each ball bearing disposed within a respective opening (Eads: Fig. 7-8; 324, 326), wherein the diameter of each opening is smaller than the diameter of the respective ball bearing, thereby allowing the ball bearing to be retained within the opening while permitting rotational movement of the ball bearing; a pair of mounting insert pins (Eads: Fig. 7-8; 338), each mounting insert pin attached to a respective ball bearing and configured for insertion into an antler to secure the antler to the false animal head structure.
Bittner and Eads are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. wall mounted displaying supports. 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 top portion and skull cap in Bittner with the ball bearing connection from Eads, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a specific interface for connecting loose horns to the head structure that allows a user to easily adjust and secure the horns in a desired position as well as be demounted for handling, thereby improving the utility and ease of use (Eads: [0004], [0043]; Bittner: [0022]).
In regards to Claim 3, Bittner, as modified, teaches the mounting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the mounting insert pins (Eads: Fig. 7-8; 338) are removable from the ball bearings (Eads: Fig. 7-8; 312) to allow for interchangeability of the antlers.
In regards to Claim 5, Bittner, as modified, teaches the mounting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the false animal head structure (Bittner: Fig. 1-5; 14) further comprises a neck portion extending downwards form the head, the neck portion including a base (Bittner: Fig. 1-5; 60) with a flat surface configured for attachment to a wall mount, facilitating the display of the apparatus on a vertical surface.
In regards to Claim 6, Bittner, as modified, teaches the mounting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the skull cap (Bittner: Fig. 1-5; 20) is fastened to the false animal head structure using at least one of bolts, screws, or a locking mechanism, providing secure attachment and easy removal of the skull cap for interchangeability of antlers or maintenance (Bittner: [0037]).
In regards to Claim 8, Bittner, as modified, teaches the mounting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the false animal head structure and the skull cap are fabricated from a lightweight material (Bittner: [0031]-[0032]).
Bittner fails to disclose a lightweight material selected from the group consisting of aluminium, expanded polystyrene, or a composite material. However, Eads teaches a lightweight material selected from the group consisting of aluminium, expanded polystyrene, or a composite material (Eads: [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the animal head in Bittner from the material taught by Eads, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to form the structure from an alternate castable material that has suitable strength and structure to form a rigid support (Eads: [0038]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the structure from the recited materials with the motivation of providing a material with an optimal manufacturing cost, weight, and strength, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to Claim 10, Bittner, as modified, teaches the mounting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configurable to accommodate antlers from different species of animals (Eads: [0044]), including but not limited to deer, elk, and moose, by providing mounting insert pins of various sizes and shapes suitable for the specific antler configurations of each species.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner (US 2014/0010974) in view of Eads et al. (US 2019/0275832) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boardattack (NPL-U).
In regards to Claim 2, Bittner, as modified, teaches the mounting apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose a false animal head structure has a geometric design. However, Boardattack teaches a false animal head structure has a geometric design (Boardattack: Fig. 1; see below).
Bittner and Boardattack are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. wall mounted displaying supports. 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 animal head design in Bittner with the design from Boardattack, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternate type of texture for the outer surface of the structure and skull plate (Bittner: [0030]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eads et al. (US 2019/0275832) in view of Bittner (US 2014/0010974).
In regards to Claim 1, Eads discloses a mounting apparatus for displaying antlers, comprising: a structure (Eads: Fig. 7-8; 304); a portion including at least a pair of openings (Eads: Fig. 7-8; 324, 326); a pair of ball bearings, (Eads: Fig. 7-8; 312) each ball bearing disposed within a respective opening of the skull portion, wherein the diameter of each opening is smaller than the diameter of the respective ball bearing, thereby allowing the ball bearing to be retained within the opening while permitting rotational movement of the ball bearing; a pair of mounting insert pins (Eads: Fig. 7-8; 338), each mounting insert pin attached to a respective ball bearing and configured for insertion into an antler to secure the antler to the structure.
Eads fails to disclose a false animal head structure, the structure comprising a top portion; a skull cap piece removably coupled to the top portion of the false animal head structure, the skull cap including at least a pair of openings; and a means for detachably connecting the skull cap piece to the false animal head structure. However, Bittner teaches a false animal head structure (Bittner: Fig. 1-5; 14), the structure comprising a top portion (Bittner: Fig. 1-5; 46); a skull cap piece (Bittner: Fig. 1-5; 20) removably coupled to the top portion of the false animal head structure, the skull cap including at least a pair of openings (Bittner: Fig. 3; shows 20 with two openings); and a means for detachably connecting the skull cap piece to the false animal head structure (Bittner: [0037]; screws, adhesive).
Eads and Bittner are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. wall mounted displaying supports. 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 structure in Eads with the false animal head structure and skull cap from Bittner, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a grander means of displaying antlers that is inexpensive and simple to use (Bittner: [0007]), thereby increasing the visual appeal of the structure.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eads et al. (US 2019/0275832) in view of Bittner (US 2014/0010974) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ploetz (US 6,451,393).
In regards to Claim 7, Eads, as modified, teaches the mounting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the mounting insert pins (Eads: Fig. 7-8; 338) comprise a first end (Eads: Fig. 7-8; 346) shaped to securely engage with the ball bearings and an opposing end (Eads: Fig. 7-8; 342) for insertion into the antlers.
Eads fails to disclose an opposing sharp end. However, Ploetz teaches an opposing sharp end (Ploetz: Fig. 3; 28).
Eads and Ploetz are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. wall mounted displaying supports. 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 pin opposing end in Eads with the pointed end from Ploetz, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an end form that is capable of advancing through the antler, thereby enabling a user to mount the pin to the antler in a low number of steps (Ploetz: Col. 3, Ln. 27-36).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eads et al. (US 2019/0275832) in view of Bittner (US 2014/0010974) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Canivell Grifols et al. (US 2013/0292524).
In regards to Claim 9, Eads, as modified, teaches the mounting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the ball bearings are made from steel (Eads: [0040]).
Eads fails to disclose a corrosion- resistant material, including but not limited to stainless steel or a polymer composite. However, Canivell Grifols teaches a ball bearing comprising a corrosion- resistant material, including but not limited to stainless steel (Canivell Grifols: [0085]) or a polymer composite.
Eads and Canivell Grifols are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. wall mounted displaying supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the ball sin Eads with the material taught by Canivell Grifols, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternate rigid material for the balls that has desirable strength (Canivell Grifols: [0085]; Eads: [0040]).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton, Jr. (US 2015/0076731) in view of Martin (US 2017/0087925).
In regards to Claim 1, Walton discloses a mounting apparatus for displaying antlers, comprising: a false animal head structure (Walton: Fig. 17, 18; 172), the structure comprising a top portion; a skull top including a pair of openings (Walton: Annotated Fig. 17; O); a pair of ball bearings (Walton: Fig. 17; 105), each ball bearing disposed within a respective opening of the skull cap, wherein the diameter of each opening is smaller than the diameter of the respective ball bearing, thereby allowing the ball bearing to be retained within the opening while permitting rotational movement of the ball bearing; a pair of mounting insert pins (Walton: Fig. 17; 103), each mounting insert pin attached to a respective ball bearing and configured for insertion into an antler to secure the antler to the false animal head structure.
Walton fails to disclose a skull cap piece removably coupled to the top portion of the false animal head structure; and a means for detachably connecting the skull cap piece to the false animal head structure. However, Martin teaches a skull cap piece (Martin: Fig. 3-4; 500) removably coupled to the top portion of the false animal head structure, the skull cap including at least a pair of openings (Martin: Fig. 3-4; 350); and a means for detachably connecting the skull cap piece to the false animal head structure (Martin: [0052]).
Walton and Martin are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. wall mounted displaying supports. 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 skull top in Walton with the removable skull cap structure from Martin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means for a user to position the antlers prior to securing them by friction with the skull cap (Martin: [0067]-[0068]), thereby providing a connection with improved adjustability and repairability.
In regards to Claim 4, Walton, as modified, teaches the mounting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the top portion of the false animal head structure further comprises at least a pair of semi-spherical gaps (Walton: Annotated Fig. 17; S) configured to receive the ball bearings.
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
791
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Boardattack; Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
419
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
II: Walton; Fig. 17
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631