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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0005], line 1, “travers” should be replaced with –traverse--,
[0005], second to last line, “required” should be replaced with –requires--,
[0029], line 2, “show” should be replaced with –shown--,
[0030], line 3, “rachet” should be replaced with –ratchet--,
[0031], line 1, “view” should be removed, and,
[0031], line 1, “with” should be removed,
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”. Such claim limitation is: “means for attaching” in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the bracket, straps, and tightening mechanism of paragraph [0030].
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f),
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4, --each—should be inserted between “mechanisms” and “having”,
Line 5, “holds” should be replaced with –holding—
Fourth line from the last, “whereas” should be replaced with –wherein--
Appropriate correction 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells (US1307468) in view of Motes (US20080271948).
1: Wells discloses a tree stand (Fig. 1) comprising: a rail (10) having a plurality of engagement holes (14) on a face surface; rail climber mechanisms (15 and 21) having a front (see annotated Fig. 2 below), a top edge, a bottom edge, and L-shaped sides, the L-shaped sides extend from the front and engage with the rail (10), slideably holds each of the rail climber mechanisms to the rail (Fig. 2); a peg (25) is affixed or formed on an inside surface of the front between the bottom edge and a mid-point between the bottom edge and the top edge, and the L-shaped sides are wider at the bottom edge than at the top edge; a seat portion (19) affixed to a first rail climber mechanism (15) of the rail climber mechanisms; a foot-rest portion (26) affixed to a second rail climber mechanism (21) of the rail climber mechanisms; and whereas the peg (18) of the first rail climber mechanism engages with a first engagement hole (14) of the rail until the seat portion is lifted (pg. 2, lines 25-29) and the peg (25) of the second rail climber mechanism engages with a second engagement hole (14) of the rail until the foot-rest portion is lifted (pg. 2, lines 29-35).
Wells fails to disclose the rail having means for attaching. Motes teaches, in the context of tree stands, a rail (14) having means for attaching (21). It 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 to have included means for attaching the rail of Wells according to the teachings of Motes in order to affix the rail to a tree (Motes, [0053]) instead of supporting the rail with the braces (32) and guy wires (28) of Wells.
PNG
media_image1.png
886
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2: Wells in view of Motes disclose the tree stand of claim 1, wherein the rail (14) comprises two or more sections connected to each other (Motes, Fig. 4).
3: Wells in view of Motes disclose the tree stand of claim 2, wherein the two or more sections of the rail are connected to each other (Motes, Fig. 4) by inserting a first end (36) of one section of the two or more sections into a second end (38) of another sections of the two or more sections.
4. Wells in view of Motes disclose the tree stand of claim 1, wherein the means for attaching comprises two or more straps (21) interfaced to brackets (24), the brackets affixed to a back of the rail (14), the two or more straps for wrapping around a structure or a tree (9) to secure the rail to the structure or the tree.
6: Wells in view of Motes disclose the tree stand of claim 1, wherein the foot-rest portion has foot straps (27) on a top surface of the foot-rest portion, the foot straps for engaging with one or more feet of a user, enabling the user to lift up on the foot-rest portion to change a height of the foot-rest portion on the rail (pg. 1, lines 94-102: “A second transverse bar 27 is attached to the upper face of the foot rest above the bar 26 and is for the purpose of permitting the operator to raise this end of the foot rest so as to cant it to a position to disengage the tooth 25 from the recesses 14 and permit the operator to lift the foot rest upward to a new position”).
7: Wells in view of Motes disclose the tree stand of claim 1, wherein the rail (14) comprises an engagement bar (Motes, [0055], Figs. 3-4, 28) affixed to a structural bar (Motes, ]0055], Figs. 3-4, 33), whereas the plurality of engagement holes (Motes, [0055], Figs. 3-4, 30) is in the engagement bar.
8: Wells discloses a tree stand system (Fig. 1) comprising: a rail (10) and a plurality of engagement holes (14) formed on a face surface of the rail; a first rail climber mechanism (15, see annotated Fig. 2 below) having a first front, a first top edge, a first bottom edge, and two first L-shaped sides, the two first L-shaped sides extend from the first front and engage with the rail, slideably holding the first rail climber mechanism to the rail (10), a first peg (25) is affixed or formed on a first inside surface of the first front between the first bottom edge and a first mid-point between the first bottom edge and the first top edge, and each of the two first L-shaped sides is wider at the first bottom edge than at the first top edge (see annotated Fig. 2 above); a seat portion (19) affixed to the first rail climber mechanism (15); a second rail climber (21) mechanism having a second front, a second top edge, a second bottom edge, and two second L-shaped sides (see annotated Fig. 2 above), the two second L-shaped sides extend from the second front and engage with the rail (10), slideably holding the second rail climber mechanism to the rail, a second peg (25) is affixed or formed on a second inside surface of the second front between the second bottom edge and a second mid-point between the second bottom edge and the second top edge, and each of the two second L-shaped sides are wider at the second bottom edge than at the second top edge; a foot-rest portion affixed to the second rail climber mechanism, a top surface of the foot-rest portion having at least one foot strap; and whereas the first peg (18) of the first rail climber mechanism engages with a first engagement hole of the rail until the seat portion is lifted (pg 2, lines 25-29) and the second peg of the second rail climber mechanism engages with a second engagement hole of the rail until the foot-rest portion is lifted (pg. 2, lines 29-35).
Wells fails to disclose the rail having at least two brackets. Motes teaches, in the context of tree stands, a rail (14) having at least two brackets (24). It 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 to have included at least two brackets with the rail of Wells according to the teachings of Motes in order to affix the rail to a tree (Motes, [0053]) instead of supporting the rail with the braces (32) and guy wires (28) of Wells.
9: Wells in view of Motes disclose the tree stand of claim 8, wherein the rail (14) comprises two or more sections connected to each other (Motes, Fig. 4).
10: Wells in view of Motes disclose the tree stand system of claim 9, wherein the two or more sections of the rail are connected to each other (Motes, Fig. 4) by inserting a first end (36) of one section of the two or more sections into a second end (38) of another sections of the two or more sections.
11: Wells in view of Motes disclose the tree stand system of claim 8, wherein the rail is held to a structure by two or more straps (21) that are interfaced to the at least two brackets (24), each of the at least two brackets is affixed to the rail (Motes, [0057]: “Each bracket 44 comprises a flat base 42 welded to sleeve 33 that is parallel with and spaced-apart from flange 28”).
13: Wells discloses a method of installing a tree stand to a tree (Fig. 1), the method comprising: a rail (10) having a plurality of engagement holes (14); slideably interfacing a climber mechanism (15) of a seat portion (19) to the rail from a bottom end of the rail by sliding the climber mechanism of the seat portion up the rail to a first desired height then engaging a peg (25) of the climber mechanism of the seat portion (19) into a first engagement hole (14) of the rail; slideably interfacing a climber mechanism (21) of a foot-rest portion (26) to the rail from the bottom end of the rail by sliding the climber mechanism of the foot-rest portion up the rail to a second desired height (pg. 2, lines 25-29), the second desired height being lower than the first desired height (Fig. 1), then engaging the peg of the climber mechanism of the foot-rest portion into a second engagement hole of the rail; climbing onto the tree stand, resting your feet on the foot-rest portion and positioning your body on the seat portion, at least one foot of your feet being under a foot strap that is affixed to the foot-rest portion; and until reaching a final height: lifting the foot-rest portion using your legs (pg. 2, lines 29-35), disengaging the peg of the climber mechanism of the foot-rest portion then further lifting the foot-rest portion, then lowering the foot-rest portion such that the peg of the climber mechanism of the foot-rest portion engages with a destination engagement hole of the rail that is higher than the second engagement hole; and lifting the seat portion, disengaging the peg of the climber mechanism of the seat portion then further lifting the seat portion, then lowering the seat portion such that the peg of the climber mechanism of the seat portion engages with a second destination engagement hole of the rail that is higher than the first engagement hole.
Wells fails to disclose affixing the rail to a tree. Motes teaches, in the context of tree stands, affixing a rail (14) to a tree (9). It 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 to have attached the rail of Well’s tree stand to a tree according to the teachings of Motes in order to affix the rail to a tree (Motes, [0053]) instead of supporting the rail with the braces (32) and guy wires (28) of Wells.
14: Wells in view of Motes disclose the method of installing the tree stand of claim 13, wherein the affixing of the rail to the tree includes connecting straps (21) to holes in a bracket (24), the bracket is affixed to the rail (Motes, Fig. 4).
16. The method of installing the tree stand of claim 13, wherein the rail (14) comprises two or more sections connected to each other (Motes, Fig. 4).
17. The method of installing the tree stand of claim 16, wherein the two or more sections of the rail are connected to each other (Motes, Fig. 4) by inserting a first end (36) of one section of the two or more sections into a second end (38) of another sections of the two or more sections of the rail.
18: Wells in view of Motes disclose the method of installing the tree stand of claim 16, wherein the rail (14) comprises an engagement bar (Motes, [0055], Figs. 3-4, 28) affixed to a structural bar (Motes, ]0055], Figs. 3-4, 33), the engagement bar comprises the plurality of engagement holes (31).
19. Wells in view of Motes disclose the method of installing the tree stand of claim 18, wherein the engagement bar ((Motes, [0055], Figs. 3-4, 28) is affixed to the structural bar (Motes, ]0055], Figs. 3-4, 33) by welds (Motes, [0055]).
Claims 5, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells (US1307468) in view of Motes (US20080271948) and further in view of Blue (US20070169996).
5: Wells in view of Motes fail to disclose the tree stand of claim 4, wherein each of the two or more straps have a rachet-type tightening mechanism. Blue teaches, in the context of securing a rail for a tree stand to a tree, wherein each of the two or more straps (Blue, 41) have a rachet-type tightening mechanism (Blue, [0056]). It 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 to have included wherein each of the two or more straps have a rachet-type tightening mechanism in the tree stand disclosed by Wells in view of Motes according to the teachings of Blue in order to provide a convenient method of tightening the straps.
12: Wells in view of Motes fail to disclose the tree stand system of claim 11, wherein each of the two or more straps have a rachet-type tightening mechanism. Blue teaches, in the context of securing a rail for a tree stand to a tree, wherein each of the two or more straps (Blue, 41) have a rachet-type tightening mechanism (Blue, [0056]). It 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 to have included wherein each of the two or more straps have a rachet-type tightening mechanism in the tree stand disclosed by Wells in view of Motes according to the teachings of Blue in order to provide a convenient method of tightening the straps.
15: Wells in view of Motes fail to disclose the method of installing the tree stand of claim 14, wherein the affixing of the rail to the tree includes tightening the straps using a rachet tightening mechanism. Blue teaches, in the context of securing a rail for a tree stand to a tree, wherein he affixing of the rail to the tree includes tightening the straps (Blue, 41) using a rachet tightening mechanism (Blue, [0056]). It 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 to have included wherein the affixing of the rail to the tree includes tightening the straps using a rachet tightening mechanism in the tree stand disclosed by Wells in view of Motes according to the teachings of Blue in order to provide a convenient method of tightening the straps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ben Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571)272-9656. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 7 to 5.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/BAP/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634