DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 8-9 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.
For claim 8, the limitation “the cavity” in line 3 is unclear if the cavity of the insertion body or the cavity of the enclosed skirt pieces is being referred to. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret “the cavity” as the cavity of the insertion body.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the inner wall of the slot" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henz (US 20240108158 A1) in view of Morinoli (Amazon: “50 Feet Dryer Vent Cleaning Kit for Drill Lint Removes Dryer Vent Cleaning System Dryer Vent Cleaner Kit Vacuum Attachment Dryer Vent Nozzle Hose Attachment Dryer Lint Brush Vent Trap Cleaner” by Morinoli Store; https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09WHPT9H5/ref=sspa_dk_detail_5?pd_rd_i=B09WHPT9H5&pd_rd_w=8eMs8&content-id=amzn1.sym.7446a9d1-25fe-4460-b135-a60336bad2c9&pf_rd_p=7446a9d1-25fe-4460-b135-a60336bad2c9&pf_rd_r=QD7RJB4CBGZ7CWJAECFK&pd_rd_wg=23kbW&pd_rd_r=b13c2494-4b67-47ae-a617-8450461e59ba&s=home-garden&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9kZXRhaWw&th=1).
Regarding claim 1, Henz teaches a tree skirt (100) using a fit structure (350), comprising: at least two skirt pieces (210 fig. 1C), wherein the skirt pieces are sequentially arranged along a circular track (fig. 1C), adjacent skirt pieces are detachably connected (figs. 2D-2E and [0046]), and the skirt pieces are enclosed to form a cavity (fig. 1C); and a support assembly (300), wherein the support assembly comprises at least two elastic strips (310), each of the elastic strips is arranged on an inner wall (inner wall of 210) of the skirt piece (fig. 1C and 3B), the elastic strips are sequentially arranged in an arrangement direction of the skirt pieces (fig. 1C), one end of each of the elastic strips is provided with a protrusion member (370), the other end of the elastic strip is provided with a fit member (360), the protrusion member on one of two adjacent elastic strips is fixed with the fit member on the other of the two adjacent elastic strips (fig. 3B and [0046-0047]), and the protrusion member and the fit member are detachably connected ([0048] and fig. 3B-3C).
However, Henz is silent about a snap-fit structure, a snap member and a snap-fit member.
Morinoli teaches a snap-fit structure (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 2), a snap member (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 2) and a snap-fit member (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fit structure of Henz to be a snap-fit structure, a snap member and a snap-fit member as taught by Morinoli in order to provide a tighter and more secured connection (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 2 of Morinoli), since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Henz as modified by Morinoli teaches the tree skirt according to claim 1, and Henz as modified by Morinoli further teaches wherein the snap member comprises an insertion body (370 of Henz and see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1 of Morinoli) and a snap protrusion (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1 of Morinoli) connected to the insertion body (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1 of Morinoli); the snap-fit member has a slot (interior opening of 360 of Henz and see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1 of Morinoli) and a snap hole (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1 of Morinoli) communicating with the slot (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1 of Morinoli); and in a state where the snap member and the snap-fit member are in a snap fit (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1 of Morinoli), the insertion body is inserted into the slot (fig. 3C of Henz and see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1 of Morinoli), and the snap protrusion is snapped into the snap hole (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1 of Morinoli).
PNG
media_image2.png
516
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Henz as modified by Morinoli teaches the tree skirt according to claim 2, and Morinoli further teaches wherein the snap protrusion is elastically movable in a diameter direction of the insertion body (see examiner’s screenshot of figs. 1-2); and during a process of inserting the insertion body into the slot, the snap protrusion moves towards an inside of the insertion body under the action of an inner wall of the slot (see examiner’s screenshot of figs. 1-2 and screenshot of video -2:22), and when the insertion body moves to a point where the snap protrusion faces the snap hole, the snap protrusion moves away from the insertion body to be snapped into the snap hole (see examiner’s screenshot of figs. 1-2 and screenshot of video -2:22).
PNG
media_image3.png
580
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Henz as modified by Morinoli teaches the tree skirt according to claim 3, and Morinoli further teaches wherein the insertion body has a cavity (see examiner’s screenshot of video -2:22 as the insertion body will have a cavity to allow the snap protrusion to move towards the inside of the insertion body) and a gap (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1) communicating with the cavity; the snap protrusion is located in the gap (see examiner’s screenshot of figs. 1), and the snap protrusion is connected to the insertion body by a connecting piece (see examiner’s screenshot of figs. 1 as the connecting piece is attached the snap protrusion and within the insertion body to prevent the snap protrusion from falling out of the insertion hole and provide the snap protrusion an elastic force); and during the process of inserting the insertion body into the slot, the snap protrusion abuts against the inner wall of the slot (see examiner’s screenshot of figs. 1-2 and screenshot of video -2:22 as the snap protrusion abuts against the inner wall of the slot when pressed), and the connecting piece is deformed towards an inside of the cavity of the insertion body (see examiner’s screenshot of figs. 1-2 and screenshot of video -2:22 as the connecting piece attaches to the snap protrusion to allow for the snap protrusion to be pressed and snaped into the hole and so the connecting piece will be deformed towards an inside of the cavity of the insertion body), and when the insertion body moves to the point where the snap protrusion faces the snap hole, the connecting piece recovers deformation, driving the snap protrusion to be snapped into the snap hole (see examiner’s screenshot of figs. 1-2 and screenshot of video -2:22 as the connecting piece will recover deformation when the snap protrusion is snapped into the snap hole).
PNG
media_image2.png
516
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Henz as modified by Morinoli teaches the tree skirt according to claim 4, and Morinoli further teaches wherein the connecting piece extends in a length direction of the insertion body (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1 as the connecting piece extends in a length direction of the insertion body to prevent the snap protrusion from falling out of the insertion body); and a free end of the connecting piece is provided with the snap protrusion (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1 as the exposed connecting piece is the free end).
Regarding claim 6, Henz as modified by Morinoli teaches the tree skirt according to claim 4, and Morinoli further teaches wherein the snap hole is a circular hole (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1); and the snap protrusion is a cylinder (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Henz as modified by Morinoli teaches the tree skirt according to claim 4, Henz teaches the elastic strip is fixedly connected to the insertion body ([0046]).
However, Henz as modified by Morinoli does not explicitly state wherein the elastic strip is inserted into the cavity of the insertion body.
Morinoli teaches wherein the elastic strip is inserted into the cavity of the insertion body (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1 as the elastic strip is inserted into the insertion body as the insertion body surrounds the elastic strip).
PNG
media_image4.png
654
813
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insertion body of Henz as modified by Morinoli to be wherein the elastic strip is inserted into the cavity of the insertion body as taught by Morinoli in order to provide a stronger attachment as it is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Henz as modified by Morinoli teaches the tree skirt according to claim 1, and Henz further teaches comprising two support assemblies (figs. 2E and 3C), wherein the skirt pieces are enclosed to form an upper opening (upper opening of figs. 1C and 3B) and a lower opening (upper opening of figs. 1C and 3B), and the two support assemblies are sequentially arranged in a direction from the lower opening to the upper opening (fig. 3C).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henz as modified by Morinoli as applied to claim 2 and 7 above, and further in view of Uxcell (Amazon: “uxcell M3x65mm Pushrod Connector Stainless Steel Rod Linkage,for RC Boat,Car,Airplane,Helicopter,10pcs” by Uxcell Store; https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07MLWXCVZ/ref=sspa_dk_detail_0?pf_rd_p=953c7d66-4120-4d22-a777-f19dbfa69309&pf_rd_r=D5021TVGWXMK37QSV86P&pd_rd_wg=yQyBQ&pd_rd_w=1oXMg&content-id=amzn1.sym.953c7d66-4120-4d22-a777-f19dbfa69309&pd_rd_r=f26f0350-8cea-4282-87e5-a884f91b895d&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9kZXRhaWwy&th=1).
Regarding claim 8, Henz as modified by Morinoli teaches the tree skirt according to claim 7, and Morinoli further teaches wherein an outer surface of one end of the elastic strip has a first portion (inserted end portion of the elastic strip entering the cavity of the insertion body of examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1), so that the first portion is in a close fit with an inner wall of the cavity (inner wall of the cavity of insertion body in examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1) in a state of being inserted into the cavity (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
654
813
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Henz as modified by Morinoli is silent about a first concavo-convex pattern portion.
Uxcell teaches a first concavo-convex pattern portion (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
521
1062
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first portion of Henz as modified by Morinoli to be a concavo-convex pattern portion as taught by Uxcell in order to provide a more secured fit as it is well known in the art, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Henz as modified by Morinoli teaches the tree skirt according to claim 2, and Henz further teaches wherein an outer surface of one end of the elastic strip has a second portion (end of elastic strip inserted into 360 in fig. 3C), so that the second portion is in a close fit with the inner wall of the slot in a state where the elastic strip is inserted into the slot of the snap-fit member (fig. 3C as the second portion of the elastic stirp is in a close fit with the inner wall of the slot 360).
However, Henz as modified by Morinoli is silent about a second concavo-convex pattern portion.
Uxcell teaches a second concavo-convex pattern portion (see examiner’s screenshot of fig. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
521
1062
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first portion of Henz as modified by Morinoli to be a concavo-convex pattern portion as taught by Uxcell in order to provide a more secured fit as it is well known in the art, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Henz (US 20160302604 A1) teaches skirt pieces with elastic strips.
Reetz (US 9687101 B2) teaches skirt pieces.
Mills (US 20110232174 A1) teaches a snap member and a snap-fit member.
Kirker (US 20080217594 A1) teaches a snap member and a snap-fit member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643