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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group A, Figs. 1-5B in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
PLEASE NOTE: Claims 3 and 4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species as they recite a ground-supported chair, which is unique to the non-elected Group B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/2025.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology such as the term “comprising”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1, 2, and 5-15 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. The term “roughly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “roughly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how cylindrical a device must be to be roughly. For the purposes of examination, any device that has a circular cross section at any point along its length will be considered sufficient to meet this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carlson in US Patent 3545461.
Regarding Claim 1, Carlson teaches a portable backpack and blind system comprising a backpack configuration (Fig. 7) and a blind configuration (Fig. 3), the portable backpack and blind system comprising a backpack (14) and a blind assembly (12), the blind assembly comprising a rotating chair (36 – the chain rotates with the blind) and a camouflage shroud (96) for concealing a user seated on the chair and the blind assembly being convertible between a disassembled, compact configuration (Fig. 7) and an assembled, extended configuration (Fig. 3), wherein, in the backpack configuration, the backpack is configured for encasing and storing therein the blind assembly in the disassembled, compact configuration, and wherein, in the blind configuration, the blind assembly is roughly cylindrical (the device has a circular cross section at least at its top) and sized to accommodate and conceal a single user in the assembled, extended configuration.
Regarding Claim 2, Carlson teaches that in the backpack configuration, the backpack is configured for storing more (“other articles” – see Column 5, line 7) than the blind assembly.
Regarding Claim 5, Carlson teaches (see Fig. 1) that the blind is supported above the ground by a tree trunk (at 74).
Regarding Claim 6, Carlson teaches that the blind is supported above the ground by a tree branch (see Fig., 8) or by a line extending between two trees.
Regarding Claim 7, Carlson teaches (see Fig. 1) that the roughly cylindrical shape is slightly tapered, with the blind being broader at the bottom than at the top.
Regarding Claim 8, Carlson teaches a carrying strap (66) for carrying the portable blind in its disassembled, compact configuration.
Regarding Claim 9, Carlson teaches a fabric cover (60/62) for covering and containing substantially all of the portable blind in its disassembled, compact configuration.
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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson as applied to Claim 5 above in view of Stringer in US Patent 8491053. Carlson is silent on the use of an A-frame structure. Stringer teaches a portable blind system supported by a tree trunk (180) and further comprising an A-frame structure (120/140) for engaging the tree trunk. 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 device of Carlson by using an A-frame structure as taught by Stringer in order to more easily support the device on a trunk with no branches. Carlson, as modified, is silent on the length of the arms of the A-frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an A-frame with arms having a length of between about 22 and 30 inches and more specifically between about 23 and 28 inches in order to provide enough room to provide clearance between the blind and the trunk of the tree, since such a change would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized a being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson, as applied to claim 1 above in view of Webb in US Patent 2992503. Carlson is silent on the appearance of the blind. Webb teaches a blind (11) that is adapted and configured to roughly have the appearance of a trunk of a tree (“formed to simulate the bark of a tree” – see Column 1, line 43). 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 device of Carlson by using modifying the blind to have the appearance of a tree trunk as taught by Webb in order to better conceal the user.
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson in US Patent 4825578 in view of Carlson in US Patent 3545461.
Regarding Claim 1, Robinson teaches a portable backpack and blind system comprising a backpack configuration (Fig. 2) and a blind configuration (Fig. 1), the portable backpack and blind system comprising a blind assembly (10), the blind assembly comprising a camouflage shroud (14) for concealing a user and the blind assembly being convertible between a disassembled, compact configuration (Fig. 2) and an assembled, extended configuration (Fig. 1), wherein, in the blind configuration, the blind assembly is roughly cylindrical and sized to accommodate and conceal a single user in the assembled, extended configuration.
Robinson is silent on the use of a backpack or chair. Carlson teaches a portable backpack and blind system comprising a backpack configuration (Fig. 7) and a blind configuration (Fig. 3), the portable backpack and blind system comprising a backpack (14) and a blind assembly (12), the blind assembly comprising a rotating chair (36 – the chain rotates with the blind) and a camouflage shroud (96) for concealing a user seated on the chair and the blind assembly being convertible between a disassembled, compact configuration (Fig. 7) and an assembled, extended configuration (Fig. 3), wherein, in the backpack configuration, the backpack is configured for encasing and storing therein the blind assembly in the disassembled, compact configuration. 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 device of Robinson by adding backpack as taught by Carlson in order to allow the user to more easily transport the device and to add a seat as taught by Carlson in order to allow the user to relax when in the blind.
Regarding Claim 11, Robinson, as modified, teaches a weighted lower skirt (at 25 at the bottom).
Regarding Claim 12, Robinson, as modified, teaches internal storage pockets (23) positioned on the inside of the blind.
Regarding Claim 15, Robinson, as modified, teaches that the bottom of the blind is open to the ground (the floor panel is only noted as “optional” and can be omitted, thus providing an open bottom).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Duncan, III, Main et al., Mangum, Espenkotter, Price, Ferrier, Cromer, Jr., Hardy, Hulin, and Csajaghy et al. teach suspended tents or blinds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah Chandler Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636