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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-4 are pending and have been examined in this application. Claim 1 is amended, claims 2-4 are original, claims 5-8 are canceled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
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) 1-2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20130068171 A1) to Lee in view of (US 6443319 B1) to Sander.
In regards to claim 1, Lee teaches a cat tree structure, comprising: a horizontal plate (Lee; plurality of front plates such as L1, L2 in the annotated drawings below, on the front of back plate 20), wherein the horizontal plate has an upper edge (Lee; each slot 201 being an upper edge of a horizontal plate at the front of 20), a front side surface and a rear side surface disposed opposite to the front side surface (Lee; a front and back of the forward plate on 20, see FIG 6, where the front and back are opposed, see annotated front L1 and back any of L2 below); and a jumping table disposed on the horizontal plate (Lee; see FIG 2, any of 30, 40, 50 providing a jumping table on which an animal may jump), and having at least one hook structure (Lee; 21, 22, or 23) and a carrying structure (Lee; such as any of 30, 40, 50), wherein the hook structure has a main portion (Lee; on 21: 210, 211; on 22: 221, 220; on 23: 231) and an extension portion (Lee; on 21: 212; on 22: 222; on 23: 230), the extension portion is connected at a side of the main portion (Lee; see FIG 3 where each of the extension portions are connected to a side of the main portions), the main portion is disposed on the horizontal plate and is directly contacted with and directly fixed at the upper edge (Lee; see annotated FIG 6 below, where the main portion of 22 which is 221, 220 is fixed at the upper edge of the plate at L3), the front side surface and the rear side surface (Lee; see FIGs 3-7 where the main portions of the hooks are fixed at the upper edges of the plate), the carrying structure is disposed on the extension portion (Lee; see FIGs 5-7 where the carrying structures 30, 40, 50 are disposed on the extension portions to be held on the plates of 20);
wherein the upper edge is located on a top of the horizontal plate (Lee; the upper edge at L3 is located at a top of the horizontal plate with L1, L2), a terminal of the main portion is extended to the front side surface and located at an outer side of the front side surface (Lee; where main portion is 221, 220 has a terminal end which is extended to the front side surface L1 and located at an outer side of the front side surface L1), another terminal of the main portion is extended to an outer side of the rear side surface and located at the outer side of the rear side surface (Lee; the terminal end of the main portion at L5 extends to an outer side of the rear side surface of L2 and is located at the outer side of the rear side surface of L2, see where annotated L5 hooks over and terminates such that it is located at an outer side surface L2), and a middle portion of the main portion is located at an outer side of the upper edge (Lee; see FIG 6 where the middle portion of the main portion 221, 220 is located at an outer side of the upper edge at L3).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
552
407
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
940
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee fails to teach a pair of vertical rods, and where the horizontal plate is disposed between the pair of vertical rods.
Sander teaches a pair of vertical rods (Sander; each of 9), and where the horizontal plate (Sander; each of 3) is disposed between the pair of vertical rods (Sander; see FIG 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
502
401
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee and Sander are analogous art from similar fields of endeavor i.e. shelving systems.
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 Lee such that it is mounted with a pair of vertical rods, such as taught by Sander. The motivation for doing so would be to allow the user the ability to place the shelving systems without requiring drilling into walls, providing more flexibility of use for users.
In regards to claim 2, Lee as modified by Sander teach the cat tree structure according to claim 1, wherein the extension portion is perpendicular to the front side surface of the horizontal plate, the carrying structure is a flat plate, and the flat plate is a rectangle or a semicircle (Lee; see FIG 6 where the upper surface of 22, 222 is perpendicular to L1, 30 being a flat plate, and having a rectangular shape as seen in FIGs 2 or 6).
PNG
media_image5.png
609
412
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Lee as modified by Sander teach the cat tree structure according to claim 2, wherein the shape of the extension portion is a triangle, a width of the triangle is gradually narrow from a side near to the main portion to a front side (Lee; see where 222 is a triangle prism shape, and has a triangular cross section in FIGs 3 and 6, where the triangle narrows from a side nearest the main portion 220, 221 towards a front side of 22, see FIGs 3 and 6.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20130068171 A1) to Lee as modified by (US 6443319 B1) to Sander as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of (US 20210400914 A1) to Wilson.
In regards to claim 3, Lee as modified by Sander teach the cat tree structure according to claim 1, wherein the extension portion is parallel with the front side surface of the horizontal plate (Lee; as in the case of 21, 23, with an extension portion at 212, 230 which is parallel with the front surface L1, see FIGs 5 and 6), the carrying structure includes a vertical plate (Lee; such as in FIG 6, 500 vertical plate), the vertical plate is fixed to the extension portion (Lee; see FIG 7 where 500 is attached to 23 and 21).
Lee as modified by Sander fail to teach a hemp-rope column, and the hemp-rope column is fixed to the vertical plate.
Wilson teaches a hemp-rope column; (Wilson; scratch post 112, made of rope composed of natural fibrous materials such as hemp [0029]), and the hemp-rope column is fixed to the vertical plate (Wilson; fixed to a vertical plate 104, 208 via screw 216, see FIG 2B; see also [0022] which discusses mounting mechanisms to the plate 104).
PNG
media_image6.png
516
679
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Lee and Wilson are analogous art from similar fields of endeavor i.e. cat climbing structures mounted to vertical surfaces.
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 Lee as modified by Sander such that one of the accessories mountable to the plate is a hemp-rope column fixed to a vertical plate, such as taught by Wilson. The motivation for doing so would be to provide additional accessories for a cat to play on and with, such as scratch posts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claim language is not taught by Lee, and argues that Lee teaches a slot structure with upper and lower stoppers engaging a trough, and that Lee’s hooks are not directly contacted nor fixed to the back L2 of the back plate 20.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the updated interpretation and clarifying annotated drawings in the rejection above. Lee’s horizontal plates are interpreted to be each of the plates at L1 on backplate 20, which are divided by each of 200. These horizontal plates each have upper edges and front and rear surfaces which are engaged with the hooks as-claimed.
The rear surface of the horizontal plate L2 can thus be interpreted as what is annotated in FIG 6, where L2 is the rear surface at the uppermost edge L3 on the horizontal plate, and where a part of the main portion at L5 terminates on a back surface of the horizontal plate. Lee’s invention has hooks which engage with both an outer front and an outer back surface of a horizontal plate, as well as a middle portion which engages with an uppermost edge of said plate. It is thus asserted that Lee still teaches the claims as written, as the horizontal plate structure of the claims is not defined to exclude the interpretation of Lee.
PNG
media_image3.png
940
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Lee combined with sander would prevent Lee from easily inserting its hooks to engage the troughs from the side, and that the combination would change the original operation principle of Lee.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sander does not teach completely blocking off access to a storage system from a side, and therefore there is no suggestion that Sander would necessarily prevent Lee’s hooks from engaging with the troughs from its side. Sander is introduced to teach the vertical rods with horizontal plates disposed between the pair of vertical rods in order to position shelving systems in any orientation or location without requiring drilling into walls. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the functionality and flexibility of Sander’s vertical posts with the system of Lee in order to provide flexibility of use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180035801 A1 to Kunsch teaches a horizontal plate between two vertical panels, with a hook that has a main portion which has a terminal end on a front outer side of the horizontal plate, a terminal end on an outer back side of the horizontal plate, and a middle portion that is engaged with an upper edge of a horizontal plate.
US 20100044328 A1 to Barkdoll teaches in FIG 7 where a horizontal plate has a front and rear with a hook that has two terminal ends on the front and back, with a middle portion that extends over an upper edge. Barkdoll also teaches where these extend between vertical posts.
US 6378828 B1 to Valiulis teaches a horizontal plate 71 with a front and rear surface, the horizontal plate extending between vertical posts 92, a hooked structure with two terminal ends on front and rear surfaces of the horizontal plate, a middle portion of the hook which engages with an upper edge of the plate.
US 5439120 A to Brozak teaches a horizontal plate 12 with front and rear surfaces, a hook 30 which has terminal ends on either side of the front and rear surfaces and a middle portion on an upper edge of the plate.
US 4671002 A to Fast teaches a plurality of horizontal plates with front and rear surfaces, a hook 20 with terminal ends which engage with front and rear surfaces of the plate, where there is a middle portion that engages with an uppermost edge of the plate.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATELYN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8-6.
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, KIMBERLY BERONA can be reached on (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KATELYN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647