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 Species A1, B1, and C2, Claims 1-6 and 11-13, in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species A2, B2, and C1, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/06/2026.
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
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.
Claim 1-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu (GB 1169503 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Lu teaches a branch structure comprising a branch body (Item 18) and a hook mounted on the branch body (Item 42), the hook having a bent portion, where the bent portion is facing the branch body and configured to support a to-be-placed object (Item 44)
Regarding Claim 2, Lu teaches the hook comprises a first rod body and a second rod body connected to each other, a first end of the first rod body is connected to the branch body, a first end of the second rod body is arranged at angle with the first rod body to from the bent portion, and the bent portion and the branch body form a limiting groove surrounded by the bent portion and the branch body (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Lu teaches the second rod body is arranged obliquely relative to an axial direction of the branch body, a second end of the second rod body is closer to the branch body than the first end of the second rod body, and there is a gap between the second end of the second rod body and the branch body to form an access port, the access port being communicated with the limiting groove. (Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 13, Lu teaches a decorative tree comprising the branch structure of Claim 1. (Fig. 1 and 2).
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Hu (US 2021/0095814 A1)
Regarding Claim 4, Lu does not specificality teach the second end of the second rod body is provided with a limiting protrusion, the limiting protrusion being configured to limit the to-be-placed object to be separated from the limiting groove along the second end of the second rod body.
Hu teaches a hook for holding ornaments (Abstract; Paragraph 0002), where the second end of the second rod body is provided with a limiting protrusion, a limiting ball, the limiting protrusion being configured to limit the to-be-placed object to be separated from the limiting groove along the second end of the second rod body. (Item 31; Claim 5 of Hu). Hu teaches this limits the ornaments, prevents the ornament form sliding off (Paragraph 0025). Thus, it would have bene obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply the claimed limiting protrusion as taught by Hu to limit ornaments and prevent them from sliding off the hook of Lu.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of placing a limiting ball on the second end of the second body as taught by Lu and Hu would have the limiting protrusion extend towards the branch body.
Regarding Claim 6, Lu teaches the first and second rod body are integrally formed. (Fig. 2) Hu teaches first rood body, the second rod body and the limiting protrusion are integrally formed, as Hu does not teach the limiting protrusion is removable (Fig. 1-2) In addition, making the limiting protrusion integral to the rod bodies would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, as making something integral is considered obvious. The use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. (MPEP §2144.04(V)(B).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu.
Regarding Claim 11, Lu does not specifically teach the hook is integrally formed on the branch body. Lu does not teach the hook is removable; therefore, it can be assumed the hook is now integral. (Fig. 2). In addition, making the hook integral to the branch body would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, as making something integral is considered obvious. The use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. (MPEP §2144.04(V)(B).
Regarding Claim 12, Lu teaches the branch body is provided with needles and each of the needles has a length of L1 (Item 20) and the hook has a length of L2 along the first direction, and the first direction is perpendicular to the axial direction of the branch body. Lu does not specifically teach that L2 is greater than L1. However, the figures show the needles are covering the hook (Fig. 1-3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to interpret the Figures in showing the needles longer than the hook, thus having L2 being greater than L1.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights