This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 18/672,300.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not disclose that the two front supports each having a second arcuate shape bending in an opposite direction of the first arcuate shape in an open position since it appears in figure 7 in the open position, the two front supports second arcuate shape bends in the same direction of the first arcuate shape of the rear support therefore failing to comply with the written description. The front supports and rear support appear to bend in the same direction not opposite directions. The specification does not mention this claimed limitation within the application.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not disclose that the two front supports each having a second arcuate shape bending in an opposite direction of the first arcuate shape in an open position since it appears in figure 7 in the open position, the two front supports second arcuate shape bends in the same direction of the first arcuate shape of the rear support therefore failing to comply with the written description. The front supports and rear support appear to bend in the same direction not opposite directions. The specification does not mention this claimed limitation within the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. (Zheng) WO2017107493.
Zheng discloses:
In regards to claim 1, A banana stand, the stand comprising: a main body (1) having an arcuate shape and a hook at a top end thereof (meets limitation since in deployed position the hook is at top end, see figure below); a rear support (see figure below) having an first arcuate shape and being rear support (2) positioned within a recess (214) in the main body (1) when in a closed position (figure 2); two front supports (front supports 2) each having an second arcuate shape bending in an opposite direction of the first arcuate shape in an open position (since the front supports are curved toward the back of the device while the rear support is curved toward a front of the device therefore being curved in the opposite direction) and being pivotally connected to the main body (1) and positioned on sides of the main body when in the closed position; and an internal gear mechanism (51) connecting the rear support to the two front supports (since the rear support and front supports are connected by extending simultaneously) such that movement of the rear support out of the recess causes the two front supports to rotate about their respective pivotal connections.
In regards claim 3, The banana stand according to claim 1, wherein the internal gear mechanism (51) comprises: a gear head (5121) at one end of the rear support (2), the gear head (5121) having two partial gears (ear on each end of 5121); and a front support partial gear (front support 2 including 5121 found on front 2 not the rear support 2) on each of the two front supports (front support 2, since both the front and rear supports include support partial gears).
In regards claim 5, The banana stand according to claim 1, further comprising a locking mechanism (tripod locking mechanism 54) configured to lock the rear support and front supports in an open or standing position.
In regards claim 6, The banana stand according to claim 5, wherein the locking mechanism (tripod locking mechanism 54) is integrated into the rear support.
In regards to Claim 7, A banana stand comprising: a main body (1) having a arcuate shape and a hook at a top end thereof configured to hold bananas; a rear support (rear element 2) positioned having a first arcuate shape that is within a recess (214) in the main body when in the closed position (see figure 2); at least one front support (front element 2) pivotally connected to the main body (1) having a second arcuate shape bending in an opposite direction of the first arcuate shape in an open position, the at least one front support is positioned on at least one side of the main body when in the closed position (figure 2); and a locking mechanism (54) configured to lock the rear support and the at least one front support in an open or standing position.
In regards to 8, The banana stand of claim 7, further comprising an internal gear mechanism (since the rear support and front supports are connected by extending simultaneously) connecting the rear support (rear side support 2) to the at least one front support such that movement of the rear support out of the recess (214) causes the at least one front support (front side support 2) to rotate about the respective pivotal connections.
In regards to claim 10, The banana stand according to claim 8, wherein the internal gear mechanism comprises: a gear head (511) at one end of the rear support (rear side support ), the gear head having at least one partial gear (on either end of 511); and at least one front support partial gear (front side support 2 gear 511) on the at least one front support (front side support 2).
In regards to Claim 12, The banana stand according to claim 7, wherein the locking mechanism (54) is integrated into the rear support (see specification which states tripod locking mechanism 54 works with rear support 2).
[AltContent: textbox (Top end Hook Configured to hold bananas)][AltContent: textbox (Two front supports front (2) with 2nd arcuate shape being in opposite direction to 1st arcuate shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Open position)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Open position)][AltContent: textbox (Closed position)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Main body 1 is arcuate in shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rear support
Rear with 1st arcuate shape)][AltContent: textbox (Rear support
Rear with arcuate shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Recess 214)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
432
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
398
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
402
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (2nd curve toward the back of device therefore the 2nd curve is bending in an opposite direction than the 1st curve )][AltContent: textbox (1st curve toward front of device )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
432
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that,
Zheng discloses "an aircraft support leg (2), the support leg (2) being movably connected to a main body of an aircraft. The support leg (2) can rotate to at least a first position and a second position. In the first position, an angle is provided between the support leg and the main body of the aircraft, and in the second position, the support leg (2) substantially abuts against the main body of the-5-
aircraft or is at least partly arranged in the main body of the aircraft. Such a support leg is convenient for the storage of the aircraft. Also disclosed are a control method for said support leg and an aircraft having said support leg and a control method for the aircraft" (Zheng Abstract).
Claim 1 has been amended to recite, inter alia, "a rear support having a first arcuate shape and being positioned within a recess in the main body when in a closed position; two front supports each having a second arcuate shape bending in an opposite direction of the first arcuate shape in an open position and being pivotally connected to sides of the main body and positioned on the sides of the main body when in the closed position" (emphasis added). Support for this amendment can be found at least in the present specification 1 [0026] and present FIGs. 1, 3, and 6-10.
Claim 7 is further amended to recite, inter alia, "a main body having an arcuate shape and a hook at a top end thereof configured to hold bananas" emphasis added. Support for this can be found at least in FIG. 10
Zheng does not have "two front supports each having a second arcuate shape bending in an opposite direction of the first arcuate shape in an open position and being pivotally connected to sides of the main body and positioned on the sides of the main body when in the closed position" (emphasis added). Instead, each of the supports extend radially in the same direction. This can be seen at least in figures 1-2 and 4-5 of Zheng. Additionally, Zheng teaches "The cross section of the main body of the aircraft is a symmetrical regular pattern" which further proves the supports are bending in the same direction and-6-
consequently not "bending in an opposite direction." Therefore, Zheng fails to teach or suggest at least "two front supports each having a second arcuate shape bending in an opposite direction of the first arcuate shape in an open position and being pivotally connected to sides of the main body and positioned on the sides of the main body when in the closed position." Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the present rejection.
the examiner’s response is as follows. In regards to claim 1 Zheng discloses, A banana stand, the stand comprising: a main body (1) having an arcuate shape and a hook at a top end thereof (meets limitation since in deployed position the hook is at top end, see figure below); a rear support (see figure below) having an first arcuate shape and being rear support (2) positioned within a recess (214) in the main body (1) when in a closed position (figure 2); two front supports (front supports 2) each having an second arcuate shape bending in an opposite direction of the first arcuate shape in an open position (since the front supports are curved toward the back of the device while the rear support is curved toward a front of the device therefore being curved in the opposite direction) and being pivotally connected to the main body (1), therefore meeting the applicant’s claimed invention. The claim is limiting the bends to how the device is positioned by claiming “in a open position” therefore in an open position the two front supports each having an second arcuate shape bending in an opposite direction of the first arcuate shape in an open position as shown in the figure below.
[AltContent: textbox (Two front supports front (2) with 2nd arcuate shape being in opposite direction to 1st arcuate shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Open position)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Main body 1 is arcuate in shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rear support
Rear with 1st arcuate shape)][AltContent: textbox (Rear support
Rear with arcuate shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Recess 214)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
432
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s arguments that,
For at least the reasons presented above, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patentable over Zheng under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Independent claim 7 includes similar recitations to that of claim 1. Thus, for at least the reasons claim 1 is patentable, claim 7 is likewise patentable over Zheng under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Claims 3-6, 8, 10-12 depend from one of the independent claims 1 or 7. Thus, for at least the stated reasons claims 1 and 7 are patentable, and dependent claims 3-6, 8, 10-12 are likewise patentable over Zheng under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) are respectfully requested.
the examiner’s response is as follows. In regards to claim 7 Zheng discloses , A banana stand comprising: a main body (1) having a arcuate shape and a hook at a top end thereof configured to hold bananas; a rear support (rear element 2) positioned having a first arcuate shape that is within a recess (214) in the main body when in the closed position (see figure 2); at least one front support (front element 2) pivotally connected to the main body (1) having a second arcuate shape bending in an opposite direction of the first arcuate shape in an open position (since the front supports are curved toward the back of the device while the rear support is curved toward a front of the device therefore being curved in the opposite direction), the at least one front support is positioned on at least one side of the main body when in the closed position (figure 2); and a locking mechanism (54) configured to lock the rear support and the at least one front support in an open or standing position.
[AltContent: textbox (Two front supports front (2) with 2nd arcuate shape being in opposite direction to 1st arcuate shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Open position)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Main body 1 is arcuate in shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rear support
Rear with 1st arcuate shape)][AltContent: textbox (Rear support
Rear with arcuate shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Recess 214)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
432
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s arguments that,
Notwithstanding the arguments above, Applicant believes the claims are patentable prior to the amendments.
Applicant believes Examiner applied impermissible double counting of claim elements in the § 102 rejection. Zheng aircraft support 2 cannot be mapped to both "a rear support" and "two front supports" as they are different elements (Office Action, p. 3).
For Examiner's convenience, a recounting of impermissible double counting of claim elements is provided. The MPEP does not give guidance as to what constitutes double counting of claim elements, but case law does. Applicant respectfully notes that the Doctrine of Double Inclusion is not the same as double counting of patent elements, the former relates to 35 U.S.C. § 112, and the latter relates to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. "As a general matter, 'the same structure can satisfy more than one limitation in a patent claim unless the claim specifies otherwise"' (Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd. v. SIMO Holdings Inc., 548 F. Supp. 3d 916, 928 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added)). Further, in a case that has similar technical detail to claim 1, the Federal Circuit held that two elements were distinct and therefore both must be present separately. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1253-54 (Fed. Cir. 2010). "Where a claim lists elements separately, 'the clear implication of the claim language' is that those elements are 'distinct component[s]' of the patented invention. Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404-05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that where a claim provides for two separate elements, a 'second-10-
portion' and a 'return portion,' these two elements 'logically cannot be one and the same')" (Becton, Dickinson, 616 F.3d at 1254).
Elsewhere in Becton, Dickinson the court stated "if [component 1] and [component 2] are one and the same, then [component 1] must be 'connected to' itself and must 'extend between' itself and a mounting means, a physical impossibility. A claim construction that renders asserted claims facially nonsensical 'cannot be correct.' Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc., 440 F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see Bd. of Regents v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (refusing to adopt a claim construction that 'would effect [a] nonsensical result')" (Becton, Dickinson, 616 F.3d at 1255).
Not only federal courts, but also the PTO has recognized this doctrine (in patent prosecution). "Rel[ying] on the same components performing the same tasks to meet two different limitations of claim 1, . . . constitutes impermissible double counting" (Ex Parte Noel Wayne Anderson, No. APPEAL 2014-001139, 2016 WL 3569637, at *4 (P.T.A.B. June 28, 2016)).
the examiner’s response is as follows. The claim recites, “rear support” and “front support” which would indicate a position of the support, “rear support” being located in the rear of the device or behind the first support therefore, in the broadest sense and one skilled in the art would clearly interpret Zheng’s “rear support” positioned in the rear or back of the device would undoubtably be considered as “rear support” and the “front supports” would be considered the front support based on positioning to meet the applicant’s claimed invention.
[AltContent: textbox (Two front supports front (2) with 2nd arcuate shape being in opposite direction to 1st arcuate shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Open position)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Main body 1 is arcuate in shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rear support
Rear with 1st arcuate shape)][AltContent: textbox (Rear support
Rear with arcuate shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Recess 214)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
432
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s arguments that,
Moreover, Examiner alleges that "in this case, Zheng is within the field of the inventor's endeavor since Zheng discloses is a stand including front and rear supports that pivot into and out of their respective slots/recesses within an arcuate main body as is disclosed in the applicant's invention" (Office Action, p. 14). That is not the field of endeavor, but merely a characterization of the claim and prior art.
"When determining whether a prior art reference meets the 'same field of endeavor' test for the analogous art, the primary focus is on what the reference discloses. [citation omitted] The examiner must consider the disclosure of each reference 'in view of the "the reality of the circumstances.""' (MPEP 2141.01(a)(l)) (emphasis added).
The reality of the circumstances would not state that "an aircraft support leg,""housing with means for securing the device to the bottom end of an elongated object such as an umbrella," and "a bracket which enables an umbrella, cane, fishing rod or other elongated object to be stored in an automobile" are related to a "banana stand" when applying "common sense likely to be exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art in assessing the scope of the endeavor." [citation omitted]" (Zheng; Stromberg; Zibell; present application; MPEP 2141.01(a)(I))).
In response to applicant's argument that, Zheng is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Zheng is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor and pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned since Zheng discloses a stand including front and rear supports that pivot into and out of their respective slots/recesses within an arcuate main body as is disclosed in the applicant’s invention. In addition Zheng is within the endeavor of the applicant’s field since the device may be used for supporting or holding articles (such as bananas) to be transported from location to location as is known for drone type/aircrafts type device to carry or support articles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claim 4, the closest prior art Zheng does not disclose wherein the two partial gears of the gear head mesh with the front support partial gear on each of the two front supports such that pivotal movement of the front supports is limited by the rotation of the rear support.
In regards to claim 11, the closest prior art Zheng wherein the at least one partial gear of the gear head meshes with the at least one front support partial gear such that pivotal movement of the at least one front support is controlled by the pivoting of the rear support out of the recess of the main body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights