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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,794,889 to Tamllos (Tamllos).
PNG
media_image1.png
766
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Tamllos discloses a height-adjustable shooting sticks, comprising: a first leg (See Annotated Fig. A) pivotably coupled to a second leg (See Annotated Fig. A); a center column (See Annotated Fig. A) coupled to the first and second leg; and a yoke (See Annotated Fig. A) coupled to a top end of the center column; wherein the center column is vertically adjustable in relation to the first and second legs.
Regarding Claim 2: Tamllos discloses a height-adjustable shooting sticks of claim 1, wherein the first leg is pivotably coupled to the second leg via an assembly collar (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 3: Tamllos discloses a height-adjustable shooting sticks of claim 2, wherein the center column (See Annotated Fig. A) is coupled to the first and second legs (See Annotated Fig. A) via the assembly collar (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 4: Tamllos discloses a height-adjustable shooting sticks of claim 3, wherein the assembly collar comprises a lock (See Annotated Fig. A) configured to secure the position of the center column in relation to the assembly collar and first and second legs.
Regarding Claim 5: Tamllos discloses a height-adjustable shooting sticks of claim 1, wherein the first leg and second leg (See Annotated Fig. A) each comprise at least one leg segment (See Annotated Fig. A) configured to be telescopic in relation to the first and second leg, respectively.
Regarding Claim 6: Tamllos discloses a height-adjustable shooting sticks of claim 5, wherein the first and second leg each comprise at least one leg lock (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 9: Tamllos discloses a height-adjustable shooting sticks of claim 1, wherein the yoke (See Annotated Fig. A) is configured to freely rotate in relation to the assembly collar (See Annotated Fig. A).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamllos in view of US Patent No. 11,988,322 to Hourigan (Hourigan).
Regarding Claim 7: Tamllos does not disclose wherein the center column comprises a counterweight hook. However, Hourigan teaches a center column (112b) comprising a counterweight hook (112c). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tamllos by using a counterweight hook similar to that taught by Hourigan to provide additional stability (See Col. 4, lines 49-53).
Regarding Claims 8 and 14: Tamllos does not disclose that the legs are pivotable to a range of zero to ninety degrees. However, Hourigan teaches legs that are pivotable from zero degrees (See Figure 2) to ninety degrees (See Figure 8 – note the gears 802) using the gears (802) that provide gears for a range of rotation from zero to ninety. The locking gears (802) provide incremental positions ranging from zero to ninety.
Regarding Claim 10: Tamllos discloses a height-adjustable shooting sticks, comprising: a first leg (See Annotated Fig. A) pivotably coupled to a second leg (See Annotated Fig. A) via an assembly collar (See Annotated Fig. A), the first and second leg each comprising at least one leg segment (See Annotated Fig. A) configured to be telescopic in relation to the first and second leg, respectively; a center column (See Annotated Fig. A) slidably received through the assembly collar . . . a lock (See Annotated Fig. A) configured to secure the vertical position of the center column in relation to the assembly collar; a yoke (See Annotated Fig. A) coupled to a top end of the center column, the yoke configured to rotate in relation to the assembly collar; and a quick release mounting bracket (See Annotated Fig. A) for coupling the yoke to the center column.
Tamllos does not disclose wherein the center column comprises a counterweight hook; however, Hourigan teaches such a counterweight hook, which would have been obvious for the same reasons discussed in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 11: Tamllos discloses a height-adjustable shooting sticks of claim 10, wherein the first and second legs each comprise a foot (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 12: Neither Tamllos nor Hourigan disclose or teach a yoke comprise a V-shape but rather Tamllos discloses a U-shaped yoke. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the yoke shape to be a V shape. Here's why:
First, Courts have held that changes in shape normally require only routine skill in the art and are therefore considered routine expedients unless the Applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation.1 With regards to a specific shape or configuration of the claimed invention, courts have held that “the configuration of the claimed [device] was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed [device] was significant.”2 In the instant application, Applicant discloses that the yoke may have a V or U shape or a flat surface. (See para 0039 of specification) This disclosure does not demonstrate that the V shaped yoke is critical but rather demonstrates the yoke can be many different shapes and sizes and therefore the shape is not critical. As a result, Examiner can rely solely on case law as the rational to support an obviousness rejection.3
In Tamllos the yoke is U shaped. It would have been obvious at a time before the effective date of the current application for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the yoke of Tamllos to be V shaped, which would provide another cradle shape option for a user depending on their particular preference. Moreover, doing so would not have unexpected results or change the functionality of the device.
Regarding Claim 13: Tamllos discloses a height-adjustable shooting sticks of claim 10, wherein the yoke comprises a non-slip surface (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding method Claim 15: In view of the structure disclosed and taught by Tamllos in view of Hourigan, the method of operating the device would have been obvious and implicitly taught, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the device could be used. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill and/or implicitly taught by the prior art reference at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention. When the prior art device is arguably the same as the claimed invention it can be assumed the device will implicitly perform the claimed process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 9151562, 6044747.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
1 See MPEP 2144.04.
2 See MPEP 2144.04(B)
3 See MPEP 2144.04.