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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2024 and 08/14/2024 was filed is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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, 4, 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smootz (US 3144232A, hereinafter referred to as “Smootz”).
Regarding claim 1, Smootz discloses a holder apparatus (Fig 1, torch holder) comprising: a base stand (Fig 1, base member 14); at least two stabilizing legs (Figs 1 and 2, uprights 16, 18) disposed on a top surface of the base stand (Figs 1 and 2); a holding sleeve (Figs 1-3, collar 10) disposed between the at least two stabilizing legs (Fig 2); a thumbscrew (Figs 1 and 2, butterfly nut 34 or 36) disposed on an outside surface of one of the at least two stabilizing legs (Fig 2); and wherein the holding sleeve (10) is rotatably adjustable relative to the base stand (14, col 2, lines 71-72).
Regarding claim 4, Smootz discloses further comprising a fastening mechanism disposed on the base stand (col 2, lines 63-65: two holes 20 and 22 for fastening the base to a vertical wall or to a flat horizontal surface if desired).
Regarding claim 8, Smootz discloses wherein the holding sleeve is selectively length adjustable (holding sleeve (10) is adjustable via a spring 12 to reduce a slot 44 gap).
Regarding claim 12, Smootz discloses further comprising: wherein the holding sleeve is cylindrical (Figs 1-2, collar is cylindrical); a compression ring (Figs 1-3, spring 12) disposed around the holding sleeve (10); and wherein the compression ring accommodates cylinders of variable diameter (col 2, lines 37-44: assisting in the concentric gripping action of the collar 10 is spring 12, for compressing to contact and hold the cylinder C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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) 2-3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smootz (US 3144232A, hereinafter referred to as “Smootz”) in view of Brushaber (USD306396S, hereinafter referred to as “Brushaber”)
Regarding claim 2, Smootz discloses further comprising: wherein one of the at least two stabilizing legs is a locking leg (col 3, lines 1-2: by virtue of locking using tightening of butterfly nut 34 to clamp the device in selected position, thus the upright 16 serve as a locking leg); an adjustability section disposed coincident with the locking leg, between the holding sleeve and the thumbscrew (Figs 1-2, springs 12, 38, 40 serve as adjustability sections),
However, Smootz alone fails to sufficiently disclose the adjustability section comprising: angle adjustment teeth disposed on an outside surface of the holding sleeve; locking teeth disposed on an inside surface of the locking leg and corresponding to the angle adjustment teeth; wherein the angle adjustment teeth and locking teeth are engageable with each other; wherein the engagement between the adjustment teeth and the locking teeth is capable of being selectively tightened or loosened; wherein the thumbscrew operatively engages the adjustability section to selectively tighten or loosen the engagement between the adjustment teeth and the locking teeth to facilitate angular rotation of the holding sleeve by a set number of degrees; and wherein, when the thumbscrew operatively engages the adjustability section to tighten the engagement between the adjustment teeth and the locking teeth, the orientation of the holding sleeve is fixed relative to the base stand.
However, Brushaber and Smootz combined teach the following: the adjustability section comprising: angle adjustment teeth (Brushaber, see annotated figure A below) disposed on an outside surface of the holding sleeve (see annotated figure A below); locking teeth (see annotated figure A below) disposed on an inside surface of the locking leg (Brushaber, see annotated figure A below; Smootz: col 3, lines 1-2: by virtue of locking using tightening of butterfly nut 34 to clamp the device in selected position, thus the upright 16, 18 serve as locking leg) and corresponding to the angle adjustment teeth (see annotated figure A below); wherein the angle adjustment teeth and locking teeth are engageable with each other (see annotated figure A below); wherein the engagement between the adjustment teeth and the locking teeth is capable of being selectively tightened or loosened (Brushaber, Figs 1, 5 and 6, via nut; page 1, adjustable mooring bracket); wherein the thumbscrew operatively engages the adjustability section to selectively tighten or loosen the engagement between the adjustment teeth and the locking teeth to facilitate angular rotation of the holding sleeve by a set number of degrees (Smootz: butterfly nut 34 can be used with adjustability section of Brushaber); and wherein, when the thumbscrew (Smootz, 34) operatively engages the adjustability section to tighten the engagement between the adjustment teeth and the locking teeth (see annotated figure A below), the orientation of the holding sleeve is fixed relative to the base stand (Smootz: orientation of holding sleeve (10) is fixed relative to base stand (14) in Figs 1 and 3).
Annotated Figure A taken from Brushaber
PNG
media_image1.png
520
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smootz by Brushaber based on the following rationale: Referring to Figs 1, 3 and 4, the tilt angle of the cylinder C with respect to the base 14 is controlled and manipulated by means of the butterfly nut 34 abutting the compression coil spring 38 and the boss 26, but there lacks specific structural elements to make the tilt angle adjustable and fixable at different precise angles interval settings. As a result, one cannot make the tilt angle of the cylinder reproduceable between uses. However, the engageable teeth of Brushaber discussed herein above ensures tilt angle adjustable and fixable at different precise angles interval settings. As a result, above discussed advantages of Brushaber over Smootz thereby serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Smootz by Brushaber. Furthermore, there would have been reasonable expectation of success because both references Smootz and Brushaber belong as analogous art in the field of adjustable tilt angle cylindrical holding sleeve and leg of a holder stand.
Regarding claim 3, Smootz alone fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the engagement between the adjustment teeth and the locking teeth increments the angular rotation by 8 degrees per tooth.
However, modified Brushaber teaches wherein the engagement between the adjustment teeth and the locking teeth increments the angular rotation by 8 degrees per tooth. (Brushaber: Fig 1 shows approximately 17 teeth at 180 degree range, which is equivalent to 10. 6 degrees per tooth, and is substantially close to 8 degrees per tooth, and thus upon further experimentation and optimization, can reach 8 degrees per tooth).
Regarding claim 5, Smootz fails to disclose wherein the fastening mechanism is selected from the group comprising (i) at least one rare earth magnet, (ii) hanger clips, (iii) serrated teeth, (iv) bolts, (v) stakes, (vi) rope eyelets, (vii) hoist rings, and (viii) locking clamps.
However, Brushaber teaches wherein the fastening mechanism is selected from the group comprising (i) at least one rare earth magnet, (ii) hanger clips, (iii) serrated teeth, (iv) bolts, (v) stakes, (vi) rope eyelets, (vii) hoist rings, and (viii) locking clamps.
(Figs 4 and 5, serrated teeth and bolts; note: “selected from the group comprising” in limitation is interpreted as a Markush group, see MPEP 2117 for details. A “Markush” claim recites a list of alternatively useable members. As a result, only one alternative selection member needs to be matched. Meanwhile, at least (iii) serrated teeth, (iv) bolts are taught by Brushaber).
Regarding claim 6, Smootz discloses wherein the fastening mechanism is selectively changeable (Fig 1, due to the shape and structure of the holes 20, 22 being a hanger hole with keyhole, thus permitting fastener attached to be selectively changeable).
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smootz (US 3144232A, hereinafter referred to as “Smootz”) in view of Blast Shield Smith/Sharp flame torch stand with base, product page dated by waybackmachine at web.archive.org to 02/06/2023, (hereinafter referred to as “Blast Shield”).
Regarding claim 7, Smootz fails to disclose wherein the stabilizing legs are selectively length adjustable.
However, Blast Shield and Smootz combined teach wherein the stabilizing legs are selectively length adjustable (Smootz: col 2, lines 46-48: “affixed to the walls of raise portion 24 at points 46 and 48 by welding or other suitable means are two uprights 16 and 18”, thus drawing inference from above passage, by using suitable means for affixing uprights to 24 at points 46, 48 would thereby facilitate selectively length adjustable for the legs (16, 18) by adopting uprights of different lengths; Blast shield page 2, line 6: stand is adjustable in height, Approx. 9” – 13”).
Regarding claim 10, Smootz fails to disclose further comprising: a vibration dampening and anti-slippage rubber cover disposed on the base stand; and wherein the rubber cover is selectively removable.
However, Blast Shield and Smootz combiend teaches further comprising: a vibration dampening and anti-slippage rubber cover disposed on the base stand; and wherein the rubber cover is selectively removable (Blast shield: page 2, line 5 ;base includes rubber feet and mounting holes, to allow for selectively removal of rubber feet, Smootz: Fig 1, base member 14 (base stand)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smootz (US 3144232A, hereinafter referred to as “Smootz”) in view of Hu (USD979377S, hereinafter referred to as “Hu”).
Regarding claim 9, Smootz fails to disclose wherein the holding sleeve and stabilizing legs are made of a material selected from the group comprising (i) polymer, and (ii) composite resin.
However, Hu teaches wherein the holding sleeve and stabilizing legs are made of a material selected from the group comprising (i) polymer, and (ii) composite resin. (Figs 1, structural details of the legs imply of material being injection molded plastic due to the complex rib sections).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smootz by Hu based on the following rationale: Referring to Fig 1 of Smootz, the overall mounting angle of the cylinder C with respect to the base 14 is fixed due to the structures of the legs 16, 18 being directed fixed to the base 14. As a result, one cannot easily rotate or adjust of the entire cylinder C during usage when disposed on the holder stand. However, the bottom pivot fixable locking features of HU facilitate additional overall mounting angle adjustment of the cylinder C with respect to the base. As a result, above discussed advantages of HU over Smootz thereby serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Smootz by HU. Furthermore, there would have been reasonable expectation of success because both references Smootz and HU belong as analogous art in the field of adjustable tilt angle cylindrical holding sleeve and leg of a holder stand.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smootz (US 3144232A, hereinafter referred to as “Smootz”) in view of Gorilla gripper pads youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l96tN_rTh0M “Stop furniture moving & sliding on hard floor surfaces: Gorilla Gripper Pads Protect Floors” (hereinafter referred to as “Gorilla Gripper Pad”).
Regarding claim 11, Smootz fails to disclose further comprising: a serrated cover disposed on the base stand; and wherein the serrated cover is selectively removable.
However, Gorilla gripper pad teaches further comprising: a serrated cover disposed on the base stand; and wherein the serrated cover is selectively removable.
(see annotated screen capture below).
PNG
media_image2.png
881
1229
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smootz (US 3144232A, hereinafter referred to as “Smootz”) in view of Black (US 6568643B2, hereinafter referred to as “Black”).
Regarding claim 14, Smootz fails to disclose further comprising a cover sleeve selectively attachable to the holding sleeve and configured to cover and protect objects placed within the holder apparatus.
However, Black teaches further comprising a cover sleeve selectively attachable to the holding sleeve and configured to cover and protect objects placed within the holder apparatus (Fig 9, strap-like fastener 52 serving as cover sleeve, which can be selectively attachable to holding sleeve (42); col 5, lines 33 – 37, selectively attachable by means of stud 56 inserting into hole 58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smootz by Black based on the following rationale: Referring to Fig 1 of Smootz, the mounting height at the uprights 16, 18 is fixed. As a result, one cannot easily adjust of the mounted height of cylinder C during usage when disposed on the holder stand. However, referring to Black, the height adjustment member and other features as shown in Figs 1, 5 and 7 would facilitate height adjustment of the cylinder C with respect to the base. As a result, above discussed advantages of Black over Smootz thereby serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Smootz by Black. Furthermore, there would have been reasonable expectation of success because both references Smootz and Black belong as analogous art in the field of adjustable tilt angle cylindrical holding sleeve and leg of a holder stand.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smootz (US 3144232A, hereinafter referred to as “Smootz”) in view of Burke (USD932272S1, hereinafter referred to as “Burke”).
Regarding claim 15, Smootz fails to disclose further comprising an accessory attachment.
However, Burke teaches further comprising an accessory attachment (see annotated figure B below)
Annotated Figure B taken from Burke
PNG
media_image3.png
617
954
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smootz (US 3144232A, hereinafter referred to as “Smootz”) in view of Burke (USD932272S1, hereinafter referred to as “Burke”), and further in view of SainSmart youtube video “Magnetic Helping Hands Soldering Station with LED Magnifying Lamp”
dated 11/03/2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=videSNsiVSA (hereinafter referred to as “SainSmart video”).
Regarding claim 16, Smootz and Burke, singularly or in combination, fail to disclose or teach wherein the accessory attachment is selected from the group comprising: (i) a magnification device selectively attachable to the at least two stabilizing legs; (ii) a lighting fixture selectively attachable to the at least two stabilizing legs; and (iii) a soldering iron selectively attachable to the base stand.
However, SainSmart video and Smootz combined teaches wherein the accessory attachment is selected from the group comprising: (i) a magnification device (see annotated video capture below) selectively attachable to the at least two stabilizing legs (Smootz, Fig 1, legs 16, 18; magnetic bottom can be used to adhere to metal legs of Smootz); (ii) a lighting fixture (see annotated video capture below) selectively attachable to the at least two stabilizing legs (Smootz, Fig 1, legs 16, 18; magnetic bottom can be used to adhere to metal legs of Smootz); and (iii) a soldering iron (see annotated video capture below) selectively attachable to the base stand (Smootz, Fig 1, base 14, magnetic bottom can be used to adhere to base 14 of Smootz).
PNG
media_image4.png
841
1186
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable subject matter
Claim 17 is allowable.
Claim 13 is/are 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: Cited prior art including singularly or in any combinations, fails to disclose or teach “snap extrusions disposed on each of the at least two stabilizing legs; snap depressions in the top surface of the base stand, a number of which corresponding to the number of stabilizing leg snap extrusions; wherein the snap extrusions operatively engage the base stand snap depressions; wherein when the snap extrusions operatively engage the base stand snap depressions, the at least two stabilizing legs are affixed to the base stand;……wherein the holding sleeve has ….. a locking half; a support half; wherein the locking half and the support half are configured to fit together to define the holding sleeve; a locking sleeve, configured to enclose a bottom section of the holding sleeve, around both the locking half and support half; wherein the holding sleeve has a cutout” as claimed in claim 13, and “wherein the base stand and the stabilizing legs have a snap-together assembly comprising: snap extrusions disposed on each of the at least two stabilizing legs; snap depressions in the top surface of the base stand, a number of which corresponding to the number of stabilizing leg snap extrusions; wherein the snap extrusions operatively engage the base stand snap depressions; wherein when the snap extrusions operatively engage the base stand snap depressions,……..; wherein the base stand has a center cutout; wherein the holding sleeve …..comprising: a locking half; a support half; wherein the locking half and the support half are configured to fit together to define the holding sleeve; a locking sleeve, configured to enclose a bottom section of the holding sleeve, around both the locking half and support half; wherein the holding sleeve has a cutout” of claim 17. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Buchowicki (US 20200309365A1) disclose a tool for releasably holding a torch. Hagman (US 5957445) discloses an ergonomic workholder with positional control. Zarruq (USD874229S) discloses a bottle holder. Szybura (USD335676) discloses an adjustable holder for a gas torch. Komelon propane torch holder product page on gemplers.com disclose a propane torch holder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am MT--5:00pm MT. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights