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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-29 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 02/24/2025 has/have been taken into account.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 11/13/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202311514390.X application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “unfold and fold mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 20-21, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stromberg (US 3,392,946) in view of Kao (US 5,527,010).
In regards to Claim 1, Stromberg discloses a foldable support device, comprising: a support seat (Stromberg: Fig. 2, 5-6; 31) provided with an accommodating cavity (Stromberg: Fig. 2, 6; 42, 43) and a mounting portion (Stromberg: Fig. 2, 5-6; 39) configured to mount a supported object, the accommodating cavity extending along a direction parallel to a first direction, an outer side surface of the support seat being provided with a pivot portion (Stromberg: Fig. 2, 6; 53, 55-56); a support (Stromberg: Fig. 2, 5-6; 37) pivotally connected to the pivot portion and having an unfold position and a fold position; and an unfold and fold mechanism (Stromberg: Fig. 2, 5-6; 34-35) drivingly connected to the support, the unfold and fold mechanism being at least partially accommodated in the accommodating cavity and being movable along the first direction, wherein the unfold and fold mechanism is capable of switching between a first state and a second state to drive the support to switch between the unfold position and the fold position, when the unfold and fold mechanism is in the first state, the support is held at the unfold position, and when the unfold and fold mechanism is in the second state, the support is held at the fold position (Stromberg: Col. 6, Ln. 5-45).
Stromberg fails to disclose a support assembly. However, Kao teaches a support assembly (Kao: Fig. 3c; 12, 16, 18) pivotally connected to a pivot portion (Kao: Fig. 3c; 9).
Stromberg and Kao are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. support stands. 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 supports in Stromberg with the assembled ends from Kao, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a support with a detachable foot for engaging with the ground that can be push fit into the leg (Kao: Col. 3, Ln. 4-5; Ln. 47-48), thereby enabling replacement of the portion most likely to be damaged during use.
In regards to Claim 20, Stromberg, as modified, teaches the support device according to claim 1, wherein the unfold and fold mechanism comprises: a movable seat (Stromberg: Fig. 2, 5-6; 34) at least partially accommodated in the accommodating cavity and movable along a direction parallel to the first direction relative to the support seat, the movable seat being provided with a plurality of first meshing teeth (Stromberg: Fig. 2, 5-6; 62), the support assembly is provided with a plurality of second meshing teeth (Stromberg: Fig. 2, 5-6; 57), and the support seat is provided with a meshing hole (Stromberg: Fig. 6; 63), the meshing hole passing through a side wall of the accommodating cavity, and when the movable seat moves along the direction parallel to the first direction relative to the support seat, the first meshing teeth are capable of meshing with the second meshing teeth through the meshing hole to drive the support assembly to pivot between the unfold position and the fold position.
In regards to Claim 21, Stromberg, as modified, teaches the support device according to claim 20, wherein the plurality of first meshing teeth (Stromberg: Fig. 2, 5-6; 62) are distributed on an outer side surface of the movable seat along a direction parallel to the first direction.
In regards to Claim 27, Stromberg, as modified, teaches the support device according to claim 1, further comprising: a second support assembly (Stromberg: Fig. 2, 5-6; 37), wherein the support seat includes at least two pivot portions (Stromberg: Fig. 2, 6; 53, 55-56), and the support assemblies are respectively pivotally connected to the at least two pivot portions.
Claims 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stromberg (US 3,392,946) in view of Kao (US 5,527,010) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Lindsay (US 5,823,491).
In regards to Claim 22, Stromberg, as modified, teaches the support device according to claim 20, but fails to disclose that the support assembly comprises: a gear plate provided with the plurality of second meshing teeth and pivotally connected to the pivot portion, the plurality of second meshing teeth meshing with the plurality of first meshing teeth; and a support body connected to the gear plate.
However, Lindsay teaches a support assembly (Lindsay: Fig. 1; 11, 15, 18-19) that comprises: a gear plate (Lindsay: Fig. 1; 19) provided with the plurality of second meshing teeth and pivotally connected to a pivot portion (Lindsay: Fig. 1; 12, 13), the plurality of second meshing teeth meshing with the plurality of first meshing teeth; and a support body (Lindsay: Fig. 1; 11) connected to the gear plate.
Stromberg and Lindsay are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. support stands. 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 support and pivot portion connection in Stromberg with the connection from Lindsay, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a rotational connection that secures the support assemblies to the seat via spindles (Lindsay: Col. 3, Ln. 4-17), thereby helping to prevent unwanted detachment of an assembly.
In regards to Claim 23, Stromberg, as modified, teaches the support device according to claim 22, wherein the pivot portion is provided with a retaining groove (Stromberg: Fig. 2, 6; 55), the retaining groove being in communication with the meshing hole (Stromberg: Fig. 6; 63), and at least part of the gear plate (Lindsay: Fig. 1; 19) is accommodated in the retaining groove and is pivotally connected to the pivot portion.
In regards to Claim 24, Stromberg, as modified, teaches the support device according to claim 23, wherein the pivot portion is provided with a decorative member (Stromberg: Fig. 5; 31); one of the decorative member and the support body is provided with an engaging protrusion (Stromberg: Fig. 5; 59), and the other of the decorative member and the support body is provided with an engaging recess (Stromberg: Fig. 5; 53 – upper end in 31), and when the support assembly is at the fold position, the engaging protrusion is engaged with the engaging recess (Stromberg: Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 25, Stromberg, as modified, teaches the support device according to claim 24, wherein the pivot portion is provided with a first pivot limiting portion (Stromberg: Annotated Fig. 2; L1), and when the support assembly is at the unfold position, at least part of the support assembly abuts against the first pivot limiting portion, and the decorative member is provided with a second pivot limiting portion (Stromberg: Annotated Fig. 2; L2), and when the support assembly is at the fold position, at least part of the support assembly abuts against the second pivot limiting portion.
In regards to Claim 26, Stromberg, as modified, teaches the support device according to claim 22, wherein the support assembly further comprises a pad (Kao: Fig. 3c; 18) having a support surface, the pad being detachably arranged at an end of the support body away from the gear plate (Lindsay: Fig. 1; 19).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stromberg (US 3,392,946) in view of Kao (US 5,527,010) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Graves (US 5,482,245).
In regards to Claim 28, Stromberg, as modified, teaches the support device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose an artificial tree, comprising a tree body, wherein the tree body serves as the supported object and is mounted on the mounting portion.
However, Graves teaches an artificial tree, comprising a tree body, wherein the tree body serves as the supported object and is mounted on a mounting portion (Graves: Fig. 7; 82, 84).
Stromberg and Graves are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. support stands. 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 supported object in Stromberg to be an artificial tree as taught by Graves, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a support that can be utilized to support any type of longitudinal pole structure, thereby expanding its utility (Graves: Col. 2, Ln. 62-67; Col. 6, Ln. 5-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-19 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.
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
698
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Stromberg; Fig. 2
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights