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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claims 1, 17 and 20 are currently amended; claims 2-16 and 18-19 were previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments does not apply to the current rejections necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 recitation of claims 1, 17 and 20 wherein “…each support leg of the four support legs is free of any additional support structures….” Is not supported by the original disclosure to limit the support structure to not have any additional support structure. Furthermore, in light of the drawing elements 112 are attached to the legs and serve as the support structures.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (U.S. Pat. No. 20170231412 A1) in view of Smith (U.S. Pat. No. 5074514).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng ‘412 teaches a tree stand, comprising: a central tree support (102) configured for supporting a base of a real or artificial tree; and
four support legs (104) configured to stabilize the tree stand on a surface, wherein each support leg of the four support legs comprises a single substantially straight cantilevered beam connected to the central tree support at a proximal end portion and extending outward from the central tree support to a distal end portion. However, Cheng ‘412 is silent to disclose the support leg of the four support legs is free of any additional support structure. Smith teaches wherein each support leg (3) is free of any additional support structures.
Cheng and Smith are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Cheng ‘412 having legs as disclosed by Smith. The motivation would have been to simplify the manufacturing of the product. Additionally, it would have been the obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Cheng ‘412 teaches the central tree support comprises a receptacle (receptacle of 102 receiving 200) configured to receive the base of the real or artificial tree.
Regarding claim 3, Cheng ‘412 teaches each of the support legs (104) comprises a round body.
Regarding claim 5, Cheng ‘412 teaches The tree stand of claim 1, wherein the central tree support comprises an upper sleeve (218) and a lower sleeve (106) rotatable relative to the upper sleeve.
Regarding claim 7, Cheng ‘412 teaches a locking mechanism (213) positioned and configured to maintain the upper sleeve and the lower sleeve in an open rotational position relative to each other.
Regarding claim 13, Cheng ‘412 teaches each support leg of the four support legs (104) extends away from the central tree support at an oblique angle.
Regarding claim 14, Cheng ‘412 teaches two upper support legs of the four support legs (104) extend away from the central tree support at a first oblique angle and two lower support legs of the four support legs extend away from the central tree support at a second, different oblique angle.
Regarding claim 15, Cheng ‘412 teaches the distal end portions of the four support legs (104) are substantially positioned in a common plane with each other.
Regarding claim 16, Cheng ‘412 teaches a central foot extending downward from the central tree support and positioned to rest on the surface.
Regarding claim 17, Cheng ‘412 teaches a tree stand, comprising:
a central tree support (100) configured for supporting a base of a real or artificial tree;
four support legs (104) configured to stabilize the tree stand on a surface, wherein each support leg of the four support legs comprises a single substantially straight cantilevered beam welded to the central tree support at a proximal end portion and extending outward from the central tree support to a distal end portion at an oblique angle relative to the central tree support; four end feet respectively coupled to the distal end portions of the four support legs; and a central foot (102) extending downward from the central tree support and positioned to rest on the surface. However, Cheng ‘412 is silent to disclose the support leg of the four support legs is free of any additional support structure. Smith teaches wherein each support leg (3) is free of any additional support structures.
Cheng and Smith are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Cheng ‘412 having legs as disclosed by Smith. The motivation would have been to simplify the manufacturing of the product. Additionally, it would have been the obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 18, Cheng ‘412 teaches each of the support legs (104) comprises a round tubular body.
Alternatively, claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Puleo (U.S. Pat. No. 20090302186 A1) in view of Smith (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20090302186 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Puleo teaches a tree stand, comprising: a central tree support (Fig. 2; 120, 170) configured for supporting a base of a real or artificial tree; and
four support legs (131, 181) configured to stabilize the tree stand on a surface, wherein each support leg of the four support legs comprises a single substantially straight cantilevered beam connected to the central tree support at a proximal end portion and extending outward from the central tree support to a distal end portion. However, Cheng ‘412 is silent to disclose the support leg of the four support legs is free of any additional support structure. Smith teaches wherein each support leg (3) is free of any additional support structures.
Puleo and Smith are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Puleo having legs as disclosed by Smith. The motivation would have been to simplify the manufacturing of the product. Additionally, it would have been the obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Puleo teaches the central tree support comprises a receptacle (receptacle of 120) configured to receive the base of the real or artificial tree.
Regarding claim 3, Puleo teaches each of the support legs (131, 181) comprises a round body.
Regarding claim 4, Puleo teaches the round body comprises a round tubular body [0020].
Regarding claim 6, Puleo teaches the four support legs comprise two upper legs (131) coupled to the upper sleeve and two lower legs (181) coupled to the lower sleeve.
Regarding claim 8, Puleo teaches the proximal end portions of the four support legs (131, 181) are welded to the central tree support [0020].
Regarding claim 9, Puleo teaches the four support legs (131, 181) are welded to the central tree support around substantially an entire circumference of each proximal end portion of the four support legs.
Regarding claim 10, Puleo teaches four end feet (129) respectively coupled to the distal end portions of the four support legs.
Regarding claim 13, Puleo teaches each support leg of the four support legs (131, 181) extends away from the central tree support at an oblique angle.
Regarding claim 15, Puleo teaches the distal end portions of the four support legs (131, 181) are substantially positioned in a common plane with each other.
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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puleo (U.S. Pat. No. 20090302186 A1) in view of Smith (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20090302186 A1) and further in view of Hill (U.S. Pat. No. 9796556 B1).
Regarding claim 11. Puleo teaches the foot. However, Puleo is silent to disclose the foot being polymer. Hill teaches rounded polymer foot (Hill; Col. 6; line 29).
Puleo and Hill are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the stand of Puleo such that each foot of the four end feet comprises a rounded polymer foot. The motivation would have been to avoid abrasion on the surface.
Regarding claim 12. Puleo as modified teaches each rounded polymer foot (Hill; Col. 6; line 29) is positioned at least partially within a respective distal end portion of the support leg.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puleo (U.S. Pat. No. 20090302186 A1) in view of Smith (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20090302186 A1) and further in view of Romolino (U.S. Pat. No. 20100005948 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Puleo teaches the stand. However, Puleo is silent disclose a central foot. Romolino teaches a central foot (Romolino; 114) extending downward from the central tree support and positioned to rest on the surface.
Puleo and Romolino are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Puleo having a central foot. The motivation would have been to provide appropriate grip during the retention.
Regarding claim 17, Puleo teaches a tree stand, comprising:
a central tree support (120, 170) configured for supporting a base of a real or artificial tree;
four support legs (131, 181) configured to stabilize the tree stand on a surface, wherein each support leg of the four support legs comprises a single substantially straight cantilevered beam welded to the central tree support at a proximal end portion and extending outward from the central tree support to a distal end portion at an oblique angle relative to the central tree support [0020];
four end feet (129) respectively coupled to the distal end portions of the four support legs, wherein each support leg of the four support legs is free of any additional support structures.
However, Puleo is silent to disclose the support leg of the four support legs is free of any additional support structure. Smith teaches wherein each support leg (3) is free of any additional support structures.
Puleo and Smith are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Puleo having legs as disclosed by Smith. The motivation would have been to simplify the manufacturing of the product. Additionally, it would have been the obvious matter of design choice.
Furthermore, Puleo is silent disclose a central foot. Romolino teaches a central foot (Romolino; 114) extending downward from the central tree support and positioned to rest on the surface.
Puleo and Romolino are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Puleo having a central foot. The motivation would have been to provide appropriate grip during the retention.
Regarding claim 18, Puleo teaches each of the support legs (104) comprises a round tubular body.
Regarding claim 19, Puleo as modified teaches the four end feet and the central foot are substantially positioned in a common plane with each other.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puleo (U.S. Pat. No. 20090302186 A1) in view of Cheng (U.S. Pat. No. 20170231412 A1) and further in view of Smith (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20090302186 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Puleo teaches a method of forming a tree stand, the method comprising:
securing two upper support legs (131) to an upper sleeve (120) of a central tree support, wherein each of the two upper support legs comprises a single substantially straight cantilevered beam extending away from the upper sleeve at a first oblique angle; and
securing two lower support legs (181) to a lower sleeve of the central tree support, wherein each of the two lower support legs comprises a single substantially straight cantilevered beam extending away from the lower sleeve.
However, Puleo is silent to disclose the lower two legs comprises the cantilevered beam extending away at a second, different oblique angle. Cheng teaches the lower two legs comprises the cantilevered beam extending away at a second, different oblique angle (Cheng; 104 lower).
There are a finite number of choices available to one of ordinary skill in the art for configuring the legs of a stand as evidenced by Cheng and Puleo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Puleo having the legs configuration as disclosed by Cheng. The motivation would have been to make the legs rotatable.
Furthermore, Puleo is silent to disclose the support leg of the four support legs is free of any additional support structure. Smith teaches wherein each support leg (3) is free of any additional support structures.
Puleo and Smith are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Cheng ‘412 having legs as disclosed by Smith. The motivation would have been to simplify the manufacturing of the product. Additionally, it would have been the obvious matter of design choice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 pm.
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 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights