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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 24 May 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 202421157492.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner notes that this deficiency was previously noted in the Office Action mailed 16 June 2026; however, it has not been addressed by Applicant.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5 and 9-14 are pending in the application.
In Applicant’s response filed 14 September 2026, claims 1, 4-5, and 9-14 were amended; and claims 6-8 were canceled. These amendments have been entered.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Language
From the outset, it should be noted that some of the language in the claims is functional in nature. For example, in claims 9-14 the language related to “reptiles” is functional in nature and limited patentable weight is given to this section of the claim. Additionally, Examiner notes that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does and thus, a prior art device must only be capable of performing the stated function in order to read on the functional limitation. In this instance, the prior art discloses every structural limitation of the claim and thus this limitation fails to distinguish the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. Please see MPEP 2114.
[Examiner notes that this section of the Office Action does not constitute a rejection or objection, but is merely meant to indicate the manner in which the claims have been interpreted by the Examiner.]
Claim Objections
Claims 9-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
Re Claims 9-13: In line 2 of each of these claims “a upright rod” should be replaced with --an upright rod--.
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 1-5, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US Patent 6,969,211) in view of Comens (GB 1515297).
Re Claim 1: Re Claim 1: Altman discloses a triaxial connection structure (see Figs. 1-19), comprising:
a connection body (40),
an X-axis connection part (connector end 50 attached at the connector slot 120), arranged in an X direction (see annotated Figs. 4 and 19 below) of the connection body (40) and used for being fittingly engaged to a horizontal rod (320; see Fig. 19);
a Y-axis connection part (connector end 50 attached at the connector slot 120), arranged in a Y direction (see annotated Figs. 4 and 19 below) of the connection body (40) and used for being fittingly engaged to a vertical rod (320; see Fig. 19); and
an expansion connection part (140), arranged in a Z direction (see annotated Figs. 4 and 17 below) of the connection body (40) and used to cooperate with a radial force-applying component (60) to achieve a friction locking connection with an inner tube wall of an upright rod (320; see Figs. 17 and 18) having a tubular end;
wherein at least one of the X-axis connection part and the Y-axis connection part (connector ends 50 attached at the connector slots 120) is an insertion protrusion formed by protruding outward from the connection body (40; see Fig. 19), and a free end of the insertion protrusion has a guiding chamfer (at 200);
wherein at least one of the X-axis connection part and the Y-axis connection part (connector ends 50 attached at the connector slots 120) has slots (see annotated Figs. 6 and 7 and enlarged portion of Fig. 6 below) that are spaced apart from each other along an axial direction;
wherein the slots are collectively disposed on a surface (see annotated enlarged portion of Fig. 6 below) of the X-axis connection part and/or the Y-axis connection part.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
346
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
300
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
472
539
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Altman fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the X-axis connection part and the Y-axis connection part has reinforcing ribs arranged axially on a side away from the slots.
Comens teaches the use of a triaxial connection structure (see Figs. 6 and 9, for example), comprising a connection body (15; Fig. 9), an X-axis connection part (10); a Y-axis connection part (10); and an expansion connection part (10) used to cooperate with a radial force-applying component (41) to achieve a friction locking connection with an inner tube wall of an upright rod (19); and further wherein at least one of the X-axis connection part and the Y-axis connection part (10) has reinforcing ribs (28; Fig. 6) arranged axially on a side (for example, the right-hand side, near flange 14, in Fig. 6) away from slots (25, formed on the left-hand side, distal from flange 14, in Fig. 6) formed thereon, for the purpose of ensuring a tight connection with a tube (17).
PNG
media_image5.png
540
380
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 device of Altman, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that at least one of the X-axis connection part and the Y-axis connection part has reinforcing ribs arranged axially on a side away from the slots, as taught by Comens, for the purpose of ensuring a tight connection with a tube.
Re Claim 2: Altman further discloses a triaxial connection structure (see Figs. 1-19), wherein the connection body (40) is provided with a through hole (130; Fig. 5) along the Z direction; wherein the expansion connection part (140) is an expansion sleeve (140) coaxially arranged with the through hole and has an inner hole with a taper (170); wherein the radial force-applying component is a screw (310; Fig. 16) passing through the through hole, and a nut (60) is threadedly connected to the screw 310) and relatively fixed by an inner circumference of the expansion sleeve (140) in a rotation direction, and used for expanding or contracting the expansion sleeve (140) during movement along a Z axis.
Re Claim 3: Altman further discloses a triaxial connection structure (see Figs. 1-19), wherein a tube wall of the expansion sleeve (140) has axial notches (see annotated Fig. 16 above) that are spaced apart from each other, and an inner diameter (at 170; Fig. 5) of the expansion sleeve (140) gradually increases from a connecting end to a free end; wherein the nut (60) has an outer circumferential wall with a taper matching the inner diameter (at 170) of the expansion sleeve (140) to expand the expansion sleeve (140) during downward movement along the Z axis and contract the expansion sleeve (140) during upward movement along the Z axis.
Re Claim 4: Altman further discloses a triaxial connection structure (see Figs. 1-19), wherein the expansion sleeve (140) is in the form of a square tube (see Fig. 16), the through hole (130 in combination with countersunk fastener aperture 260 of connector cap 70; Examiner notes that the connector cap 70 along with the connector body 40 can be considered the “connection body”) is a stepped hole (specifically at countersunk fastener aperture 260), and the expansion sleeve (140) is arranged on a smaller-diameter side (i.e. the left-hand side in Fig. 17) of the stepped hole (the smaller-diameter being that of the minimum diameter of the countersunk fastener aperture 260).
Re Claim 5: Altman further discloses a triaxial connection structure (see Figs. 1-19), wherein a plug hole (countersunk fastener aperture 260) is coaxially provided on a side of the stepped hole away from the expansion sleeve (140).
Re Claims 9-12: Altman further discloses a reptile (see note above related to this functional element) box frame (see for example, 10, 20, 30; Figs. 1-3), comprising a horizontal rod (320), a vertical rod (320), an upright rod (320), the triaxial connection structure as claimed in claims 1-4 (see rejections of these claims above), and a radial force-applying component (60) matching the triaxial connection structure, wherein two ends of the horizontal rod (320) are respectively connected to the X-axis connection parts (50) of adjacent triaxial connection structures, two ends of the vertical rod (320) are respectively connected to the Y-axis connection parts (50) of adjacent triaxial connection structures, and two ends of the upright rod (320) are respectively connected to the expansion connection parts (140) of adjacent triaxial connection structures in cooperation with the radial force-applying component (60).
Re Claim 14: Altman further discloses a reptile (see note above related to this functional element) frame (see for example, 10, 20, 30; Figs. 1-3), comprising the reptile box frame as claimed in claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Applicant has argued that Altman fails to disclose slots that are “disposed on a surface of the X-axis connection part and/or the Y-axis connection part”, as is now recited in amended claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Applicant has specifically asserted that the “slots” shown in annotated Figs. 6 and 7 above are formed on the “expansion connection portion” rather than the “X-axis connection part and/or the Y-axis connection part”. However, Examiner notes that the x-axis/Y-axis connection parts of Altman are considered the connector ends (50) that are attached at each connector slot (120) and the “expansion connection portion” is considered the deflectable legs (140) of the connector body (40). Figs. 6 and 7 depict the connector ends (50), not the deflectable legs (140) or the connector body (40). As can be clearly seen in Figs. 6 and 7 (shown even more clearly in the enlarged portion of Fig. 6 shown in the rejection above), the connector ends (50) each have slots formed within the prongs (200). These prongs (200) clearly form a “surface” of the x-axis/Y-axis connection parts (50). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the slots of Altman have a different function than the slots of the instant application, Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW R MCMAHON whose telephone number is (571)270-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571) 270-5281. 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.
/MATTHEW R MCMAHON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
