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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action for application #18/808164, Flag Stand Device, filed 8/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character "120" has been used to designate the bottom surface, but appears to be pointing to the side surface in Figure 2 that was previously designated as “112”.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the concrete site fastener or gravesite fastener must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Numeral “122” was used in the specification to define the concrete fastener. However, Figure 2 is the only figure with this numeral, and it appears to be pointing to the bottom surface. There is no concrete fastener depicted in any of the figures and therefore should be deleted from the claims (1, 4, 8, 11, 14, 17), since the addition of the concrete fastener to the drawings would be new matter since the size, shape, and specific location thereof on the bottom surface was not disclosed in enough detail to be able to add it to the drawings.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 198.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 4, method step “208” indicates “adjusting” the light. However, there is no adjustment taught in the specification. The specification discloses “actuating” the light either by button or sensor.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
-Both a “body” and a “base” are claimed. However, neither the specification or drawings teach a base in addition to the body. They are the same element. Therefore, this is unclear.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 14, and 17:
-These claims claim the concrete site fastener (or gravesite fastener) that was not depicted in the drawings. Additionally, positive reference to the concrete site or gravestone site is indefinite since the concrete site/gravestone site is not positively claimed. Any reference thereto should only be functionally claimed.
Regarding Claim 11:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the concrete site” or “the concrete site fastener”.
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 of this title, 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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,588,630 (Chen-Chao), in view of US 8,585,231 (May), and further in view of US 2003/0221377 to Crawford et al. (hereinafter ‘Crawford’).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Chen-Chao teaches a concrete site flag securing device comprising:
a flag supporting portion (1) having a body (20), a base (3), a concrete site fastener (screws that pass through 25), and a receiving portion (2);
a pivot point (13);
a flagpole fastener (8);
wherein said concrete site fastener selectively fastened to a concrete site (screws are used for selective attachment and are capable of being used on a concrete site; col 2, ln 30-34);
wherein a flagpole (5) and flag (Figure 4) insertable into said receiving portion (2; col 1, ln 66-col 2, ln 2);
wherein an angle of said receiving portion (2) adjustable about said pivot point (13; col 2, ln 38-41); and
further wherein said flagpole (5) securable within said receiving portion (2) with said flagpole fastener (8; col 2, ln 2-4).
The Examiner notes that the concrete site is not given patentable weight since not positively claimed and since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Chen-Chao does not specifically teach a light; a battery; and a solar panel; wherein said base including said light powered by said battery; wherein said battery charged by said solar panel.
However, May teaches that it is known in the art to illuminate flags and other memorial markers, such as at gravesites, and teaches using a light (50), a battery (44), and a solar panel (40), wherein said battery (44) is charged by said solar panel (col 3, ln 55-col 4, ln 19). Additionally, Crawford, which also teaches a lighted memorial marker for a gravesite having a light (16; para [0021]), battery (28; para [0029]) and solar panel (30; para [0029]), further teaches wherein said base (22) includes said light (16) powered by said battery (Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use a light source on the base of Chen-Chao, as taught by Crawford, to shine light on the flag as taught by May, for illuminating the flag at night so it is still visible.
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, and Crawford combined teach the concrete site flag securing device of claim 1, wherein said light having a sensor for autonomously actuating said light during low light conditions (May: col 5, ln 17-21; Crawford: para [0031]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-Chao, May, and Crawford, and further in view of US 7,614,600 to Smith et al. (hereinafter ‘Smith’).
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, and Crawford combined teach the concrete site flag securing device of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein said light selectively actuated for illuminating said flag. However, Smith, which is also drawn to a base (25) having a receiver (40) for supporting a shaft (31), the base having a power source for powering lights (abstract), including batteries and solar cells (col 14, ln 26-39) further teaches on/off switches for manual control of the lights and other powered accessories (col 14, ln 44-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that the power source of Chen-Chao, May, and Crawford could have a manual switch as taught by Smith, in order to turn the lighting permanently off as needed, such as when the flag securing device is in storage, transport, or retail locations, and not in use.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-Chao, May, and Crawford, and further in view of US 2010/0313492 to Shellhouse et al. (hereinafter ‘Shellhouse’).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, and Crawford combined teach the concrete site flag securing device of claim 3, but do not specifically teach wherein said concrete site fastener is a fastener between the concrete site and a bottom surface of said base selected from the group consisting of a magnetic fastener, a hook and loop fastener, and an adhesive strip fastener. However, Shellhouse, which is also drawn to a base (4) for supporting a flag at a gravesite in alternate positions (Figures 1-3), further teaches wherein said concrete site fastener (28) is a fastener between the concrete site (grave site) and a bottom surface of said base (4) selected from the group consisting of a magnetic fastener, a hook and loop fastener, and an adhesive strip fastener (28; para [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use a fastener such as adhesive as taught by Shellhouse in order to attach the base to the site without damaging the site with screw holes.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-Chao, May, Crawford, and Shellhouse, and further in view of US 2013/0181049 (Aston).
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, Crawford, and Shellhouse combined teach the concrete site flag securing device of claim 4, but do not specifically teach wherein said base having a pentagonal shape. Shellhouse does teach that the base may be of any shape (para [0024]). Additionally, Aston, which is also drawn to a base (4) for supporting a shaft (2), further teaches that the base can be of any shape, such as a pentagon (para [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to make the base of Chen-Chao a pentagon shape as a matter of design choice based on the user’s preferences for aesthetics.
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, Crawford, Shellhouse and Aston combined teach the concrete site flag securing device of claim 5, and Chen-Chao further teaches wherein said flagpole fastener (8) insertable and retractable in said receiving portion (2; via threads; col 2, ln 2-4; Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, Crawford, Shellhouse and Aston combined teach the concrete site flag securing device of claim 6, and Chen-Chao further teaches wherein said flagpole fastener (8) is threadingly engaged with said receiving portion (2; via threads 6; col 2, ln 2-4; Figure 2).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-Chao, May, Crawford, and Aston.
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood, Chen-Chao teaches a flag securing device comprising:
a flag supporting portion (1) having a body (20), a base (3), a fastener (screws that pass through 25), and a receiving portion (2);
a pivot point (13);
a flagpole fastener (8);
wherein said fastener selectively fastened to a site (screws are used for selective attachment; col 2, ln 30-34);
wherein a flagpole (5) and flag (Figure 4) insertable into said receiving portion (2; col 1, ln 66-col 2, ln 2);
wherein an angle of said receiving portion (2) adjustable about said pivot point (13; col 2, ln 38-41); and
wherein said flagpole (5) securable within said receiving portion (2) with said flagpole fastener (8; col 2, ln 2-4).
The Examiner notes that the gravesite is not given patentable weight since not positively claimed and since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Chen-Chao does not specifically teach a light; a battery; and a solar panel; wherein said base including said light powered by said battery; wherein said battery charged by said solar panel.
However, May teaches that it is known in the art to illuminate flags and other memorial markers, such as at gravesites, and teaches using a light (50), a battery (44), and a solar panel (40), wherein said battery (44) is charged by said solar panel (col 3, ln 55-col 4, ln 19). Additionally, Crawford, which also teaches a lighted memorial marker for a gravesite having a light (16; para [0021]), battery (28; para [0029]) and solar panel (30; para [0029]), further teaches wherein said base (22) includes said light (16) powered by said battery (Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use a light source on the base of Chen-Chao, as taught by Crawford, to shine light on the flag as taught by May, for illuminating the flag at night so it is still visible.
Chen-Chao does not specifically teach wherein said base having a pentagonal shape. However, Aston, which is also drawn to a base (4) for supporting a shaft (2), further teaches that the base can be of any shape, such as a pentagon (para [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to make the base of Chen-Chao a pentagon shape as a matter of design choice based on the user’s preferences for aesthetics.
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, Crawford, and Aston combined teach the gravesite flag securing device of claim 8, wherein said light having a sensor for autonomously actuating said light during low light conditions (May: col 5, ln 17-21; Crawford: para [0031]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-Chao, May, Crawford, and Aston, and further in view of Smith.
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, Crawford, and Aston combined teach the gravesite flag securing device of claim 8, but do not specifically teach wherein said light selectively actuated for illuminating said flag. However, Smith, which is also drawn to a base (25) having a receiver (40) for supporting a shaft (31), the base having a power source for powering lights (abstract), including batteries and solar cells (col 14, ln 26-39) further teaches on/off switches for manual control of the lights and other powered accessories (col 14, ln 44-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that the power source of Chen-Chao, May, and Crawford could have a manual switch as taught by Smith, in order to turn the lighting permanently off as needed, such as when the flag securing device is in storage, transport, or retail locations, and not in use.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-Chao, May, Crawford, and Aston, and further in view of Shellhouse.
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, Crawford, and Aston combined teach the gravesite flag securing device of claim 10, but do not specifically teach wherein said concrete site fastener is a fastener between the concrete site and a bottom surface of said base selected from the group consisting of a magnetic fastener, a hook and loop fastener, and an adhesive strip fastener.
However, Shellhouse, which is also drawn to a base (4) for supporting a flag at a gravesite in alternate positions (Figures 1-3), further teaches wherein said concrete site fastener (28) is a fastener between the concrete site (grave site) and a bottom surface of said base (4) selected from the group consisting of a magnetic fastener, a hook and loop fastener, and an adhesive strip fastener (28; para [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use a fastener such as adhesive as taught by Shellhouse in order to attach the base to the site without damaging the site with screw holes.
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, Crawford, Aston, and Shellhouse combined teach the gravesite flag securing device of claim 11, and Chen-Shao further teaches wherein said flagpole fastener (8) insertable and retractable in said receiving portion (2; via threads; col 2, ln 2-4; Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, Crawford, Aston, and Shellhouse combined teach the gravesite flag securing device of claim 12, and Chen-Chao further teaches wherein said flagpole fastener (8) is threadingly engaged with said receiving portion (2; via threads 6; col 2, ln 2-4; Figure 2).
Claims 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-Chao, May, and Shellhouse.
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood, Chen-Chao teaches a method of securing a flag at a site, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a flag supporting portion (1) having a body (20), a base (3), and a receiving portion (2), further wherein said flag supporting portion having a pivot point (13), and a flagpole fastener (8);
inserting a flagpole (5) into said receiving portion (2; col 1, ln 66-col 2, ln 2);
adjusting an angle of said receiving portion (2) about said pivot point (13; col 2, ln 38-41); and
securing said flagpole (5) within said receiving portion (2) with said flagpole fastener (8; col 2, ln 2-4).
Chen-Chao does not specifically teach a light; a battery; and a solar panel; powering said light with said battery; and charging said battery with said solar panel.
However, May teaches that it is known in the art to illuminate flags and other memorial markers, such as at gravesites, and teaches using a light (50), a battery (44), and a solar panel (40), wherein said battery (44) is charged by said solar panel to power the light (col 3, ln 55-col 4, ln 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use a light source to shine light on the flag of Chen-Chao, as taught by May, for illuminating the flag at night so it is still visible.
While Chen-Chou teaches that the base has openings for screwing fasteners through the base into a wall or other object, and screws are capable of being used at concrete sites, Chen-Chou does not specifically teach fastening a concrete site fastener to a concrete area. However, Shellhouse, which is also drawn to a base (4) for supporting a flag at a gravesite in alternate positions (Figures 1-3), further teaches using a fastener (28) to fasten to a gravesite (para [0028]) in the same manner as the Applicant’s invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use a fastener such as adhesive as taught by Shellhouse in order to attach the base to a gravesite, or other concrete area, without damaging the site with screw holes.
Regarding Claim 16, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, and Shellhouse combined teach the method of securing a flag at a concrete site of claim 14, and May further teaches wherein said light having a sensor for autonomously actuating said light during low light conditions (col 5, ln 17-21).
Regarding Claim 17, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, and Shellhouse combined teach the method of securing a flag at a concrete site of claim 16, and Shellhouse further teaches wherein said concrete site fastener (28) is a fastener between the concrete site (gravesite) and a bottom surface of said base (4) selected from the group consisting of a magnetic fastener, a hook and loop fastener, and an adhesive strip fastener (para [0028]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-Chao, May, and Shellhouse, and further in view of Smith.
Regarding Claim 15, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, and Shellhouse combined teach the method of securing a flag at a concrete site of claim 14, but do not specifically teach wherein said light selectively actuated for illuminating said flag. However, Smith, which is also drawn to a base (25) having a receiver (40) for supporting a shaft (31), the base having a power source for powering lights (abstract), including batteries and solar cells (col 14, ln 26-39) further teaches on/off switches for manual control of the lights and other powered accessories (col 14, ln 44-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that the power source of Chen-Chao and May could have a manual switch as taught by Smith, in order to turn the lighting permanently off as needed, such as when the flag securing device is in storage, transport, or retail locations, and not in use.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-Chao, May, and Shellhouse, and further in view of Aston.
Regarding Claim 18, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, and Shellhouse combined teach the method of securing a flag at a concrete site of claim 17, but do not specifically teach wherein said base having a pentagonal shape. Shellhouse does teach that the base may be of any shape (para [0024]). Additionally, Aston, which is also drawn to a base (4) for supporting a shaft (2), further teaches that the base can be of any shape, such as a pentagon (para [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to make the base of Chen-Chao a pentagon shape as a matter of design choice based on the user’s preferences for aesthetics.
Regarding Claim 19, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, Shellhouse, and Aston combined teach the method of securing a flag at a concrete site of claim 18, and Chen-Chao further teaches wherein said flagpole fastener (8) insertable and retractable in said receiving portion (2; via threads; col 2, ln 2-4; Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 20, as best understood, Chen-Chao, May, Shellhouse, and Aston combined teach the method of securing a flag at a concrete site of claim 19, wherein said flagpole fastener (8) is threadingly engaged with said receiving portion (2; via threads 6; col 2, ln 2-4; Figure 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art has been listed in the PTO-892 form.
US 7,654,501 (Matthews) teaching a base using adhesive to attach to a concrete site.
US 2020/0372843 (Short), and US 9,395,217 (Gaor) teach a base for pivotable supporting a flag, the base having a magnetic fastener on the lower surface thereof.
US 2023/0419796 (Wingate) teach a base for supporting a flag, with the base being attachable to a supporting surface via adhesive or hook and loop.
US 2,427,139 (Harris), US 2018/0030751 (Roberts et al.), US D1,040,507 (Lin et al.), US 5,816,554 (McCracken) teach pentagon-shaped bases for holding a shaft.
US 2017/0046989 (Butler, III), US 2006/0102822 (Liang), US 2011/0260029 (Kost), and US 6,988,701 (Lin) teach pivotable receivers for supporting a shaft therein at adjustable angles.
US 2014/0211459 (Toner), US D553,778 (Phillips) teaches illumination of flags.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INGRID M WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/INGRID M WEINHOLD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632