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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that members of Wilson (36, 38) are not base members. However, applicant does not argue that Wilson does not disclose base members. Rather, applicant appears to be arguing that because Wilson identifies certain members (26, 28) as base members that those are the only members or combination of members that could meet the limitation of a “base member”. To clarify the Examiner’s interpretation of Wilson, the base members are designated as comprising multiple members (where the first base comprises 26, 18, 22, 36; second base comprises 28, 20, 24, 38) as further shown in annotated figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
708
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Bruce does not teach placing an amplifier on a base member. As seen in figures 34 and 36 in Bruce there is an amplifier (A) placed on a base member. Applicant argues that the teachings of Bruce as applied to Wilson would not make obvious the placing of an amplifier on the base (on 36, 38) and on the upper arms (96, 98). As Wilson teaches placement of two keyboards or speakers on these areas and Bruce teaches placing of amplifiers on music stands, it is held that the placement of two amplifiers on Wilson would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art in view of Bruce.
Applicant argues in regards to claim 10, that Wilson modified by Henkel does not teach the rotating of the base members with respect to the frame. Applicant states because the referenced support members (7) are not base members that reference would not be applicable to modify Wilsons base members. It is first noted that a base in Henkel could include multiple members (2, 11, 3, 4) much as a base in Wilson is identified to comprise more than just a single member directly contacting the ground surface. Further, Henkel teaches angle adjustment between bearing element (4) and support element (6) (col. 9, lines 5-8) or in other words between a base member and support element (6).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 2025/0022445) in view of Bruce (US 7,514,619).
Regarding claims 1-3, Wilson (hereafter “D1”) discloses a stand (10) comprising: a frame (upper frame 94, cross member 40), a first keyboard support member (support arm 96) mounted to the frame, a second keyboard support member (support arm 98) mounted to the frame ([0032]), a first base member (leg pair 16, base members 26, support arm 36) mounted to the frame, and a second base member (leg pair 17, base members 26, 28, support arm 38) mounted to the frame; the first and second base members being on the ground (figure 1). D1 teaches supporting of two keyboards at vertically spaced heights ([0031, 0041]) and further teaches the holding or supporting of other musical instruments ([0059, 0041]). D1 does not disclose specifically supporting two amplifiers on the base (above 36, 38) and on support members (96, 98).
Bruce teaches a combined instrument and/or amplifier stand (figure 34, 36; col. 17, lines 58-67) and amplifiers of different types. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize the device of D1 to support two amplifiers (on upper and lower support members) of any known suitable types (combo, head/cabinet) as suggested by Bruce and as already motivated by D1 disclosing use with other music related devices.
Regarding claim 4, D1 as modified discloses wherein the frame is configured such that the vertical distance between the first base member (at 36) and the first amplifier support member is selectively variable (via 100 / 102); wherein the frame is configured such that the vertical distance between the second base member (at 38) and the second amplifier support member is selectively variable; and wherein the method further comprises raising or lowering the first and second amplifier support members relative to the first and second base members (frame is vertically adjustable at telescoping legs 100, 102 – [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, D1 as modified discloses wherein the frame is configured such that the horizontal distance between the first and second base members (at 18 / 20) is selectively variable; wherein the frame is configured such that the horizontal distance between the first and second amplifier support members (at 96 / 98) is selectively variable (via cross member 104 – [0037]); wherein the method further comprises altering the distance between the first and second base members and altering the distance between the first and second amplifier support members (horizontal distance is adjustable via telescoping cross members 42, 44 and 126, 128; [0022, 0037]).
Regarding claims 6-7, D1 as modified discloses wherein the first base member (at 36) defines a first upwardly-facing surface, the second base member (at 38) defines a second upwardly-facing surface (figure 1), the first amplifier support member (96) defines a third upwardly-facing surface, and the second amplifier support member (98) defines a fourth upwardly-facing surface (figure 1); wherein the first amplifier is in contact with, and supported by, the first and second upwardly-facing surfaces (top of 36/38, as modified per the discussion of claim 1); wherein the second amplifier is in contact with, and supported by, the third and fourth upwardly-facing surfaces (top of 96/98); wherein the first and second upwardly facing surfaces are coplanar in a first plane that is within twenty degrees of horizontal; and wherein the third and fourth upwardly-facing surfaces are coplanar in a second plane that is within ten degrees of horizontal (members 36, 38, 96, 98 are approximately horizontal – figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, D1 as modified discloses wherein the frame includes a first telescoping tube assembly (40) that interconnects the first and second base members (at 22, 24); wherein the frame includes a second telescoping tube assembly (at 100) that interconnects the first base member and the first amplifier support member (via 128); and wherein the frame includes a third telescoping tube assembly (at 102) that interconnects the second base member and the second amplifier support member (via 126; figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, D1 as modified discloses wherein the frame includes a fourth telescoping tube assembly (at 126, 128) that interconnects the second and third telescoping tube assemblies.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (US 2025/0022445) in view of Bruce (US 7,514,619) and Henkel (US 12,080,260).
Regarding claim 10, D1 as modified discloses wherein the first amplifier support member (96) is selectively rotatable with respect to the frame, and the second amplifier support member (98) is selectively rotatable with respect to the frame ([0044-0046]) but does not disclose wherein the first base member is selectively rotatable with respect to the frame, the second base member is selectively rotatable with respect to the frame (connection from 36/38 to 100/102).
Henkel teaches an instrument stand (1) comprising horizontal support members (at 7) having angle adjustments by way of angle adjustment plates (31) connecting to support element (6) below (col. 8, lines 35-59; figure 1) and further discloses angle adjustment between bearing element (4) and support element (6) (col. 9, lines 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to provide angle adjustments (plate connection 31) as taught by Henkel between base members (36, 38) and legs (32, 34 and/or 100, 102) for providing additional adjustment capability and such that the upper frame could fold down when not in use.
Regarding claim 11, D1 as modified discloses wherein said rotating each of the first and second base members and the first and second amplifier support members relative to the frame includes rotating each of the first and second base members and the first and second amplifier support members relative to the frame at least eighty-five degrees (as modified it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to rotate the members to and from a collapsed state rotating passing between angles of at least 85 degrees).
Regarding claim 12, D1 as modified discloses wherein the first base member, the second base member, the first amplifier support member, and the second amplifier support member are rotatable with respect to the frame independently of one another.
Regarding claims 13-16, see the discussions in regards to claims 1-12 above.
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 PATRICK D HAWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6.
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.
/PATRICK D HAWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631