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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed September 19, 2025. The application has been updated accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23, 25-27, 29-37, 40 and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Infalt et al. (2019/0055782) hereinafter Infalt.
Infalt discloses:
Claim 23: A portable hang on treestand (Fig. 1; 100) comprising a seat member (Fig. 3; 308), a platform member (Fig. 3; 300), and a center support structure (Fig. 3; 304) connecting said seat member to said platform member wherein said seat member and said center support structure (Fig. 2; the center support structure is depicted as connected to the seat member and the platform) have locking holes drilled through them (Fig. 3; where 316, 317 and 338 insert) such that when said treestand is folded up for transport, the holes in said center support structure and said seat member are aligned (Fig. 2; the seat member is depicted as aligned with the center support structure holes when folded up for transport), and the seat member is locked in a rigid shelf structure by fastener means inserted through said aligned locking holes (Fig. 2; seat member and the platform create a rigid shelf structure).
Claim 25: The treestand of claim 23 wherein said platform is of uniform, one-piece rigid construction having an open grate-like configuration (Fig. 3; 300, Para. [0093]).
Claim 26: The treestand of claim 25 wherein said one-piece platform is solid and is made of aluminum and/or aluminum alloy or cast aluminum (Fig. 3; 300, Para. [0093]).
Claim 27: The treestand of claim 23 wherein said fastener means are selected from one or more brackets, clamps, locking pins, braces, clevis pins, cotter pins, bolts (Fig. 3; 338, Para. [0089]).
Claim 29: The treestand of claim 23 wherein said center support structure is of hollow tubular design (Fig. 3; 304, Para. [0104]) or is solid.
Claim 30: The treestand of claim 23 wherein said platform member additionally comprises receiving ports (Fig. 2; corner sections of the platform nearest 104) to allow for the convenient attachment of climbing sticks (Fig. 2; 106 via 200) thereto.
Claim 31: A portable hang on treestand (Fig. 1; 100) comprising a seat member (Fig. 3; 308), a platform member (Fig. 3; 300), and a center support structure (Fig. 3; 304) connecting said seat member to said platform member (Fig. 2; the center support structure is depicted as connected to the seat member and the platform), wherein when said treestand is folded up for transport, the seat member interlocks with said platform (Fig. 2; via 304) creating a rigid shelf structure (Fig. 2; seat member and the platform create a rigid shelf structure).
Claim 32: The treestand of claim 31 wherein said platform is of uniform, one-piece rigid construction having an open grate-like configuration (Fig. 3; 300, Para. [0093]).
Claim 33: The treestand of claim 32 wherein said one-piece platform is fabricated from solid aluminum stock by machining, milling (Fig. 3; 300, Para. [0093]), laser cutting or a waterjet process or the platform is cast aluminum.
Claim 34: The treestand of claim 31 wherein said platform member additionally comprises receiving ports (Fig. 2; corner sections of the platform nearest 104) to allow for the convenient attachment of climbing sticks (Fig. 2; 106 via 200) thereto.
Claim 35: The treestand of claim 31 wherein the platform comprises locking ports (the hole where 316 passes through 302) configured for locking said seat member into a shelf structure when said treestand is folded up for transport (Fig. 2; via 304).
Claim 36: The treestand of claim 35 wherein said locking ports are enhanced by fastener means (Fig. 3; 316).
Claim 37: The treestand of claim 36 wherein said fastener means are selected from one or more brackets, clamps, locking pins, braces, clevis pins, cotter pins, bolts (Fig. 3; 316, Para. [0087]).
Claim 40: The treestand of claim 36 wherein said platform member additionally comprises receiving ports (Fig. 2; corner sections of the platform nearest 104) to allow for the convenient attachment of climbing sticks (Fig. 2; 106 via 200) thereto.
Claim 42: The treestand of claim 31 additionally comprising one or more fasteners that effectively lock the seat member to said platform member creating a said shelf structure (see rejection of claim 31 - Fig. 2; seat member and the platform create a rigid shelf structure).
Claim 43: The treestand of claim 36 wherein said one or more fastener are selected from brackets, clamps, locking pins, braces, clevis pins, cotter pins, bolts (Fig. 3; 316, Para. [0087]).
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 24 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Infalt et al. (2019/0055782) hereinafter Infalt, in view of Latini (4,582,165).
Infalt discloses:
Claims 24 and 41: Infalt discloses the treestand of claims 23 and 31 but fails to disclose wherein said rigid shelf structure is substantially perpendicular to said platform.
However, Latini discloses a rigid shelf structure substantially perpendicular to the platform (Fig. 1; seat 80 is depicted as substantially perpendicular to the platform 12).
Therefore, 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 seat structure of Infalt to leave the seat in position such as depicted in Fig. 1 where it would be perpendicular to the platform when folded up as depicted in Fig. 2, as taught by Latini, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the folded up assembly to hold items on the seat in a secure manor when transporting the assembly.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Infalt et al. (2019/0055782) hereinafter Infalt, in view of Latini (4,582,165) and further in view of D’Acquisto (5,060,756).
Claim 28: Infalt discloses the treestand of claim 23 but fails to disclose wherein said platform is a cast aluminum platform.
However, D’Acquisto discloses a platform of cast aluminum (Fig. 1; 11, Col. 2, Lines 30-38).
Therefore, 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 platform of Infalt to be cast aluminum, as taught by D’Acquisto, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would eliminate multiple fabrication steps and use of fasteners resulting in a platform with failure points.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art rejections, applicant argues that the primary reference of Infalt fails to disclose the seat member being capable of forming a rigid shelf structure; however, previously claim 23 did not require the seat member to be in a rigid shelf structure when in the folded up for transport position. Applicant appears to be arguing that when the seat member is in the folded position it is 90 degrees with respect to the platform member and center support structure, but that is not what applicant is claiming.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635