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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this application, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Drawings
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 "plurality of clips" in claim 8 and "stabilizing leg" in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "16, 18, 20" in Fig. 1 and "22, 24, 26" in Fig. 4 have both been used to designate flagpole rings. 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. 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites features corresponding to the structure of the flag as well as the legs of the device being connected to the flag (e.g. " the flag has (a) a flag surface; and (b) a perimeter creating an outer boundary for the flag surface; wherein the perimeter has (a) a first point positioned nearest the flagpole, and (b) a second point positioned farthest from the flagpole... wherein at least a portion of the second leg extends along a second portion of the first area of the flag surface") as well as appears to positively claim the flagpole by relating aspects of the invention to the flagpole axis. This also occurs in claims 2, 4-6, 10, 12, and 17-18 which each contain language indicating that the flag and flagpole are considered as positively recited elements of the invention. However, claim 1 also recites "A flag anti-tangle device for use with an associated flag and with an associated flagpole having a longitudinal axis, the flag anti-tangle device comprising: a first leg that: a second leg that is adapted to attach to a second attachment location on the flag; and a stop plate that his adapted to attach to the flagpole; wherein when the first leg of the flag anti-tangle device is attached to the flagpole..." (emphasis added). These emphasized portions appear to indicate that applicant does not consider the flag and flagpole as being positively recited, but instead regarded as functional language of the device. As such, clarification on what elements are being positively claimed is required. For purposes of examination, language directed towards the flag and flagpole has been treated as functional recitations.
Claims 4, 13, 19, and 20 each recite the limitation "the upstanding leg". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the screw tab" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites "a carabiner clip". It is unclear if this clip is the same element as the clip introduced in claim 14 or in addition to the previously introduced clip.
Claims 19 and 20 each recite the limitation "the laterally extending leg". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 3, 7-9, 14 and 16 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claim .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaemper (DE 196 42 456).
In regards to Claim 1, Kaemper discloses a flag anti-tangle device for use with an associated flag and with an associated flagpole having a longitudinal axis, the flag anti-tangle device comprising: a first leg (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 9) that: a) is adapted to attach to the flagpole; and b) is adapted to attach to a first attachment location on the flag; a second leg (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 4) that is adapted to attach to a second attachment location on the flag; and a stop plate (Kaemper: Fig. 2; 14) that his adapted to attach to the flagpole; wherein when the first leg of the flag anti-tangle device is attached to the flagpole and to the first attachment location on the flag, the second leg is attached to the second attachment location on the flag, and the stop plate is attached to the flagpole and is engaged to the first leg; wherein the flag has (a) a flag surface; and (b) a perimeter creating an outer boundary for the flag surface; wherein the perimeter has (a) a first point positioned nearest the flagpole, and (b) a second point positioned farthest from the flagpole, wherein the first point lies on a first line that is parallel to the flagpole longitudinal axis and the second point lies on a second line that is parallel to the flagpole longitudinal axis, the first line and the second line being separated by a distance D1; wherein a portion of the flag surface positioned between the flagpole longitudinal axis and a third line that is parallel to the flagpole longitudinal axis and equidistant from the first line and the second line is defined as a first area of the flag surface; wherein at least a portion of the first leg extends along a first portion of the first area of the flag surface; wherein at least a portion of the second leg extends along a second portion of the first area of the flag surface; wherein the first attachment location on the flag is within the first area of the flag surface; wherein the second attachment location on the flag is within the first area of the flag surface; wherein the second attachment location on the flag is within the first area of the flag surface; wherein the second attachment location lies on a fourth line that is parallel to the flagpole longitudinal axis; wherein the fourth line is separated from the flagpole axis a distance D2, wherein D2 is at least (D1)/4 (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; see note); wherein the stop plate holds the first leg in place at full stop preventing the flag anti-tangle device from moving down the flagpole; and wherein the flag anti-tangle device suppresses the flag from wrapping around the flagpole. [Note: The legs of Kaemper are configured to extend along a perimeter of the indicated first area and are therefore adapted to attach to the indicated attachment locations.]
In regards to Claim 2, Kaemper discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first leg (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 9) is substantially parallel to the flagpole longitudinal axis.
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 3-6, 9-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaemper (DE 196 42 456) in view of Zeitler (US 5,291,849).
In regards to Claim 3, Kaemper discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the first leg (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 9) carries rings (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 8) adapted to surmount the flagpole.
Kaemper fails to disclose a first leg that is adapted to grasping the first portion of the first area of the flag surface. However, Zeitler teaches a first leg (Zeitler: Fig. 1; 10) that is adapted to grasping a first portion of a first area of a flag surface.
Kaemper and Zeitler are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. flag/banner supports. 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 first leg in Kaemper with the first leg structure from Zeitler, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the leg with a means of receiving conventional fasteners for the attachment to customary openings on the edge of a flag (Zeitler: Col. 3, Ln. 26-33), thereby enabling the device to interface with common flag features that doesn't require complete disassembly.
In regards to Claim 4, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 3, wherein the second leg (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 4) extends further from the flagpole than the upstanding leg (Zeitler: Fig. 1; 10).
In regards to Claim 5, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the second leg (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 4) is substantially perpendicular to the flagpole longitudinal axis.
In regards to Claim 6, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the first attachment location on the flag is positioned on the flag’s perimeter and wherein the second attachment location on the flag is positioned on the flag’s perimeter (Kaemper: Fig. 1; shows arms configured to attach to locations on perimeter).
In regards to Claim 9, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 6, but fails to disclose that the first leg carries at least one stabilizing leg that is capable of applying tension to the flag to urge the flag to remain taught along the first leg.
However, Zeitler teaches a first leg (Zeitler: Fig. 1; 10) that carries at least one stabilizing leg (Zeitler: Fig. 1; 30) that is capable of applying tension to a flag to urge the flag to remain taught along the first leg.
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 first leg in Kaemper with the the stabilizing leg from Zeitler, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an additional centrally located means that further prevents fouling of the flag while still allowing for natural movement of the flag (Zeitler: Col. 2, Ln. 14-48).
In regards to Claim 10, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the flag is attached to the first leg (Zeitler: Fig. 1; 10) and to the at least one stabilizing leg (Zeitler: Fig. 1; 30) through the use of clips (Zeitler: Col. 4, Ln. 56-68; Col. 5, Ln. 1-2).
In regards to Claim 19, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the upstanding leg (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 9) and the laterally extending leg (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 4) are not engaged to one another.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaemper (DE 196 42 456) in view of Zeitler (US 5,291,849) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tourtellotte (US 3,320,674).
In regards to Claim 11, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the stop plate comprises at least one set tab having a threaded hole within the screw tab for receiving a set fastener to secure the stop plate to the flagpole.
However, Tourtellotte teaches a stop (Tourtellotte: Fig. 3; 46) that comprises at least one set tab (Tourtellotte: Fig. 3; 56) having a threaded hole within the screw tab for receiving a set fastener to secure the stop plate to the flagpole.
Kaemper and Tourtellotte are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. flag/banner supports. 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 stop plate in Kaemper with the set tab from Tourtellotte, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a specific means of carrying a threaded set screw for securing the structure to a pole that can be easily added during manufacturing (Tourtellotte: Col. 5, Ln. 10-21).
In regards to Claim 12, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 11, wherein first leg comprises a plurality of holes (Zeitler: Fig. 1; 20, 22) and at least one nut and bolt assembly (Zeitler: Fig. 2; 24), wherein the bolt passes through a hole in the first leg and through a grommet positioned on the first area of the flag and wherein the nut engages the bolt to secure the flag to the first leg.
In regards to Claim 13, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the first leg (Zeitler: Fig. 1; 10) comprises a tab (Zeitler: Annotated Fig. 1; T) positioned horizontally with respect to the first leg, wherein the tab comprises a hole (Zeitler: Fig. 1; 66/68), wherein the hole is capable of securing a flagpole ring to the upstanding leg.
In regards to Claim 14, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 13, wherein the hole (Zeitler: Fig. 1; 66/68) in the horizontally positioned tab of the first leg receives a clip (Kaemper: Fig. 2; 12), wherein the clip is engaged to the flagpole ring.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaemper (DE 196 42 456) in view of Zeitler (US 5,291,849) and Tourtellotte (US 3,320,674) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Deming et al. (US 2019/0080635).
In regards to Claim 15, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 14, wherein the hole in the horizontally positioned tab of the first leg receives a clip (Kaemper: Fig. 2; 12), wherein the clip is run through the tab hole and the flagpole ring and wherein the clip is subsequently closed to secure the flagpole ring to the first leg.
Kaemper fails to disclose a carabiner clip. However, Deming teaches a carabiner clip (Deming: [0024]).
Kaemper and Deming are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. flag/banner supports. 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 clips in Kaemper with the carabiner clip from Deming, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a releasably lockable clip means for securing the components together (Deming: [0024]), thereby enabling the structure to be easily disassembled while also preventing unwanted detachment.
In regards to Claim 16, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 15, wherein the carabiner clip comprises a threaded mechanism for opening and closing the carabiner clip (Deming: [0024]).
Claims 3-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaemper (DE 196 42 456) in view of Lyons (US 2017/0270837).
In regards to Claim 3, Kaemper discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the first leg (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 9) carries rings (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 8) adapted to surmount the flagpole.
Kaemper fails to disclose a first leg that is adapted to grasping the first portion of the first area of the flag surface. However, Lyons teaches a first leg (Lyons: Fig. 1-5; 1) that is adapted to grasping a first portion of a first area of a flag surface.
Kaemper and Lyons are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. flag/banner supports. 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 legs in Kaemper, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means of receiving a flag or banner edge, enabling the device to be used with any existing type of flag (Lyons: [0011]).
In regards to Claim 4, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 3, wherein the second leg (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 4) extends further from the flagpole than the upstanding leg.
In regards to Claim 5, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the second leg (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 4) is substantially perpendicular to the flagpole longitudinal axis.
In regards to Claim 6, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the first attachment location on the flag is positioned on the flag’s perimeter and wherein the second attachment location on the flag is positioned on the flag’s perimeter (Kaemper: Fig. 1; shows arms configured to attach to locations on perimeter).
In regards to Claim 7, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 6, wherein the first leg and the second leg each comprise a slot (Lyons: Fig. 4; 7) that is formed into the first leg and into the second leg, wherein the slot on the first leg and the slot on the second leg are capable of engaging a portion of an edge on the perimeter of the flag.
In regards to Claim 19, Kaemper, as modified, teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the upstanding leg (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 9) and the laterally extending leg (Kaemper: Fig. 1-2; 4) are not engaged to one another.
Claims 1-6, 8, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gislason (US 2021/0280102) in view of Ciaccia (US 8,069,811).
In regards to Claim 1, Gislason discloses a flag anti-tangle device for use with an associated flag and with an associated flagpole having a longitudinal axis, the flag anti-tangle device comprising: a first leg (Gislason: Fig. 1, 3-4; 120) that: a) is adapted to attach to the flagpole; and b) is adapted to attach to a first attachment location on the flag; a second leg (Gislason: Fig. 1-4; 130) that is adapted to attach to a second attachment location on the flag; wherein when the first leg of the flag anti-tangle device is attached to the flagpole and to the first attachment location on the flag, the second leg is attached to the second attachment location on the flag; wherein the flag has (a) a flag surface; and (b) a perimeter creating an outer boundary for the flag surface; wherein the perimeter has (a) a first point positioned nearest the flagpole, and (b) a second point positioned farthest from the flagpole, wherein the first point lies on a first line that is parallel to the flagpole longitudinal axis and the second point lies on a second line that is parallel to the flagpole longitudinal axis, the first line and the second line being separated by a distance D1; wherein a portion of the flag surface positioned between the flagpole longitudinal axis and a third line that is parallel to the flagpole longitudinal axis and equidistant from the first line and the second line is defined as a first area of the flag surface; wherein at least a portion of the first leg extends along a first portion of the first area of the flag surface; wherein at least a portion of the second leg extends along a second portion of the first area of the flag surface; wherein the first attachment location on the flag is within the first area of the flag surface; wherein the second attachment location on the flag is within the first area of the flag surface; wherein the second attachment location on the flag is within the first area of the flag surface; wherein the second attachment location lies on a fourth line that is parallel to the flagpole longitudinal axis; wherein the fourth line is separated from the flagpole axis a distance D2, wherein D2 is at least (D1)/4 (Gislason: Fig. 1; [0035]); and wherein the flag anti-tangle device suppresses the flag from wrapping around the flagpole (Gislason: [0008]).
Gislason fails to disclose a stop plate that his adapted to attach to the flagpole; and the stop plate is attached to the flagpole and is engaged to the first leg; wherein the stop plate holds the first leg in place at full stop preventing the flag anti-tangle device from moving down the flagpole. However, Ciaccia teaches a stop plate (Ciaccia: Fig. 2; 28b) that his adapted to attach to a flagpole; and the stop plate is attached to the flagpole and is engaged to a first leg (Ciaccia: Fig. 2; 25) of a flag; wherein the stop plate holds the first side in place at full stop preventing the flag anti-tangle device from moving down the flagpole.
Gislason and Ciaccia are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. flag/banner supports. 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 in Gislason with the stop plate and ring connection from Ciaccia, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means of enabling a flag to rotate about the axis of a flag pole that makes the points of connection to the pole move in concert, thereby ensuring that a wind blown flag does not furl or wrap ab out the pole (Ciaccia: Col. 2, Ln. 15-25).
In regards to Claim 2, Gislason, as modified, teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the first leg (Gislason: Fig. 1, 3-4; 120) is substantially parallel to the flagpole longitudinal axis.
In regards to Claim 3, Gislason, as modified, teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the first leg (Gislason: Fig. 1, 3-4; 120) carries rings (Ciaccia: Fig. 2; 26) adapted to surmount the flagpole and is adapted to grasping the first portion of the first area of the flag surface.
In regards to Claim 4, Gislason, as modified, teaches the device of claim 3, wherein the second leg (Gislason: Fig. 1-4; 130) extends further from the flagpole than the upstanding leg.
In regards to Claim 5, Gislason, as modified, teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the second leg (Gislason: Fig. 1-4; 130) is substantially perpendicular to the flagpole longitudinal axis.
In regards to Claim 6, Gislason, as modified, teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the first attachment location on the flag is positioned on the flag’s perimeter and wherein the second attachment location on the flag is positioned on the flag’s perimeter (Gislason: Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 8, Gislason, as modified, teaches the device of claim 6, wherein the first leg and the second leg (Gislason: Fig. 1, 3-4; 120, 130) each comprise a plurality of clips (Gislason: Fig. 14; 130) capable of engaging corresponding clips (Gislason: Fig. 1-4; 170 | Fig. 6, 8 - show clips on first leg) attached to the perimeter of the flag.
In regards to Claim 17, Gislason, as modified, teaches the device of claim 5, wherein D2 is at least (D1)/3 (Gislason: [0035] - clips are repositionable).
In regards to Claim 18, Gislason, as modified, teaches the device of claim 6, wherein D2 is (D1)/2 or about (D1)/2 (Gislason: [0035] - clips are repositionable).
In regards to Claim 20, Gislason, as modified, teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the upstanding leg and the laterally extending leg (Gislason: Fig. 1, 3-4; 120, 130) are engaged to one another.
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
584
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Zeitler; Fig. 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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 (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
