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 Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 3/25/2026, wherein claims 1 were amended, claims 12-19 are new. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 line 2 "inner compression sleeved" should read ""inner compression sleeve[[d]]". Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 12-17 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Independent claim 12, specifically, a lower segment having a lower end coupled inside the storage bag was not previously considered. The new independent claim would require further search and consideration because in the original species, the lower segment could be coupled from any end.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 12-17 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-11 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 the limitation "the artificial tree" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-11 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Fitzgerald (US 4969555 A).
With respect to claim 1, Fitzgerald discloses an artificial tree storage device, comprising: a storage bag (34) and an inner compression sleeve (30) coupled inside the storage bag; the storage bag having an expanded storage configuration and a collapsed display configuration, the storage bag being sized and shaped to substantially enclose the artificial tree when the artificial tree is compressed by the inner compression sleeve while the storage bag is in the expanded storage position (fig 6); a base (bottom of 34 or 30, see dependents below) having a hole (aperture created at bottom in fig 6) therein to accommodate a trunk of the artificial tree; the inner compression sleeve, including: i)a lower segment (bottom of 30) having one end coupled inside the storage bag (34 fig 4) at the base end, the lower segment having an inner diameter sized (Fitzgeralds device is capable of doing so depending on the tree stored) to compress the artificial tree into the storage configuration as the inner compression sleeve is raised up the sides of the artificial tree from the base over the artificial tree; and ii)an upper segment (top of 30) coupled to the lower segment opposite the base, wherein the upper segment increases in cross sectional area from the lower segment attachment to a distal end of the upper segment (as seen in figure 4); iii)wherein the upper segment (top of 30) is structurally configured to cause the artificial tree to compress as the upper segment of the inner compression sleeve moves up the sides of the artificial tree, after which the storage bag can be moved upwardly around the inner compression sleeve . (the structure as disclosed by Fitzgerald is capable of accomplishing this)
PNG
media_image1.png
694
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
654
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Fitzgerald discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the upper segment is structurally configured to have a conical shape. (device of Fitzgerald resembles a conical shape, fig 5)
With respect to claim3, Fitzgerald discloses the device of claim 1, wherein a diameter of a cross section of the upper segment increases from the lower segment attachment to the distal end of the upper segment. (see figure 4, this is true of Fitzgerald)
With respect to claim 4, Fitzgerald discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the upper segment has a conical shape. (device of Fitzgerald resembles a conical shape, fig 5)
With respect to claim 5, Fitzgerald discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the base is a portion of the storage bag (lower portion of the 34).
With respect to claim 6, Fitzgerald discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the base is a portion of the lower segment. (can consider bottom portion of 30).
With respect to claim 7, Fitzgerald discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the base is a component separate and distinct from the storage bag and is coupled to the storage bag. (limitation is met if considering claim 6, and the base as a portion of 30, lower segment of the inner compression sleeve)
With respect to claim 10, Fitzgerald discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the inner compression sleeve includes a material elected from nylon, polyester, canvas, vinyl, PVC, a polyethylene-coated fabric, a polypropylene-coated fabric, or a combination thereof. (Cordura, a listed material is a type of nylon, col 3 lines 15-27)
With respect to claim 11, Fitzgerald discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the inner compression sleeve includes a material selected from nylon, polyester, canvas, or vinyl. (Cordura, a listed material is a type of nylon, col 3 lines 15-27)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald (US 4969555 A) in view of Porter (US 20050124240 A1).
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the storage bag includes a material selected from nylon, polyester, canvas, vinyl, PVC, a polyethylene-coated fabric, a polypropylene-coated fabric, or a combination thereof. Fitzgerald teaches of a lightweight mesh, but fails to elaborate on the exact material for the lightweight mesh. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely lightweight mesh, Porter teaches of a mesh material made out of polyester (abstract). The mesh contributes to tensile, tear and puncture resistance (page 3 [0020]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mesh of Fitzgerald to be made of polyester as taught by Porter in order to allow for increased tear resistance.
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the storage bag includes a material selected from nylon, polyester, canvas, or vinyl. Fitzgerald teaches of a lightweight mesh, but fails to elaborate on the exact material for the lightweight mesh. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely lightweight mesh, Porter teaches of a mesh material made out of polyester (abstract). The mesh contributes to tensile, tear and puncture resistance (page 3 [0020]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mesh of Fitzgerald to be made of polyester as taught by Porter in order to allow for increased tear resistance.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20080308440-A1 OR US-20070227925-A1 OR US-20030226780-A1 OR US-20250143498-A1 OR US-20100213090-A1 OR US-20050211589-A1 OR US-4969555-A OR US-4899878-A OR US-4799520-A OR US-10251504-B1 OR US-D822384-S OR US-D406080-S OR US-6000544-A OR US-3924669-A OR US-3750731-A OR US-3729039-A OR US-2847805-A OR US-20130312374-A1 OR US-20030066774-A1
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights