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 .
Claim Warnings
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Examiner Note: Claim 1 reads “the storage bag further including a hole in a base”. Claim 5 reads “wherein the base is a portion of the storage bag.”. Both limitations cover the same information; stating that the base is a portion of the storage bag.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
The term “wherein the base is a distinct material coupled to the storage bag” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wherein the base is a distinct material coupled to the storage bag” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Firstly, claim 1 discusses the base as part of the storage bag, so inherently, the materials comprising the storage bag includes the material of the base. What does distinct material mean in this context? Is the type of material itself different from the rest of the storage bag? Is the material distinguishable from the rest of the material? Meaning, the material can be the same as the storage bag, but the material is separate than the rest of the material. It is not clear the context of the term “distinct”. Further, what is the material distinct to? The rest of the storage bag, the upper portion only, the lower portion only, etc.? The specification fails to discuss the material of the base. For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that the base is distinguishable from the lower and upper segment.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Bornemeier (US 20080308440 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Bornemeier discloses an artificial tree storage device, comprising: a storage bag having an expanded storage configuration (figure 7) and a collapsed display (figure 5) configuration, wherein the storage bag is sized to substantially enclose an artificial tree in the expanded storage position (figure 7), the storage bag further including a hole (52) in a base (42) to accommodate a trunk of the artificial tree; an inner compression sleeve coupled inside the storage bag near the base of the storage bag, further including; a lower segment (figure 7, below) having one end coupled inside the storage bag at the base end, wherein the lower segment has an inner diameter sized to compress the artificial tree into the storage configuration (intended function that Bornemeier is capable of meeting as artificial trees come in a variety of sizes); and an upper segment (figure 7, below) coupled to the lower segment opposite the storage bag 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 7), wherein the upper segment is structurally configured to cause the artificial tree to compress into the expanded storage position as the upper segment moves up the sides of the artificial tree. intended function that Bornemeier is capable of meeting as artificial trees come in a variety of sizes)
Examiner Note: An artificial tree is not positively claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
315
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Bornemeier discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the upper segment is structurally configured to have a conical shape (as seen in figure 7, above).
With respect to claim 3, Bornemeier 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. (as seen in figure 7, above)
With respect to claim 4, Bornemeier discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the upper segment has a conical shape. (as seen in figure 7, above)
With respect to claim 5, Bornemeier discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the base is a portion of the storage bag. (Inherent of device claimed in figure 1)
With respect to claim 6, Bornemeier discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the base is a portion of the lower segment. (when considering the lower segment the bottom half, the base portion is considered part of the lower segment)
With respect to claim 7, Bornemeier discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the base is a distinct material coupled to the storage bag. (item 42 is distinct relative to the rest of the bag, 54)
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) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bornemeier (US 20080308440 A1) in view of Holzhaus (US 20050211589 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. Bornemeiers device is for artificial trees; but Bornemeier never listed a specific material. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely artificial tree storage, Holzhaus taught of the use of canvas material for storage devices relating to artificial trees (page 2 [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of artificial tree storage before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include canvas material as taught by Holzhaus in the device of Bornemeier since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Bornemeier teaches a storage device and adding a canvas material as taught by Holzhaus would maintain the same functionality of Bornemeier, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
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. Bornemeiers device is for artificial trees; but Bornemeier never listed a specific material. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely artificial tree storage, Holzhaus taught of the use of canvas material for storage devices relating to artificial trees (page 2 [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of artificial tree storage before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include canvas material as taught by Holzhaus in the device of Bornemeier since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Bornemeier teaches a storage device and adding a canvas material as taught by Holzhaus would maintain the same functionality of Bornemeier, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the inner compression sleeve includes a material selected from nylon, polyester, canvas, vinyl, PVC, a polyethylene-coated fabric, a polypropylene-coated fabric, or a combination thereof. Bornemeiers device is for artificial trees; but Bornemeier never listed a specific material. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely artificial tree storage, Holzhaus taught of the use of canvas material for storage devices relating to artificial trees (page 2 [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of artificial tree storage before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include canvas material as taught by Holzhaus in the device of Bornemeier since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Bornemeier teaches a storage device and adding a canvas material as taught by Holzhaus would maintain the same functionality of Bornemeier, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the inner compression sleeve includes a material selected from nylon, polyester, canvas, or vinyl. Bornemeiers device is for artificial trees; but Bornemeier never listed a specific material. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely artificial tree storage, Holzhaus taught of the use of canvas material for storage devices relating to artificial trees (page 2 [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of artificial tree storage before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include canvas material as taught by Holzhaus in the device of Bornemeier since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Bornemeier teaches a storage device and adding a canvas material as taught by Holzhaus would maintain the same functionality of Bornemeier, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
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
Conclusion
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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735