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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application no. 18/942,967 for a MULTIFUNCTIONAL, VERSATILE CAMOUFLAGE DEVICE, filed on 11/11/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-4, 6, 7, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (U.S. Pat. 11,758,901) in view of Suter (U.S. Pub. 2009/0178326).
Regarding claim 1, Adams teaches a device (Fig. 3) comprising: a puck comprising: a puck top; a puck bottom (see Fig. 4); a plurality of puck sides; and a puck opening in a respective one of the plurality of puck sides; and a camouflage device (40) attached to the puck via the puck opening, but does not teach that the puck opening is threaded. Suter, however teaches a camouflage device (1, Fig. 2) attached to a connector (10) threaded opening ([0009]) in order to releasably secure the camouflage device to the connector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the puck opening of Adams as threaded in order to securely, quickly and releasable attach and detach a threaded camouflage device to the puck to maintain a tight and secure connection that can be held on various supports and environments, in view of Suter.
[AltContent: textbox (Puck sides)]
PNG
media_image1.png
462
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Puck opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Puck top)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 2, Adams and Suter teach the device of claim 1, but do not teach that the plurality of the puck sides are sloped. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the plurality of puck sides as sloped in order to direct water flow off of the puck when used in an outdoor environment when raining, and further, as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art since the applicant has not shown how the chosen shape is critical.
Regarding claim 3, Adams and Suter teach the device of claim 1, but do not teach that the puck is octagonal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the puck as octagonal in order to provide additional sides to secure additional branches to the puck for more concealment, and further, as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art since the applicant has not shown how the chosen shape is critical.
Regarding claim 4, Adams and Suter teach the device of claim 1, wherein the puck further comprises a securing device (10) attached to the puck bottom configured for attachment to an external object.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Adams and Suter teach the device of claim 1, wherein Suter teaches that the threaded puck opening is female threaded and the camouflage device is threaded into the threaded puck opening.
Regarding claim 19, Adams and Suter teach the device of claim 1, wherein Adams teaches that the camouflage device comprises an artificial branch or a real camouflage branch.
Regarding claim 20, Adams and Suter teach the device of claim 1, wherein Adams teaches that the camouflage device provides camouflage proximate the puck.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 8066022, 9185902, 8356784, 6306471, 6543175 (concealment devices)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 February 7, 2026