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 Objections
Claims 1-2, 6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, in line 2 after “the” and before “ring frames” insert “plurality of”, in order to ensure consistency in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 2, in line 1 after “plurality of” and before “ring frames” delete “the”, in order to ensure consistency in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 6, in line 1 after “the” and before “ring frames” insert “plurality of”, in order to ensure consistency in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 9, in line 2 after “the” and before “reinforcement rods” “plurality of”, in order to ensure consistency in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 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.
In reference to claim 8, the limitation “the reinforcement rods” are recited in lines 1 and 3-4. It is unclear if the reinforcement rods refer to each of the plurality of reinforcement rods or the two reinforcement rods of the plurality of reinforcement rods. For the purpose of compact prosecution, “the reinforcement rods” will be interpreted as the two reinforcement rods of the plurality of reinforming rods. In order to ensure proper antecedent basis and clarity in the claim language it is suggested to (1) in claim 7 amend “two of the plurality of reinforcement rods” to “two reinforcement rods of the plurality of reinforcement rods”, (2) in claim 8 amend “the reinforcement rods” in line 1 to “the two reinforcement rods of the plurality of reinforcement rods” and (3) in claim 8 amend “the reinforcement rods” in lines 3-4 “the two reinforcement rods of the plurality of reinforcement rods”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US 2026/0137151) in view of Wang (US 2019/0323531).
In reference to claims 1-5, Luo teaches a decorative ring having a frame body that is assembled from a plurality of frame components ([0001]; [0022]) (corresponding to a Christmas tree ring that can be assembled, comprising a plurality of ring frames). FIG. 6, provided below, shows the installation frame body is assembled from several frame components 500 that come together to from a circular frame body 100 ([0077]) (corresponding to the plurality of the ring frames are spliced together to from a circular structure).
Luo further teaches the ends of the dry frame components 500 are equipped with connectors 600 and several frame components 500 are connected end-to-end through the connectors 600 to from the installation frame body ([0080]) (corresponding to two ends of the ring frames are respectively provided with a first insertion tube and a second insertion tube).
Luo does not explicitly teach a size of an outer surface of the second insertion tube is adapted to a size of an inner wall of the second insertion tube and the first insertion ube is provided with a connection hole, and the second insertion tube is provide with a limiting element. However, Luo teaches the connectors can be quick-connection structures ([0080]; [0088]).
Wang teaches a cat tree to be assembled ([0020]-[0021]). The assembly includes multiple bars with connections therebetween ([0021]). At the connection between the bars there is a first segment and a second segment ([0031]). The first segment has a first mounting hole disposed therethrough and the second segment has a second mounting hole dispose therethrough ([0031]) (corresponding to a first insertion tube and a second insertion tube). An end of the second segment is inserted into the first segment and the first mounting hole and the second mounting hole are therewith aligned ([0031]) (corresponding to a size of the second insertion tube is adapted to a size of an inner wall of the first insertion tube to achieve an insertion between adjacent first insertion tube and second insertion tube; the first insertion tube is provided with a connection hole).
Wang further teaches an elastomer is disposed in the second segment and the two functional parts of the elastomer abut against an inner wall of the second segment. A protrusion of the elastomer penetrates through the second mounting hole and the first mounting hole in order. The elastomer has a V-shape ([0031]; FIG. 3) (corresponding to the second insertion tube is provided with a limiting element; the limiting element comprises a spring piece provided in the second insertion tube, and a limit pin is fixedly provided on the spring piece; one end of the limit pin away from the spring piece passes through the second insertion tube; one end of the spring piece away from the limit pin is fixedly connected to an inner wall of the second insertion tube; one end of the limit pin away from the spring piece is an arc shape). The two segments are connected via the elastomer. To conveniently dismount the two segments the user may easily pull the second segment out of the first segment without any tool after pressing the protrusion ([0033]).
In light of the motivation of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have the connector of Lou be two segments including an elastomer, in order to provide a quick and reliable connection and easy disassembly of the ring without need for further tools, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
While there is no disclosure that the decorative ring of Lou in view of Wang is an Christmas tree ring as presently claimed, Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
661
1107
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. ring for a Christmas tree, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure which is identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
In reference to claims 6 and 7, Lou in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. FIG. 6, provided above, shows the frames 500 include an outer arc-shaped rod and an inner arc-shaped rod and a plurality of reinforcing rods connected between the arc-shaped rods (corresponding to the ring frames comprises an outer arc-shaped rod and an inner arc-shaped rod, and there are a plurality of reinforcement rods connected between the outer arc-shaped rod and the inner arc-shaped rod). The connectors are on an area that includes a reinforced strip (FIG. 6) (corresponding to the first insertion tube and the second insertion tube are respectively installed on two of the plurality of reinforcement rods).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henz (US 2024/0108158) in view of Wang.
In reference to claims 1-5, Henz teaches a tree collar apparatus for Christmas trees that is highly modular and can be assembled ([0001]-[0010]) (corresponding to a Christmas tree ring that can be assembled). The apparatus is connected together via the connecting of wire assemblies positioned within sheaths of panels ([0032]; [0039]; [0044]; [0046]-[0048]) (corresponding to a plurality of ring frames). The connected wire assemblies form a circular tree collar (Figs. 1C, 3B, 4B) (corresponding to the plurality of the ring frames are spliced together to form a circular structure).
Henz further teaches mating components are attached to one end of the wire while the other end of the wire includes a special protrusion for mating with the mating component receptable ([0046]). The mating components of the wire assembly removably connect the wires at the ends ([0048]) (corresponding to two ends of the ring frames are respectively provided with a first insertion tube and a second insertion tube). Fig. 3C shows a protrusion at one end of the wire fits inside the receptacle at the end of a different wire ([0048]) (corresponding to a size of an outer surface of the second insertion tube is adapted to a size of an inner wall of the first insertion tube to achieve an insertion between adjacent first insertion tube and second insertion tube when the plurality of ring frames are spliced).
Henz does not explicitly teach the receptacle is provided with a connection hole and the protrusion is provided with a limiting element, as presently claimed. However, Henz teaches different variation for mating the wire assemblies can be utilized ([0048]).
Wang teaches a cat tree to be assembled ([0020]-[0021]). The assembly includes multiple bars with connections therebetween ([0021]). At the connection between the bars there is a first segment and a second segment ([0031]). The first segment has a first mounting hole disposed therethrough and the second segment has a second mounting hole dispose therethrough ([0031]) (corresponding to a first insertion tube and a second insertion tube). An end of the second segment is inserted into the first segment and the first mounting hole and the second mounting hole are therewith aligned ([0031]) (corresponding to a size of the second insertion tube is adapted to a size of an inner wall of the first insertion tube to achieve an insertion between adjacent first insertion tube and second insertion tube; the first insertion tube is provided with a connection hole).
Wang further teaches an elastomer is disposed in the second segment and the two functional parts of the elastomer abut against an inner wall of the second segment. A protrusion of the elastomer penetrates through the second mounting hole and the first mounting hole in order. The elastomer has a V-shape ([0031]; FIG. 3) (corresponding to the second insertion tube is provided with a limiting element; the limiting element comprises a spring piece provided in the second insertion tube, and a limit pin is fixedly provided on the spring piece; one end of the limit pin away from the spring piece passes through the second insertion tube; one end of the spring piece away from the limit pin is fixedly connected to an inner wall of the second insertion tube; one end of the limit pin away from the spring piece is an arc shape). The two segments are connected via the elastomer. To conveniently dismount the two segments the user may easily pull the second segment out of the first segment without any tool after pressing the protrusion ([0033]).
In light of the motivation of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have the mating components of Henz include mounting holes and elastomer within the protrusion part, in order to provide a quick and reliable connection and easy disassembly of the wire assembly without need for further tools, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henz in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 11,143,359) (Wang‘359).
In reference to claims 6 and 7, Henz in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Henz further teaches each panel making up the tree collar apparatus includes an upper wire and lower wire (Figs. 2D-2E, 3B) (corresponding to the ring frames comprise an outer arc-shaped ride and an inner arc-shaped rod).
Henz in view of Wang does not explicitly teach a plurality of reinforcement rods connected between the upper and lower wires of the panel, as presently claimed.
Wang‘359 teaches a tree skirt stand (col. 1, lines 5-7). The stand includes an I-shaped tree skirt stand in order to provide strong stability and simple disassembly of the stand (col. 1, lines 16-32). The upper and lower ends of vertical fixation bars are fixedly connected to middle portions of the upper and lower connection bars of the tress skirt stand (col. 1, lines 33-41) (corresponding to a plurality of reinforcement rods connected between the outer arc-shaped rod and the inner arc-shaped rod).
In light of the motivation of Wang‘359, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to include vertical fixation bars fixedly connected to the upper and lower wires of Henz in view of Wang and at the ends adjacent the mating component, in order to provide strong stability and simple disassembly of the collar apparatus, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 8, Henz in view of Wang and Wang‘359 teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above.
Henz in view of Wang and Wang‘359 teaches the vertical fixation bars are fixedly connected to wire assembly. Although Henz in view of Wang and Wang‘359 does not explicitly teach welding the vertical fixation bars to the wire assembly as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Henz in view of Wang and Wang‘359 meets the requirements of the claimed product, Henz in view of Wang and Wang‘359 clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou in view of Wang as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Advantages and disadvantages of welding as a joining method (Besley).
In reference to claim 8, Lou in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above.
Lou in view of Wang does not explicitly teach the reinforcement rods are welded together with the outer arc-shaped rod and the inner arc-shaped rod, as presently claimed. However, FIG. 6, provided above, shows the outer arc-shaped rod and inner arc-shaped rod are connected with the reinforcement rods.
Besley teaches welding creates a high-strength permanent joint without causing structural damage (p. 2-3).
In light of the motivation of Besley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to weld the frame parts of Lou in view of Wang together, in order to provide high-strength permanent joint therebetween without causing structural damage to the ring, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
However, it is noted that the claim define the product by how the product was made (i.e., welding). Thus, the claim is a product-by-process claim. For the purpose of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply reinforcement rods are presently joined to each of the arc-shaped inner and outer rods and the insertion tubes. Lou in view of Wang and Besley suggest such a product.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou in view of Wang as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Corrosion Protective Coatings 101: What Are They and Why They Are Important? (Tiger).
In reference to claim 9, Lou in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above.
Lou in view of Wang does not explicitly teach outer surfaces of the outer arc-shaped rods, the inner arc-shaped rod, the reinforcement rods and the connectors are all provided with protective coatings, as presently claimed.
Tiger teaches powder coating primers for protecting materials from corrosion (p. 1). Corrosion protection coatings offer a means to enhance the performance and lifespan of metals and other substrates (p. 2).
In light of the motivation of Tiger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to provide a corrosion protection coating on the outer surface of the frames and connectors of Lou in view of Wang, in order to protect the parts from corrosion and enhance the performance and life of the decorative ring, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henz in view of Wang and Wang‘359 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tiger.
In reference to claim 9, Henz in view of Wang and Wang‘359 teaches the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above.
Henz in view of Wang and Wang‘359 does not explicitly teach outer surfaces of the wire assemblies, the vertical bars and the mating components are all provided with protective coatings, as presently claimed.
Tiger teaches powder coating primers for protecting materials from corrosion (p. 1). Corrosion protection coatings offer a means to enhance the performance and lifespan of metals and other substrates (p. 2).
In light of the motivation of Tiger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to provide a corrosion protection coating on the outer surface of outer surfaces of the wire assemblies, the vertical bars and the mating components of Henz in view of Wang and Wang‘359, in order to protect the parts from corrosion and enhance the performance and life of the decorative ring, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Huang (US 6,334,694) and Wang (US 2025/0268410), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, the rejections using these references would be cumulative to the rejections of record set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights