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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Claims 1-20 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
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 7 and 14-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recitation of claim 7 wherein “…the length of the support bracket is substantially the same as the length of the handle, or the length of the support bracket is shorter than the length of the handle, or the length of the support bracket is longer than the length of the handle…” renders the indefinite because it is unclear what scope the Applicant intends the claim to encompass.
The recitation of claim 14 wherein “…the support sleeve has a strength capable of supporting an apparatus that is 5 or more times the size of the handle…” renders the claim indefinite because the strength depends on the load that varies based on the type of material e.g. 5 times size of cotton would be significantly different from 5 times the size of copper or silver. Thus, one would not know at what strength the infringement would occur.
The recitation of claim 15 wherein “…a contour along its length that permits a handle having a similarly shaped contour to seat in the support bracket to hold an attached apparatus at the elevated height… the support bracket is shaped to accept a handle of an apparatus that slides downwardly into the support bracket, with the apparatus being supported on the support bracket by a portion of the apparatus that is positioned above the handle of the apparatus…” renders the claim indefinite because the handle/apparatus is not an element of the claimed invention and it is improper to seek to define claimed structure based on some unclaimed element. In this case, the boundaries of the claim cannot be properly ascertain because one would not know whether their invention infringed the instant claim until someone else later added the handle. Accordingly, the support mechanism itself must be defined by its structural elements instead of relying upon a comparison with an unascertained element. Claim 20 contains similar issue.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second width" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims not cited above are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 fails to further limit the scope of claim 1 because claim 7 recites all possible lengths of the support bracket with respect to the handle . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 1-3, 7-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sanguinet (U.S. Pat. No. 8833596 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Sanguinet teaches a support mounting mechanism for mounting an apparatus at an elevated height on a surface comprising:
a support sleeve (Fig. 4; 200) that has a substantially U-shaped profile (upper cross-section along the horizontal plane) and a length, with the U-shape having a closed rear end and an open front end, and the rear end of the U-shape is attachable to the surface; and
an apparatus (100) having a handle (handle defined by 105/capable being used as a handle) with a length and a cross-sectional shape that seats in the U- shaped sleeve to hold the apparatus at the elevated height, wherein the handle extends along part of the height of the apparatus and the apparatus has an upper portion (portion of 100 above 132) positioned above the handle that has a width that is larger than the width of the U-shaped profile, the upper portion of the apparatus serves as a stop so that only part of the apparatus sits on top of the support sleeve, and part of the apparatus extends outwardly from the support sleeve to suspend the apparatus at the elevated height (see Fig. 1 for configuration).
Regarding claim 2, Sanguinet teaches wherein the closed rear end (end at 205) of the support sleeve is a rear wall having a first width and an open front end is two outwardly extending arms (arms defined near annotations 262 and 264) that provide a second width, and the first width is greater than the second width.
Regarding claim 3, Sanguinet teaches wherein the two outwardly extending arms (arms defined near annotations 262 and 264) are a mirror image of each other and have a shape that is a concavely curved adjacent the rear wall and convexly curved at the open front end (see Fig. 4 for configuration).
Regarding claim 7, Sanguinet teaches the length of the support bracket (200) is substantially the same as the length of the handle, or the length of the support bracket is shorter than the length of the handle, or
the length of the support bracket is longer than the length of the handle.
Regarding claim 8, Sanguinet teaches the handle (handle defined by 115) of the apparatus is integral with the apparatus.
Regarding claim 9, Sanguinet teaches the apparatus has a first portion (top portion of 100) that is positioned outside of the support bracket and a second portion (portion of 115) that is positioned inside the support bracket, with the second portion being the handle.
Regarding claim 10, Sanguinet teaches the first portion is a chicken feeder or a chicken waterer (capable of being used as a chicken as described in Col. 1; lines 10-27) having one or more access points for chickens (top access).
Regarding claim 11, Sanguinet teaches the support mounting apparatus capable of being used with the surface that is a substantially vertical surface.
Regarding claim 14. Sanguinet teaches wherein the support sleeve has a strength capable of supporting an apparatus that is 5 or more times the size of the handle [capable depending on the material].
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Caldwell (U.S. Design Pat. No. D1073484).
Regarding claim 15, Caldwell teaches a support mechanism for holding an apparatus at an elevated height above the ground comprising:
a support bracket (Fig. 1) having a height and a width, wherein the support bracket has a contour along its length that permits a handle having a similarly shaped contour to seat in the support bracket to hold an attached apparatus at the elevated height, wherein the bracket has a U-shaped profile (top view cross-section along the horizontal plane) with a closed rear end that is configured to attach to a separate supporting structure, an open front end (as shown in Fig. 1), an open bottom end (bottom end of Fig. 1), and an open top end (top end of Fig. 1), and the support bracket is shaped to accept a handle of an apparatus that slides downwardly into the support bracket, with the apparatus being supported on the support bracket by a portion of the apparatus that is positioned above the handle of the apparatus,
wherein the support bracket is configured to suspend an apparatus above the ground solely by contact between the handle of the apparatus and the support bracket [capable].
Regarding claim 16, Caldwell teaches the support bracket at the closed rear end has a first width (rear width) and the support bracket at the open front end has a second width (front width defining gap), with the second width being smaller than or equal to the first width, with the second width being the smallest width between the two arms.
Regarding claim 17, Caldwell teaches the closed rear end (rear end of Fig. 1) of the support bracket has a substantially flat surface for attaching to a separate flat surface.
Regarding claim 19, Caldwell teaches the support bracket has a rear wall at the rear end and the rear wall has a width (rear width) that is about greater than or equal to the second width (front width defining gap).
Regarding claim 20, Caldwell teaches the support bracket (Fig. 1) is made from a material that has a thickness that is substantially constant and a strength sufficient to support an apparatus that is suspended by a handle positioned in the support bracket.
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 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caldwell (U.S. Design Pat. No. D1073484) in view of Bantel (U.S. Pat. No. 1547014).
Regarding claim 18, Caldwell teaches the open front end of the support bracket has convexly curved arms. However, Caldwell is silent to disclose the flared tips. Bentel teaches the support bracket has convexly curved arms and flared tips (Bantel; Fig. 1; element 18).
Caldwell and Bantel are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bracket of Caldwell having flared tips. The motivation would have been to facilitate the insertion of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 12 and 13 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. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 pm.
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 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights