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, information disclosure statements (IDS) have been filed on 03/03/2025 and on 7/17/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 13-14 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.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear how many bases are being claimed, in other words, it is unclear whether the base recited in claim 13 is referring to the base recited in claim 1 or to some other element because they are given the same designation “a base”.
Claim 14 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 13.
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 1-2, 4, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gary (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20050048226 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gary teaches an artificial Christmas tree, comprising:
a plurality of frame sections (20) configured to be assembled to form a tree frame, the tree frame having an outer frame portion (22) configured to support artificial tree features;
a base (12) configured to support at least a portion of the artificial Christmas tree on a surface;
an elongated support (14 and/or 16) having a proximal end coupled to the base and an opposite distal end spaced longitudinally apart from the proximal end, a length of the support being commensurate with a height of the tree frame; and
means (56, 140) for moving the support between respective prone and erect positions.
Regarding claim 2, Gary teaches the frame sections (20) are configured to circumscribe the support (14 and/or 16) and are moveable relative to the support in the longitudinal direction along the length of the support.
Regarding claim 4, Gary teaches each respective frame section (20) includes at least two annular sector portions (22, 24) that are coupled together to circumscribe the support.
Regarding claim 15, Gary teaches an artificial Christmas tree, comprising:
a base (12);
a mounting post (16) coupled to the base and moveable between a prone position and an erect position;
an elongated support (14) having a proximal end and an opposite distal end, in which the proximal end of the support is configured to couple to the mounting post to so the support is moveable with the mounting post between respective prone and erect positions; and
a plurality of frame sections (20) configured to be assembled to form a tree frame, the tree frame having an outer frame portion (22) configured to support artificial tree features, and at least some of the frame sections are configured to circumscribe the support.
Regarding claim 20, Gary teaches each respective frame section includes at least two annular sector portions (22, 24) that are coupled together to circumscribe the support.
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.
Claims 5-6, 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gary (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20050048226 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Gary teaches a mounting post (114) coupled to the base and moveable between respective prone and erect positions in which the mounting post is configured to couple to the proximal end of the support so the support is moveable with the mounting post between the respective prone and erect positions [capable]. Gary teaches various embodiments; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the base and mounting post configuration disclosed in Figs. 4-8 with the frame sections of Fig. 1. The motivation would have been to automate the embodiment disclosed in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 6, Gary as modified teaches the means (56, 140) for moving the support comprises: a hoist (140) coupled to the base and configured to move the support between the respective prone and erect positions.
Regarding claim 9, Gary as modified teaches a hoist (140, 142) coupled to at least one of the base (112) and the support (114), wherein the hoist comprises at least one flexible elongated member (126, 128) coupled to a given frame section, and the hoist is configured to vary a length of the flexible elongated member to move at least the given frame section in the longitudinal direction relative to the support.
Regarding claim 10, Gary as modified teaches the distal end of the support (114) is above the base in the erect position, wherein the length of the flexible elongated member (126, 128) extends from the distal end of the support to couple to the given frame section, and the given frame section is moveable in the longitudinal direction along the support.
Regarding claim 16, Gary as modified teaches a hoist (140, 142) coupled to at least one of the mounting post and the support, in which the hoist is configured to move the support and mounting post between respective prone and erect positions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, 8, 11, and 17-19 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.
Claims 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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