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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Page 10, first paragraph that Stisser fails to disclose the shared connector is configured to selectively connect any two tree sections because section 14 is disclosed to be connected to section 2 to allegedly remain on top all the time.
However, in Paragraph 22, Stisser recites “To adapt it for use as an ‘artificial Christmas tree,’ it is provided that at least on the upper part of the trunk 2 is a crown element that can be fixed. This can have a connector 15 as an additional assembly or be inserted directly into the upper trunk part in the form of a natural branch.”
While the assembly of Stisser is intended to be used at least in one embodiment with a crown element 14, claim 1 only recites “a shared connector…configured to selectively connect any two tree sections of the plurality of sections.” Therefore, while the top of element 2 of Stisser connects to element 14, since the connectors are modular as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, below, the connectors are configured to selectively connect any two tree sections and therefore this limitation is satisfied.
Furthermore, it is noted that the element 14 is only recited as being used “to adapt for use as an ‘artificial Christmas tree,’ thereby implying other uses in which the element 14 is not required to be on top of the tree, contrary to the allegation of Applicant that the trunk part 2 with top section 14 needs to remain at the top all the time.
Furthermore, in the rejection, trunk part 2 is considered to be the separately recited “top section” of the claims rather than part of “the tree sections.” Therefore, the trunk part 2 would not be required to have the recited shared connector that connects any two tree sections. Even if the trunk part 2 were to be considered a tree section and 14 were to be the top section, since the connectors are modular, the trunk part 2 would satisfy the claimed limitation of configured to selectively connect any two tree sections, as discussed above.
Applicant argues, Page 10 that secondary reference Shine does not teach applying the tapered engagement to the connection of decorative tree trunk sections or combining with tree sections having varying heights and diameters.
However, as seen in MPEP §2143(I)(C,D), use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results are both exemplary rationale for obviousness. While Shine et al. does not teach tapering the connection of tree sections per se, as detailed in the rejection, Shine et al. teaches a shared connector comprising a tapered section 3504 on a first piece and a correspondingly tapered groove 3506 at the corresponding end of a second piece, wherein the tapered geometry allows for easier insertion, reduced required insertion accuracy with alignment by attachment (Paragraph 142).
The teachings of tapering conferring the advantage of easier insertion, reduced required insertion accuracy with alignment by attachment would be applicable to making improvement and/or would predictably improve the connection elements of Leung ‘655 in view of Stisser.
Therefore, the recited limitation is obvious in view of the applied prior art.
Applicant argues, Page 11, first paragraph that the connectors serve to achieve reliable power transmission. However, this is detailed at least in Leung ‘655, Paragraph 54, Fig. 4.
Applicant argues, Page 11, second paragraph that the connectors serve as self-centering and guiding to alignment for simple and fast to operate without rotational action. However, these advantages naturally flow from the tapered nature of the connectors and are also recognized at least in part by Shine et al. (Paragraph 142).
Applicant argues, Page 12 that the previously applied prior art fails to teach that “the conical section is designed as a slightly tapered cylinder” in newly added claim 16 because Shine’s tapered section 3504 is a full-length conical structure. As discussed in the 112 Rejection below, it appears that Applicant is interpreting the term “slightly tapered cylinder” to include scope of only the cylinder being tapered at only a small portion of the cylinder.
However, the Examiner is interpreting term “slightly tapered cylinder” to includes scope of at least the taper being angled to a small degree.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new claims 16 and 17have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2 and 4-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/28/2025.
Specification
The amendments filed 3/2/2026 are sufficient to overcome the objections to the specification stated in the previous office action. Therefore, said objections are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
As detailed in the 112 Rejection, below it appears that Applicant is using the term “slightly tapered cylinder” in claims 16 and 17 to mean that the cylinder is tapered only in a small portion of the cylinder, with the other portion being substantially straight.
Insofar as the term were to include the scope that Applicant appears to believe, the Drawings do not show this feature. Fig. 3 appears to show an upper portion of 203 being tapered in one direction and a lower portion tapered in the opposite direction. Insofar as the term were to include the scope that Applicant appears to believe, it is that adding new Figures to include this feature would potentially constitute new matter.
Therefore, the “slightly tapered cylinder” within the meaning of Applicant’s apparently believed scope must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 recite “a shared connector disposed between the plurality of tree sections and configured to selectively connect any two tree sections of the plurality of tree sections.” (emphasis added)
Applicant’s Paragraph 44 recites a user can “mix and match tree sections,” but stops short of disclosing that the shared connector can connect to each of the corresponding connectors on the other tree sections.
Therefore, the specification as originally filed does not convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 and 17 are dependent on claims 1 and 16 and contain the same deficiencies.
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 16 and 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “the conical section is designed as a slightly tapered cylinder.” Claim 17 recites “the taper of the slightly tapered cylinder is located at an end of the conical section adjoining the second tree section.”
Applicant’s Partial enlarged view of Fig. 3, included in Remarks 3/2/2026 Page 8:
PNG
media_image1.png
530
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As best as the Examiner can tell, it appears that the Applicant believes the following:
the section 203 of Fig. 3 is a substantially straight cylinder that tapers only in the very lowest section of 203.
The use of the term “slightly” is modifying how much the taper occupies along the length of the cylinder.
The Examiner disagrees with the first bullet point, as Applicant’s Fig. 3 appears to show element 203 as a part with outer diameter that tapers (from top downwards) outwards to a point and then tapers inwards. The section above the greatest outer diameter and the section below the greatest outer diameter appear to both be their own conical section and/or slightly tapered cylinder rather than a substantially non-tapered straight section.
Applicant’s Remarks recite, Page 12, second paragraph, that the previously applied prior art fail to teach the conical section is designed as a slightly tapered cylinder since “Shine discloses only a tapered section 3504. Specifically, Shine’s tapered section 3504 is a full-length conical structure.”
This statement supports the Examiner’s guess that Applicant believes the first and second bullet points. As discussed above, Applicant’s own section appears to have taper along substantially the whole length, although there are two separate tapering sections.
The Examiner disagrees with bullet point two in that the term “slightly tapered cylinder has scope that is not included in bullet point two. The term “slightly tapered cylinder” has scope of at least the term “slightly” modifying the degree or angle of the taper itself. That is, the cylinder is tapered to a small degree such as that depicted in the bottom or top of #203 of Fig. 3 so that the diameter during the taper changes only slightly. This would be in contrast to being tapered to a large degree, such as for example a traffic cone where the diameter changes relatively faster per axial length.
For the purposes of examination, the recitation of a “slightly tapered cylinder” in claims 16 and 17 will be examined as though they included the scope of the taper being angled to a small degree.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung et al. (US PGPub 2018/0098655 A1, hereinafter Leung ‘655) in view of Stisser (DE 202021001350 U1, citations herein refer to the previously attached machine translation 12/1/2025) and Shine et al. (US PGPub 2019/0211983 A1), or alternatively in further view of Leung et al. (US PGPub 2008/0107840 A1, hereinafter Leung ‘840) and Chen (US PGPub 2012/0076957 A1).
As to claim 1, Leung ‘655 discloses (Figs. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4 and 18) a customizable decorative tree, comprising: a trunk (at least 200, 400) including a plurality of tree sections 200, 400, the tree sections 200, 400 being selectively connectable for sectional assembly and disassembly; a shared connector 120, 220 disposed between the plurality of tree sections and configured to selectively connect adjacent tree sections of the plurality of tree sections (Paragraph 62); a base 100 configured to support the trunk and selectively connectable to the trunk 100 (Paragraph 63); an electrical connector 110, 115, 210, 220 (Paragraph 54) configured to selectively connect adjacent tree sections 200, 400 of the plurality of tree sections 200, 400; wherein the plurality of tree sections 200, 400 and the base 100 are configured for electrical power transmission via the electrical connectors (Fig. 4, Paragraph 54)
PNG
media_image2.png
614
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
614
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
690
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
754
328
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
736
426
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
760
496
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Leung ‘655
Leung ‘655 discloses that the shared connector 120, 220 comprises a section 220 on one end of a first tree section and a corresponding groove 120 at the corresponding end of a second tree section, and the first tree section is selectively connected to the second tree section via frictional conical engagement (Paragraph 62), with the first and second tree sections being substantially cylindrical (Fig. 3A).
Leung ‘655 does not explicitly state that the section and groove of the shared connector are conical.
Shine et al. teaches (Fig. 35A) a shared connector comprising a tapered section 3504 on a first piece and a correspondingly tapered groove 3506 at the corresponding end of a second piece, wherein the tapered geometry allows for easier insertion, reduced required insertion accuracy with alignment by attachment (Paragraph 142).
PNG
media_image8.png
300
466
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Shine et al.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to taper the parts of the shared connector of Leung ‘655 in order to make insertion easier with less required accuracy and good alignment, as taught by Shine et al. Since the shared connector of Shine et al. is substantially cylindrical, tapering would cause the shapes to be conical.
As to the attachment being by frictional engagement, Leung ‘655 discloses that the shared connector functions by the diameters being the same or nearly the same size to provide a secure fit. This implies an inherent frictional fit since the attachment is the same size and the size is disclosed to be causing the secure fit.
Alternatively, should it be found that Leung ‘655 in view of Stisser and Shine et al. does not have frictional fit, Leung ‘840 teaches (Fig. 1) using friction fit as means to secure artificial tree trunk sections (Paragraphs 26-29, means to associate, for example 30, 90 are recited to be secured by friction fit).
PNG
media_image9.png
700
486
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Leung ‘840
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the attachment of Leung ‘655 in view of Stisser and Shine et al. frictional in order to further secure attachment between the trunk portions, as taught by Leung ‘840.
Leung ‘655 is silent as to the tree sections having varying heights and diameters to provide a natural appearance or unique styling for the trunk. Furthermore, Leung ‘655 discloses a base 100 and two trunk sections 200, 400, but does not explicitly discuss a top section.
Stisser teaches (Figs. 2 and 4) tree sections 2-6 having varying heights (lengths) in order to allow for adjusting the height of the artificial tree according to user specifications, such as for different rooms (Paragraphs 5, 16 and 21) and for optimally fitting individual parts into transport packaging 13 (Paragraphs 19 and 20). Furthermore, Stisser teaches tree sections having varying diameters (Paragraphs 16 and 21, trunk sections tapers conically while bring free of steps, implying different diameters) in order to provide aesthetic design (Paragraph 8). Furthermore, with respect to a top section, Stisser teaches (Fig. 2) a configuration with base 5 and/or 21, trunk sections 3, 4 and top section 2, wherein the top section 2 is disposed at an upper end of the trunk 3, 4 and selectively connectable to the trunk 3, 4.
PNG
media_image10.png
948
750
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
560
390
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Stisser
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the tree sections have varying heights in order to allow for adjusting the height of the artificial tree according to user specifications and for optimally fitting individual parts into transport packaging, as taught by Stisser. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the tree sections have varying diameters in order to allow for tapering for aesthetics, as taught by Stisser, resulting in a natural and unique look. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a further top section in order to allow for the tree to be taller, when necessary, as taught by Stisser. With respect to the term “customizable decorative tree,” the of Leung ‘655 would satisfy customizable merely by being able to hold different varieties of ornaments. However, the modified tree of Leung ‘655 in view of Stisser would further be customizable by interchanging the number of sections for different heights, as discussed by Stisser.
As to the shared connector being configured to selectively connect any two tree sections, Stisser teaches the parts being modular (Paragraphs 16 and 21), allowing for different heights (Paragraphs 7 and 21).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the connectors modular in order to allow for different heights, as taught by Stisser. Since the connectors of the tree sections are modular, they each would be configured to accept the corresponding modular connector of any other tree section.
Alternatively, should it be found that the applied prior art does not sufficiently teach the connectors being configured to connect any two tree sections, Chen teaches modularity allows for using the same common modular connector even when other design elements such as wiring harnesses or number of light strings need to be changed or modified (Paragraph 139).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the connectors modular in order to allow design variation while still using the same modular connector, as taught by Chen. Since the connectors of the tree sections are modular, they each would be configured to accept the corresponding modular connector of any other tree section.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Leung et al. ‘655 in view of Stisser and Shine et al., or alternatively in further view of Leung et al. and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McRae (US PGPub 2018/0100958 A1).
As to claim 15, Leung ‘655 discloses (Fig. 4) connector for pluging in exterior tree lights (Paragraph 66), but is silent s to the tree sections having integrated lighting.
McRae teaches (Fig. 18) that the tree sections are configured with integrated lighting 140 (corresponding label shown in Fig. 7, #140) to emit light to outside (Fig. 2 #150, Paragraph 34).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include integrated lighting like that of McRae instead of or in addition to the lighting of Leung ‘655 in order to suitable provide lighting to the tree, as taught by McRae and since the selection from among known suitable alternatives for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung et al. ‘655 in view of Stisser and Shine et al., or alternatively in further view of Leung et al. and Chen and Fu (US PGPub 2012/0009360 A1).
As to claim 1, Leung et al discloses (Figs. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4 and 18) a customizable decorative tree, comprising: a trunk (at least 200, 400) including a plurality of tree sections 200, 400, the tree sections 200, 400 being selectively connectable for sectional assembly and disassembly; a shared connector 120, 220 disposed between the plurality of tree sections and configured to selectively connect adjacent tree sections of the plurality of tree sections (Paragraph 62); a base 100 configured to support the trunk and selectively connectable to the trunk 100 (Paragraph 63); an electrical connector 110, 115, 210, 220 (Paragraph 54) configured to selectively connect adjacent tree sections 200, 400 of the plurality of tree sections 200, 400; wherein the plurality of tree sections 200, 400 and the base 100 are configured for electrical power transmission via the electrical connectors (Fig. 4, Paragraph 54).
Leung ‘655 discloses that the shared connector 120, 220 comprises a section 220 on one end of a first tree section and a corresponding groove 120 at the corresponding end of a second tree section, and the first tree section is selectively connected to the second tree section via frictional conical engagement (Paragraph 62), with the first and second tree sections being substantially cylindrical (Fig. 3A).
Leung ‘655 does not explicitly state that the section and groove of the shared connector are conical.
Shine et al. teaches (Fig. 35A) a shared connector comprising a slightly tapered section 3504 on a first piece and a correspondingly tapered groove 3506 at the corresponding end of a second piece, wherein the tapered geometry allows for easier insertion, reduced required insertion accuracy with alignment by attachment (Paragraph 142).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly taper the parts of the shared connector of Leung ‘655 in order to make insertion easier with less required accuracy and good alignment, as taught by Shine et al. Since the shared connector of Shine et al. is substantially cylindrical, tapering would cause the shapes to be conical.
As to the attachment being by frictional engagement, Leung ‘655 discloses that the shared connector functions by the diameters being the same or nearly the same size to provide a secure fit. This implies an inherent frictional fit since the attachment is the same size and the size is disclosed to be causing the secure fit.
Alternatively, should it be found that Leung ‘655 in view of Stisser and Shine et al. does not have frictional fit, Leung ‘840 teaches (Fig. 1) using friction fit as means to secure artificial tree trunk sections (Paragraphs 26-29, means to associate, for example 30, 90 are recited to be secured by friction fit).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the attachment of Leung ‘655 in view of Stisser and Shine et al. frictional in order to further secure attachment between the trunk portions, as taught by Leung ‘840.
Leung ‘655 is silent as to the tree sections having varying heights and diameters to provide a natural appearance or unique styling for the trunk. Furthermore, Leung ‘655 discloses a base 100 and two trunk sections 200, 400, but does not explicitly discuss a top section.
Stisser teaches (Figs. 2 and 4) tree sections 2-6 having varying heights (lengths) in order to allow for adjusting the height of the artificial tree according to user specifications, such as for different rooms (Paragraphs 5, 16 and 21) and for optimally fitting individual parts into transport packaging 13 (Paragraphs 19 and 20). Furthermore, Stisser teaches tree sections having varying diameters (Paragraphs 16 and 21, trunk sections tapers conically while bring free of steps, implying different diameters) in order to provide aesthetic design (Paragraph 8). Furthermore, with respect to a top section, Stisser teaches (Fig. 2) a configuration with base 5 and/or 21, trunk sections 3, 4 and top section 2, wherein the top section 2 is disposed at an upper end of the trunk 3, 4 and selectively connectable to the trunk 3, 4.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the tree sections have varying heights in order to allow for adjusting the height of the artificial tree according to user specifications and for optimally fitting individual parts into transport packaging, as taught by Stisser. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the tree sections have varying diameters in order to allow for tapering for aesthetics, as taught by Stisser, resulting in a natural and unique look. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a further top section in order to allow for the tree to be taller, when necessary, as taught by Stisser. With respect to the term “customizable decorative tree,” the of Leung ‘655 would satisfy customizable merely by being able to hold different varieties of ornaments. However, the modified tree of Leung ‘655 in view of Stisser would further be customizable by interchanging the number of sections for different heights, as discussed by Stisser.
As to the shared connector being configured to selectively connect any two tree sections, Stisser teaches the parts being modular (Paragraphs 16 and 21), allowing for different heights (Paragraphs 7 and 21).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the connectors modular in order to allow for different heights, as taught by Stisser. Since the connectors of the tree sections are modular, they each would be configured to accept the corresponding modular connector of any other tree section.
Alternatively, should it be found that the applied prior art does not sufficiently teach the connectors being configured to connect any two tree sections, Chen teaches modularity allows for using the same common modular connector even when other design elements such as wiring harnesses or number of light strings need to be changed or modified (Paragraph 139).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the connectors modular in order to allow design variation while still using the same modular connector, as taught by Chen. Since the connectors of the tree sections are modular, they each would be configured to accept the corresponding modular connector of any other tree section.
As to the modified assembly being a “slightly tapered” cylinder, the term is being interpreted to have scope that the angle of the taper is slight or small. Since the modification in view of Shine et al. makes a small taper angle, the limitation of “slightly tapered” is satisfied.
Alternatively, should it be found that the applied prior art does not teach “slightly tapered,” Fu et al. teaches (Fig. 5) applying the taper 304 only at a small portion of the combined 304 and 306 section. (Paragraphs 30, 32, 38)
PNG
media_image12.png
712
410
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Fu et al.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to taper only at a small end portion of the conical section since it is taught as suitable for connections by Fu et al. and the selection from among known suitable alternatives for their known purposes is generally within the abilities of one having ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 17, Leung et al. ‘655 in view of Stisser and Shine et al., or alternatively in further view of Leung et al. and Chen and Fu teaches that the taper of the slightly tapered cylinder is located at an end of the conical section adjoining the second tree section. (Modification in view of Shine et al. Fig. 35 #3504, taper is substantially entire length and therefore located at end adjoining other connected piece; alternatively Fu Fig. 4 #304, Paragraphs 30-32, 38 located at end of 304, 306 toward 400).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crownover (USPN 4,054,696 A) discloses (Fig. 2) tree sections 11, 12 with tapered lower end connector (Col. 2, line 1).
Loominocity (US PGPub 2014/0334134 A1) discloses (Fig. 2) tree sections 200, 205 connected by connector 215, 245.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN Y HORIKOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7811. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 2-10PM EDT.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/S.Y.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875