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 1-16 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Claims 1-16 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 2 “an surface” should be amended to –a surface–.
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.
Claims 9 and 16 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.
Claims 9 and 16 recites the limitation "the plurality of lateral supports" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rahmer (U.S. Pat. No. 6983921 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Rahmer teaches a decorative tree stand device, comprising:
a tree trunk mount (10), further comprising:
a securing neck (top portion of 12) secured to an upper portion of the tree trunk mount;
a plurality of tightening adjusters (40) spaced around a circumference of an outside surface of the securing neck and configured to move inward and outward as actuated; and
one or more sizing adapters (14) structurally configured to engage into an opening in the securing neck, the one or more sizing adapters having an internal tree trunk opening oriented to receive a tree trunk of a comparatively sized diameter and to allow the tightening adjusters to actuate inward to secure the tree trunk; and
a support base (12) coupled to the tree trunk mount to maintain the tree trunk mount in a vertical position.
Regarding claim 2, Rahmer teaches the tree trunk mount further comprises a bottom stabilizer (56) positioned at a bottom surface of the tree trunk mount to stabilize a bottom of a tree trunk when positioned in the tree trunk mount.
Regarding claim 4, Rahmer teaches the sizing adapter has an outer circular configuration as a disk shape (as seen from the top/Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Rahmer teaches the sizing adapter has a cutout section (53) between an surface and the internal tree trunk opening sized and configured to allow one of the plurality of tightening adjusters to contact the tree trunk.
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 6-7, 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahmer (U.S. Pat. No. 6983921 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Rahmer teaches the sizing adapter. However, the Examiner notes that providing duplicated parts that provide predictable results is considered within the level of an ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize plurality of sizing adapters such that the plurality of sizing adapters of different outside diameters sized to be removably coupleable within one another, where one of the sizing adapters has an outside diameter configured to couple and engage the opening in the securing neck and each of the sizing adapters is configured to couple and engage the internal tree trunk opening for another one of the plurality of sizing adapters to match various outer diameters of tree trunks of artificial trees. The motivation would have been to accommodate tree trunk of various sizes.
Regarding claim 7, Rahmer teaches the tightening adjustors (40) are positioned to actuate and engage a tree trunk regardless of the number of the plurality of sizing adjustors.
Regarding claim 10, Rahmer teaches a decorative tree stand system, comprising:
a tree trunk mount (10), further comprising:
a securing neck (top portion of 12) secured to an upper portion of the tree trunk mount;
a plurality of tightening adjusters (40) spaced around a circumference of an outside surface of the securing neck and configured to move inward and outward as actuated; and
a sizing adapter (14) having an outer diameter and an inner diameter and sizably configured to couple inside one another to sizable engage
different tree trunk diameters of artificial trees, wherein the outermost sizing adapter of the plurality of sizing adapters is sizably configured to couple and engage an opening in the securing neck and to allow the tightening adjusters to actuate inward to secure the tree trunk through the plurality of sizing adapters;
and a support base (12) coupled to the tree trunk mount to maintain the tree trunk mount in a vertical position. Rahmer is silent to disclose the sizing adapter being a plurality of sizing adapter. However, the Examiner notes that providing duplicated parts that provide predictable results is considered within the level of an ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize plurality of sizing adapters. The motivation would have been to accommodate tree trunk of various sizes.
Regarding claim 11, Rahmer teaches The decorative tree stand device of claim 10, wherein the tree trunk mount further comprises a bottom stabilizer (56) positioned at a bottom surface of the tree trunk mount to stabilize a bottom of a tree trunk when positioned in the tree trunk mount.
Regarding claim 13, Rahmer as modified teaches each of the plurality of the sizing adapters (14) has an outer circular configuration as a disk shape (as show in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Rahmer as modified teaches each of plurality of sizing adapters has a cutout section (53) between the outer diameter and the inner diameter aligned to allow at least one of the plurality of tightening adjusters to contact the tree trunk.
Claims 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahmer (U.S. Pat. No. 6983921 B1) in view of Adams (U.S. Pat. No. 5725193).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Rahmer teaches the support base. However, Rahmer is silent to disclose the support base further comprises a plurality of lateral supports extending away from the tree trunk mount to secure the tree trunk mount in an upright vertical position. Adams teaches the support base comprises a plurality of lateral supports (Adams; 4) extending away form the tree trunk mount to secure the tree trunk mount in an upright vertical position.
Rahmer and Adams 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 make the invention of Rahmer having lateral supports. The motivation would have been to make the product cost effective and compact in design.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Rahmer as modified each of the plurality of lateral supports (Adams; 4) includes a castor (Rahmer; 16) coupled to a distal end.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 12 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
