Patent Application 18548589 - POLE SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND METHODS - Rejection

Patent Application 18548589 - POLE SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND METHODS

Title: POLE SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND METHODS

Application Information

• Invention Title: POLE SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND METHODS
• Application Number: 18548589
• Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-09-01T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-09-01T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 248
• National Sub-Class: 121000
• Examiner Employee Number: 78858
• Art Unit: 3632
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 3
• 103 Rejections: 4

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0294604🔗
• US 0139736🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .
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.  

DETAILED ACTION
This is the second action for application #18/548589, Pole Support Systems and Methods, filed 9/1/2023.  Claims 31-44 are pending.  
	The Examiner notes that the Claim amendment submitted on 4/1/2025 was NOT ENTERED as it included many errors. The Supplemental Claim amendment filed 4/28/2025 was examined. See Interview Summary.

Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention VIII in the reply filed on 4/1/2025 is acknowledged.




Drawings
The drawings filed 4/1/2025 are replete with errors. The Examiner has listed objections below, but the Application is advised to review the drawings in their entirety and amend accordingly. All reference numerals must either include a leader line or be underlined to represent an entire structure. Every leader line must either end touching the element being defined, or having an arrow head that clearly points to the specific element. The drawings are objected to because:

	Regarding Figures 2A,2B,2C:
	-The structure of the hook pole support 250 introduces new matter as the structure in the replacement sheets is different than what was originally depicted.
-The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “230” is defined in the specification as a single pole, which is depicted in Figure 2A, but numeral “230” was deleted from Figure 2A. Numeral 230 is later used in Figure 4, which shows three poles and were previously identified as 230A-C in Figure 2C.
-The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 210.  
-The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 260.  

Regarding Figure 4:
-The structure of the hook pole support 250 introduces new matter as the structure in the replacement sheets is different than what was originally depicted.
-The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “230” is defined in the specification as a single pole, which is depicted in Figure 2A, but numeral “230” was deleted from Figure 2A. Numeral 230 is later used in Figure 4, which shows three poles and were previously identified as 230A-C in Figure 2C.
-The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). Figure 4 appears to be the same structure as that shown in Figure 2C, only with the addition of a power bar. It is not clear why this 3-pole configuration wouldn’t still be identified as “200C” instead of “400”, why the pole supports aren’t “240” instead of “410”, or why the base isn’t “210C” instead of “430”. Any structure remaining the same throughout the drawings should retain the same reference numeral throughout for clarity of the invention. A new numeral should only be used if defining an alternate embodiment.

Regarding Figure 5:
-Figure 5 is objected to because the newly amended figure no longer matches the description in the specification of para [0068].




Regarding Figure 6:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “660” is used to define a cross-bar which was previously defined as “310”, and numeral “670” is used to define a bar that was previously defined as “320A”. Any structure remaining the same throughout the drawings should retain the same reference numeral throughout for clarity of the invention. A new numeral should only be used if defining an alternate embodiment. In this case, the structure has not changed therefore the numerals should be retained.

Regarding Figures 7-9:
- The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). The numerals used in Figures 7-9 should be the same numerals used in Figures 2A-C as the only structural difference is using the cap element instead of the joining element.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 750B.  
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 750C.  




Regarding Figure 10A:
- The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). The numerals used in Figure 10A (pole, cross-bar, bar, wheels) should be the same numerals used in Figures 2A-C as there are no structural changes, only further detail.

Regarding Figure 10B:
- The drawings are objected to because the new figure no longer matches with the specification which teaches a thicker cross bar 1010B. The cross-bar depicted in the new figure is the same as in Figure 10A.

Regarding Figures 10C and 11:
- The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). The numerals used in Figures 10C and 11 (pole, cross-bar) should be the same numerals used in Figures 2A-C as there are no structural changes, only further detail.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) the Applicant has included two “images” defined as 1000A,1000B in Figure 10C and two “images” defined as 1100A, 1100B within Figure 11. Each “image” should be a separate figure, and should only be identified by a Figure number, not by an image number.





Regarding Figures 12A:
-The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5). The Applicant has included four “images” defined as 1200A,-1200D in Figure 12A. Each “image” should be a separate figure, and should only be identified by a Figure number, not by an image number.
-The drawings are objected to because the body should not be shaded. Only line drawings should be submitted so that every structural detail is clearly visible.
-The drawings are objected because “image” 1200A introduces new matter. The fitting 1210 extends from the body, loops back around, and the end of the loop appears to be connected back onto itself or have a thicker projection, which is not depicted in the original figures.
-The drawings are objected to because numeral “1240” is not pointing to a recess.
-If Figure 12A is defining the pole support of previous drawings, then the structure should be defined with numeral “240”.

Regarding Figures 12B, 13A, 13B:
-The drawings are objected to because numeral “1260” is not pointing to a grommet.
-If Figure 12B is defining the hook pole support of previous drawings, then the structure should be defined with numeral “250”.
-The drawings are objected to because the body should not be shaded. Only line drawings should be submitted so that every structural detail is clearly visible. The O-ring is not clearly visible in Figure 13B.

Regarding Figures 14A,14C:
-Each figure is its own image and therefore should only be defined via the Figure number and not with a separate image number.  
-The drawings are objected to because the elements should not be shaded. Only line drawings should be submitted so that every structural detail is clearly visible. The inside of the shell and opening thereof is not clearly visible in Figure 14A. Additionally, the structure of the shell 1310 is different in the new figure than originally depicted and does not show the inside of the shell, nor a recess for the projection of the insert.

Regarding Figure 14B:
-The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5). The Applicant has included two “images” defined as 1400B and 1400C in Figure 14B. Additionally, “image 1400B” has three views of the split ring. Each “image” and each view should be a separate figure, and should only be identified by a Figure number, not by an image number.
-The drawings are objected to because elements should not be shaded. Only line drawings should be submitted so that every structural detail is clearly visible. The inside of the shell and opening thereof is not clearly visible in Figure 14A. Additionally, the structures of the shell 1310 and insert 1320 are different in the new figure than originally depicted.
-The drawings are objected to because it is not clear what element is considered to be the “groove” for the split ring (claim 37). The structure where the split ring is held is not clearly depicted and the drawings do not identify a “groove” with a reference numeral.

Regarding Figure 15:
-The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5). The Applicant has included two “images” defined as 1500A and 1500B in Figure 15. Each “image” should be a separate figure, and should only be identified by a Figure number, not by an image number.
-The drawings are objected to because elements should not be shaded. Only line drawings should be submitted so that every structural detail is clearly visible. The inside of the shell and opening thereof is not clearly visible in Figure 15. Additionally, the structures of the shell 1310 are different in the new figure than originally depicted.
-Numeral “1510” is used to define the 1st diameter region where the insert is fit. However, the specification states that the O-ring is sandwiched by the insert, and this is depicted in Figure 16. Therefore, the 1st diameter region 1510 appears to be incorrectly pointing to the wrong location for the insert.



Regarding Figures 16 and 17:
-Each figure is its own image and therefore should only be defined via the Figure number and not with a separate image number.  
-It is unclear if the post 1630 is the same as the pole in previous figures. If so, then the pole should retain the reference numeral.
-It is unclear if the structure depicted is element “240” or “250”. The specification in para [0089] states that Figure 16 depicts pole support “240”, and the figures show an axial opening for the fitting of “240”. However, the body is labeled as “1310” which is the shell of element “250”. 
-If the structure depicted is element “240”, then this numeral should be used in the figure to clarify the structure.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1620.  

Regarding Figure 18:
-The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5). The Applicant has included four “images” defined as 1800A-1800D in Figure 18. Each “image” should be a separate figure, and should only be identified by a Figure number, not by an image number.



Regarding Figure 19:
-The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5). The Applicant has included four “images” defined as 1900A-1800D in Figure 18. Each “image” should be a separate figure, and should only be identified by a Figure number, not by an image number.
-The structure depicted is element “240”. However, the body is labeled as “1310” which is the shell of element “250”. 

Regarding Figure 20A:
-The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5). The Applicant has included two “images” defined as 2000A-2000B in Figure 20A. Each “image” should be a separate figure, and should only be identified by a Figure number, not by an image number.
-Image “2000B” does not include any leader lines. 

Regarding Figure 21:
-The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5). The Applicant has included five “images” defined as 2100A-2100E in Figure 21. Each “image” should be a separate figure, and should only be identified by a Figure number, not by an image number.



Regarding Figure 23A:
-Each figure is its own image and therefore should only be defined via the Figure number and not with a separate image number.  

Regarding Figure 23B:
-The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5). The Applicant has included two “images” defined as 2300B-2300C in Figure 23B. Each “image” should be a separate figure, and should only be identified by a Figure number, not by an image number.

Regarding Figure 24:
-The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5). The Applicant has included two “images” defined as 2400A-2400B in Figure 24. Each “image” should be a separate figure, and should only be identified by a Figure number, not by an image number.

Regarding Figure 25A:
-The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5). The Applicant has included two “images” defined as 2500A-2500B in Figure 25A. Each “image” should be a separate figure, and should only be identified by a Figure number, not by an image number.
-It is unclear why the cross-bars have different reference numerals than the previously defined cross-bars since the structure of the cross-bar has not changed, and even have different numerals between the “images” within the same figure.
-The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 2520A and 2520B both point to the same anti-nester, and reference characters 2520C and 2520D both point to the same anti-nester. It is also unclear why the anti-nester in “image” 2500B is identified as 2520. 
-The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5). The Applicant has included four “images” defined as 2500C-2500F in Figure 25B. Each “image” should be a separate figure, and should only be identified by a Figure number, not by an image number.

Regarding Figure 26B:
-The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 2630.
  -The drawings are objected to because numerals “2660A” and “2660B” do not have leader lines.
-The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a).  The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.  Therefore, the anti-nester element comprising an opening wherein in the second configuration the opening fits over the cross-bar (over a feature) to fix the anti-nester at the predetermined angle, and a feature on an upper surface of the cross-bar must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).  No new matter should be entered. Since the drawings did not originally include this structure, the structure may not be added.

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.





Specification
-The specification is objected to because:
-Para [0061] uses “210A” and “230B” when referring to the base of 200B, which was already defined as “210B”.
	-Para [0064] uses “360” to refer to both the poles and the bolts.

-The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.  See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).  Correction of the following is required: an “opening in one or more lower surfaces” of the anti-nester element (Claims 34-35); the groove “formed through injection molding the shell with the split-ring in position” (Claim 36-38); a first arm, second arm, and bar (Claim 40); and another first arm, another second arm, and another bar (Claim 42) was not found in the specification.










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 31-44 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.

Regarding Claim 31:
-The phrase “at least one pole of a plurality of poles” is indefinite. It is not clear if there are multiple poles being positively claimed or if only “at least one” pole is positively claimed. A kit was not claimed or disclosed.
-The phrase “at least one support of a plurality of supports mounted to the pole” is indefinite. It is not clear if there are multiple supports being positively claimed or if only “at least one” support is positively claimed. A kit was not claimed or disclosed.

Regarding Claim 32:
-It is claimed that providing the base comprises “a pole”. It is not clear if this is in addition to the pole already claimed in Claim 31 which was part of the “providing at least one pole”.
-There is no antecedent basis for “the pole support”.

Regarding Claims 34 and 35:
-It is claimed that the anti-nester element has “an opening”. It is further claimed that the anti-nester “fits over the cross-bar” in the first configuration, and “fits over the cross bar” or “over a feature” in the second configuration to fix the anti-nester element. First, the specification does not disclose “an opening” as claimed. The specification does disclose “slots”. However, it is unclear how the opening can be fit “over the cross-bar” in both the first and second configurations. The drawings do not show any engagement between openings, or slots, in the anti-nester with the cross-bar, nor is the engagement or fixing fully described so one of skill in the art could make and use the invention. Therefore, the engagement of the anti-nester and cross-bar is not clearly defined. No new matter will be permitted. The Examiner suggests canceling these claims.

Regarding Claim 36:
-It is claimed that a shell has an opening to fit “over a pole”. It is unclear if this is the pole already claimed in claim 31.
-It is not clear what element is considered to be the “groove”. The drawings do not identify a groove.
-It is claimed that the position on the pole is independent “of any other means or element”. However, how the position is retained is not claimed. While a split ring is claimed, the split ring is never claimed as being the position retention structure.


	Regarding Claim 37:
	-The term “either” is used to define the options, but then the term “and” is used between the options.
	-It is not clear what element is considered to be the “groove”. The drawings do not identify a groove, and the specification does not provide clarity.

Regarding Claim 38:
	-It is not clear what element is considered to be the “groove”. The drawings do not identify a groove, and the specification does not provide clarity. Claim 38 claims a projection “upon a portion of the groove”. The projection is depicted in Figure 14C, and it appears that the projection extends from an inner wall of the opening of the shell. If the groove is the opening of the shell, then this groove is different that the groove of Claim 37.

Regarding Claim 39:
-It is claimed that the position on the pole is independent “of any other means or element”. However, how the position is retained is not claimed. While a split ring is claimed in Claim 36, the split ring is never claimed as being the position retention structure.




Regarding Claim 40:
-It is claimed that providing the base comprises providing “a first arm”, “a second arm” and “a bar”. These terms are not found in the specification and it is not clear if the Applicant is referring to the bar 320A as the first arm, the cross-bar 310 as the bar, and the bar 320B as the second arm. 
-The phrase “the arm” has insufficient antecedent basis since more than one arm was claimed.
-It is unclear if “a pole” is the pole already claimed or an additional pole.

Regarding Claim 41:
-It is claimed that “the opening has a dimension along an axis of the shell from the first end to the second end”. It is unclear if the ends being referred to are the ends of the opening or the axis. An axis does not have ends.
-The phrase “such that is lower” is unclear.

Regarding Claim 42:
-It is claimed that providing another base comprises providing “another first arm”, “another second arm” and “another bar”. These terms are not found in the specification and it is not clear which elements are being referred to.
-There is no antecedent basis for “the another bar”.
-The phrases “the first predetermined location”, “the second predetermined location”, “the third predetermined location”, “the fourth predetermined location” and “the fifth predetermined location” are used in claim 42 to claim locations, however these terms were used to define the locations in the base (claim 40) and therefore do not have antecedent basis when referring to “the another base”.
-It is claimed that “the base and another base can be nested”. It is unclear if “another base” is referring to the claimed “another base”, or an additional base.

Regarding Claim 43:
-It is claimed that a shell has an opening to fit “over a pole”. It is unclear if this is the pole already claimed in claim 31.
-It is claimed that the position on the pole is independent “of any other means or element”. However, how the position is retained is not claimed. While a “gripping means” is claimed, the gripping means are never claimed as being the position retention structure.











Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102

The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 31, 43, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2009/0294604 (Sunderland).

Regarding Claim 31, as best understood, Sunderland teaches a method of providing a pole support system comprising: 
providing a base (10); 
providing at least one pole (7) of a plurality of poles (Figures 10 and 11) attached to the base; and 
providing at least one support (5) of a plurality of supports (multiple supports depicted mounted to the pole 7 in Figure 1; para [0026]) mounted to the pole (7) of the plurality of poles.  

Regarding Claim 43, as best understood, Sunderland teaches the method according to claim 31, wherein providing the support (5) of the plurality of supports comprises: 
providing a shell (13; Figures 2,3,6) having an opening (11; Figure 2) of predetermined diameter disposed at a first end to fit over a pole (7) of the plurality of poles; 
providing a fitting (15; Figure 3) disposed at a second distal end to provide a specific function; and 
providing a gripping means (12/22; Figures 2 and 3) disposed within the opening (11) within the shell; and the support (5) of the plurality of supports is fitted onto the pole by inserting the pole (7) through the opening (Figure 3) and is retained in position on the pole independent of any other means or element (via 12/22; para [0029]-[0030]); 
in a first position (‘distal end moves downward’) with the second distal end of the support of the plurality of supports lower than the first end of the support of the plurality of supports the support of the plurality of supports is retained in position independent of any other means or element (para [0032]); and 
in a second position (Figure 3) with the second distal end of the support of the plurality of supports level with the first end of the support of the plurality of supports the support of the plurality of supports can be moved on the pole (para [0032]-[0033]).  

Regarding Claim 44, as best understood, Sunderland teaches the method according to claim 31, wherein the pole (7) of the plurality of poles is non-telescopic (Figure 1 depicting a single integral pole).

Claims 31 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 6,390,311 (Belokin).

Regarding Claim 31, as best understood, Belokin teaches a method of providing a pole support system comprising: 
providing a base (13/14/15; Figure 1); 
providing at least one pole (11) of a plurality of poles (11,12) attached to the base; and 
providing at least one support (Figure 10) of a plurality of supports (multiple supports depicted mounted to the pole in Figure 6) mounted to the pole (11) of the plurality of poles.  

Regarding Claim 44, as best understood, Belokin teaches the method according to claim 31, wherein the pole (11) of the plurality of poles is non-telescopic (Figure 1 depicting 11 a single non-telescoping pole).






Claims 31 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2005/0139736 to Breda et al. (hereinafter ‘Breda’).

Regarding Claim 31, as best understood, Breda teaches a method of providing a pole support system comprising: 
providing a base (Figure 6); 
providing at least one pole (40) of a plurality of poles (40,16,18) attached to the base; and 
providing at least one support (48; Figure 1) of a plurality of supports (48,46; para [0019]) mounted to the pole (40) of the plurality of poles.  

Regarding Claim 40, as best understood, Breda teaches the method according to claim 31, wherein 
providing the base (Figure 6) comprises: 
providing a first arm (one angled arm 56 in Figure 6) for attaching to a bar (horizontal arm in Figure 6) in a first predetermined location; 
providing a second arm (other angled arm 56 in Figure 6) for attaching to the bar (horizontal arm in Figure 6) in a second predetermined location; 
providing the bar (horizontal arm in Figure 6) having one or more mounting points (52; Figure 5); 
providing a first pair of wheels (60) attached to third predetermined locations (at 62) relative to each end of the first arm; 
providing a second pair of wheels (60) attached to fourth predetermined locations (at 62) relative to each end of the second arm; and 
providing a third pair of wheels (60) attached to fifth predetermined locations (at 62) relative to each end of the arm (of the horizontal arm in Figure 6); wherein 
the third predetermined locations, the fourth predetermined locations, and fifth predetermined locations are all points on a common circle (as depicted in Figure 6); and 
each of the one or more mounting points (52; Figure 5) is for mounting a pole (40) of the plurality of poles.  
















Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunderland in view of US 6,123,206 (Zaremba).

Regarding Claim 36, as best understood, Sunderland teaches the method according to claim 31, wherein providing the support (5) of the plurality of supports comprises: 
providing a shell (13; Figures 2,3,6) having an opening (11) of predetermined diameter disposed at a first end to fit over a pole (7) of the plurality of poles; 
providing a fitting (15) disposed at a second distal end to provide a specific function; and 
providing a gripping (12/22) disposed within a groove (as depicted in Figure 3 and 6) within the shell; 
wherein the gripping (12/22) projects into the opening (11; Figure 2); and 
the support (5) is fitted onto the pole (7) by inserting the pole through the opening (11; Figure 3) and is retained in position on the pole independent of any other means or element (para [0030],[0032]). 
Sunderland does not specifically teach that the gripping is a split ring disposed within a groove around the opening such that the split ring has an inner opening having a diameter established in dependence upon the diameter of the pole. However, Zaremba, which is also drawn to frictionally mounting a support (1; Figure 1a) onto a pole (6a; Figure 4), wherein the support (1) has an opening (6) for passage of the pole (6a), further teaches that the opening (6) may comprise a gripping in various forms including in the form of a split ring (22 or 24; Figures 10a/10e, 11a-c; col 6, ln 17-23) and teaches the opening having a groove around the opening for receiving the pole (Figure 12a; col 6, ln 36-47) such that the split ring has an inner opening having a diameter established in dependence upon the diameter of the pole (in order to retain the support on the pole). 
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use a split ring as taught by Zaremba instead of the gripping of Sunderland, as an alternate functionally equivalent structure that would still allow the support to be supported on the pole, but would provide a better grip since there is more surface area contact between the gripping and the pole surface.
	
Regarding Claim 37, as best understood, Sunderland and Zaremba combined teach the method according to claim 36, and Zaremba further teaches wherein either: the groove is formed by inserting an insert into the opening and retaining the insert in position within the shell by at least one of an interference fit, welding or a material attaching the insert to the shell (as seen in Figure 12a the groove can either be formed directly in the support or by inserting an insert (Figure 13a) attachable via glue (col 7, ln 10-19) which then receives the split ring (16; Figures 13b, 14a); and the groove is formed through injection molding the shell with the split-ring in position.  

Regarding Claim 38, as best understood, Sunderland and Zaremba combined teach the method according to claim 36, and Zaremba further teaches further comprising providing a projection (5b; Figures 15a,15b) upon a portion of the groove (groove created by insert 5 in Figures 15a,15b; col 5, ln 26-31; col 6, ln 36-39 teaching that all retainers can be used in combination with any embodiment of the removable attachment display 1) such that the projection projects into a gap portion of the split ring such that the split ring cannot rotate within the groove (since Figures 10a,10e teach a gap portion between the ends of the band 22 (Figures 10a,10b), that gap is capable of receiving any projections of the insert and doing so would prevent rotation).  

Regarding Claim 39, as best understood, Sunderland and Zaremba combined teach the method according to claim 36, and Sunderland further teaches wherein in a first position (‘distal end moves downward’)  with the second distal end of the support of the plurality of supports lower than the first end of the support of the plurality of supports the support of the plurality of supports is retained in position independent of any other means or element (para [0032]); and in a second position (Figure 3) with the second distal end of the support of the plurality of supports level with the first end of the support of the plurality of supports the support of the plurality of supports can be moved on the pole (para [0032]-[0033]).  

Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunderland in view of US 2,398,748 to Lange et al. (hereinafter ‘Lange’).

Regarding Claim 41, as best understood, Sunderland teaches the method according to claim 31, wherein providing the support (5) comprises: 
providing a shell (13; Figures 2, 3, 6) having an opening (11) disposed at a first end to fit over a pole (7; Figure 3); 
providing a fitting (15) disposed at a second distal end to provide a specific function; and 
providing a gripping (12/22) disposed within the opening (11) within the shell (13); wherein the opening (11) has a dimension along an axis of the shell from the first end to the second end established in dependence upon a diameter of the pole (7) and a thickness of the shell (Figure 2 and 3); 
the gripping (12/22) projects into the opening (11; Figure 2); 
the support (5) can be moved relative to the pole (7) by the user lifting the second distal end of the support to a position level with the first end of the support (Figure 3; para [0032],[0033]); and 
the support (5) is retained in position when the user releases the second distal end of the support such that is lower than the first end of the support (para [0032] ‘the distal end moves downward’).
Sunderland does not specifically teach that the gripping is an O-ring.  However, Lange, which is also drawn to a support mounted on a pole (21; Figures 9-11), the support having an opening (56) through which the pole (21) passes and a gripping in the opening that allows locking onto the pole via tilting of the support (Figure 11), further teaches that the gripping is an O-ring (54; page 2, col 1, ln 19-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that an O-ring as taught by Lange could be used instead of the gripping of Sunderland as an alternate functionally equivalent gripping that would still allow the support to be locked onto the pole but provides more surface area that may contact the pole and therefore provides a more secure connection.
	

Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belokin in view of US 8,733,719 to Gaal et al. (hereinafter ‘Gaal’).

Regarding Claim 32, as best understood, Belokin teaches the method according to claim 31 wherein: 
providing the base comprises: 
a cross-bar (13; Figure 1); 
a first bar (14) with a pair of wheels (16) disposed towards opposite ends of the first bar (14; Figure 1); 
a second bar (15) with another pair of wheels (16) disposed towards opposite ends of the second bar (15; Figure 1); and 
a pole (11) mounted to the cross-bar (13; via 20; Figures 3,5,6).
Belokin does not specifically teach:
an anti-nester element comprising a body with a hole for mounting the anti-nester element to the pole; wherein, 
in a first configuration the anti-nester element is disposed parallel to the cross-bar such that the pole support system can be nested with another pole support system; and 
in a second configuration the anti-nester element is disposed at a predetermined angle to the cross bar such that the pole support cannot be nested with another pole support system as an end of the anti-nester element engages another pole mounted to another cross-bar of the another pole support system.  
However, Gaal, which is also drawn to a method of providing a pole support system (30; Figure 3) with a wheeled base (12) and pole (11), further teaches:
an anti-nester element (100) comprising a body with a hole (within 120 of 30; Figure 3; Figure 11 depicting hole 1232) for mounting the anti-nester element to the pole (11; Figure 3); wherein, 
in a first configuration (collapsed) the anti-nester element is disposed parallel to the cross-bar (col 16, ln 38-51 teaching that the pole can rotate with respect to the holes within couplings 120, therefore the base can be positioned such in any desired orientation, including the cross-bar being parallel to the anti-nester element) such that the pole support system can be nested with another pole support system (col 9, ln 18-23); and 
in a second configuration (expanded; Figure 3) the anti-nester element is disposed at a predetermined angle to the cross bar (col 16, ln 38-51 teaching that the pole can rotate with respect to the holes within couplings 120, therefore the base can be positioned such in any desired orientation) such that the pole support cannot be nested with another pole support system (spaced away from each other) as an end (at “d”; Figure 3) of the anti-nester element (100) engages another pole (11 of 40) mounted to another cross-bar of the another pole support system (40).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use an anti-nester element as taught by Gaal on the pole support system of Belokin in order to group together a plurality of pole support systems either for transport, use thereof, or storage.
	
Regarding Claim 33, as best understood, Belokin and Gaal combined teach the method according to claim 32, and Gaal further teaches further comprising a first fitting (120 at “a” or “b”; Figure 3) at one end of the anti-nester element (100) to engage another pole (11) of another pole support system (10 or 20); and a second fitting (120 at “d”) at another distal end of the anti-nester element to engage a further pole (11) of a further pole support system (40; Figure 3).  







Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breda in view of Gaal.

Regarding Claim 32, as best understood, Breda teaches the method according to claim 31 wherein: 
providing the base comprises: 
a cross-bar (horizontal arm 56; Figure 6); 
a first bar (one angled arm 56) with a pair of wheels (60) disposed towards opposite ends of the first bar (at 62; Figure 6); 
a second bar (other angled arm 56) with another pair of wheels (60) disposed towards opposite ends of the second bar (at 62; Figure 6); and 
a pole (40) mounted to the cross-bar (Figure 5).
Breda does not specifically teach:
an anti-nester element comprising a body with a hole for mounting the anti-nester element to the pole; wherein, 
in a first configuration the anti-nester element is disposed parallel to the cross-bar such that the pole support system can be nested with another pole support system; and 
in a second configuration the anti-nester element is disposed at a predetermined angle to the cross bar such that the pole support cannot be nested with another pole support system as an end of the anti-nester element engages another pole mounted to another cross-bar of the another pole support system.  
However, Gaal, which is also drawn to a method of providing a pole support system (30; Figure 3) with a wheeled base (12) and pole (11), further teaches:
an anti-nester element (100) comprising a body with a hole (within 120 of 30; Figure 3; Figure 11 depicting hole 1232) for mounting the anti-nester element to the pole (11; Figure 3); wherein, 
in a first configuration (collapsed) the anti-nester element is disposed parallel to the cross-bar (col 16, ln 38-51 teaching that the pole can rotate with respect to the holes within couplings 120, therefore the base can be positioned such in any desired orientation, including the cross-bar being parallel to the anti-nester element) such that the pole support system can be nested with another pole support system (col 9, ln 18-23); and 
in a second configuration (expanded; Figure 3) the anti-nester element is disposed at a predetermined angle to the cross bar (col 16, ln 38-51 teaching that the pole can rotate with respect to the holes within couplings 120, therefore the base can be positioned such in any desired orientation) such that the pole support cannot be nested with another pole support system (spaced away from each other) as an end (at “d”; Figure 3) of the anti-nester element (100) engages another pole (11 of 40) mounted to another cross-bar of the another pole support system (40).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use an anti-nester element as taught by Gaal on the pole support system of Breda in order to group together a plurality of pole support systems either for transport, use thereof, or storage.

Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 42 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.
The Examiner notes that while allowable subject matter is indicated, any claim amendments that change the scope of the invention may alter the allowability of the claim.

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art has been listed in the PTO-892 form.
US 5,482,239 (Smith) teaches an anti-nester assembly.
US 4,154,216 (Buckner), US 5,482,237 (Wang), US 5,188,424 (Herron), and US 1,666,293 (Lorton) teach canted collar functionality for locking the support on a pole or post.
US 5,344,169 (Pryor et al.) teaches a pole support system with a base having first, second, and thirds bars with each bar having an opposing pair of castors.
US 4,832,294 (Eidem) teaches a pole support system with a support mounted to a pole with the pole passing through a hole at one end of the support.


Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INGRID M WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822.  The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday 7:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797.  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.
/INGRID M WEINHOLD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632