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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 8/4/2025 has been entered.
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. Therefore, the “wind-responsive element” recited in Claim 41, the “wind sock” and a canopy that can be moved in response to the windsock as recited in Claim 46, the fact that “the one or more adjacent sections form a non-co-extensive angle with the first and second sections” recited in Claim 51, the “one or more slits” at the trailing end of the canopy, the “cord” engageable with the slit and the “anchor” recited in recited in Claim 60, the “more than two slits each arranged to receive a securing mechanism to secure the canopy into position relative to the one or more adjacent sections of the frame” recited in Claim 61, 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.
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: 46. 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. 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 Objections
Claim 51 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 17, the word “the” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 46 is 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. While the inclusion of a wind sock is supported by the disclosure in paragraph 0038, there is no discussion of the use of the wind sock to move the canopy in the wind direction or of a shade structure that could be reoriented to match the direction of the wind. Nor is there disclosure of how a wind sock could be used to move the canopy in the direction of the wind. As such, this claim is considered new matter in the application.
Claim 60 is 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. The claim recites that “the trailing end of the canopy defines one or more slits, each of the one or more slits being arranged, in the supporting configuration, to receive a cord coupled to or engageable with an anchor” which is not supported by disclosure as filed. While there is mention of the use of a slit as a fastener at the suspension end of the canopy (paragraph 0037), the only such fasteners (46, 52, and 54) disclosed in the application are at the suspension end of the canopy (paragraph 0037 and 0039). There is no disclosure of a trailing end fastener such as a slit, nor of the use of fasteners 46, 52, or 54 to secure a cord to any part of the canopy.
Claim 61 is 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. The claim recites that “the loop defines more than two slits each arranged to receive a securing mechanism to secure the canopy into position relative to the one or more adjacent sections of the frame” which is not supported by the disclosure as filed. There is no discussion of the use of multiple slits to receive a securing mechanism. The only mention of a “securing mechanism” is in paragraph 0039, where it appears to reference strap 50. There is no “slit” which receives such strap or any other securing mechanism. Even if, arguendo, the “slit” is formed by folding over a strap 50, the slit does not “receive” a securing mechanism, as it is the securing mechanism itself. As the nature of the claimed structure is impossible to determine, the claim will not be further treated on the merits.
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 41-50, 60, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: There is no structural relationship between the “wind-responsive element” and the rest of the claimed structure.
Claims 51-59, 62, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: There is no connection between the first and second sections of the frame and adjacent sections.
Claims 51-59, 62, and 63 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 51 recites “a frame including a plurality of sections and at least one aligning component affixed to one or more of the plurality of sections of the frame … wherein the sections comprise: a first section defining a first end and an opposing second end, the first end being embedded in the surface in the supporting configuration, a second section defining a first end and an opposing second end, the first end of the second section being engaged with or coupled to the first section about the opposing second end of the first section, the first section and the second section being co-extensive, and the aligning component extending between the first section and the second section from the first end of the first section to the second end of the second section, a fastener arranged at the opposing second end of the second section, and one or more adjacent sections engaged or coupled to one another in an end-to-end alignment, wherein in the supporting configuration, the one or more adjacent sections form a non-co-extensive angle with the first and second sections” which renders the claims indefinite. As best understood, the first end of the first section (element 64 in the applicant’s figures) is in the ground, the second end is “engaged with or coupled to” the first end of the second section (element 66 of the applicant’s figures) and the two sections (elements 64 and 66 of the applicant’s figures) are co-extensive, meaning that either the entire frame, including all adjacent sections, is linear, or that the first and second sections are directly attached to one another. The second section has a fastener at the opposite end (element 68 in the applicant’s figures) and the aligning component (element 30 in the applicant’s figures) extends from the first end of the first section to the second end of the second section and no more. The frame then includes one or more adjacent sections coupled in end-to-end alignment and forming a non-co-extensive angle with the first and second sections, which controverts the arrangement contemplated above in which any adjacent sections are linear with the first and second sections. The first and second section cannot simultaneously be co-extensive and also include adjacent sections that are non-coextensive unless the adjacent sections are attached in some manner heretofore undisclosed. For the purposes of examination, any frame that resembles that disclosed in applicant’s Figs. 1 and 2, where the frame has, from one end to the other, a first section, one-or-more adjacent sections and then a second section, an aligning component extending through the sections from the first end of the first section through any adjacent sections to the second end of the second section to a fastener, will be considered sufficient to meet the limitations in the claim.
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, 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 41-43 and 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beatty in US Patent 3070107 in view of Wolfe in US Publication 2014/0014151.
Regarding Claims 41 and 46, Beatty teaches a system for providing shade onto a surface, the system comprising: a frame including a plurality of sections (2, 3, 11, 14) and at least one aligning component (18) affixed to one or more of the plurality of sections of the frame, the frame being maneuverable between a transport configuration (Fig. 3) and a supporting configuration (Fig. 1), wherein the sections comprise: a first section (2/3) defining a first end (at the lower end) and an opposing second end (toward 11), the first end embedded in the surface in the supporting configuration, a second section (14) defining a first end (toward the outer end) and an opposing second end (toward 11), the first end of the second section being engaged with or coupled to the first section about the opposing second end of the first section, and one or more adjacent sections (11) engaged or coupled to the at least one aligning component, the aligning component being affixed between the second section and the one or more adjacent sections in both the transport configuration and the supporting configuration in an arrangement effective to maneuver the one or more adjacent sections between the transport configuration and the supporting configuration and to provide supporting tension to the one or more adjacent sections in the supporting configuration, wherein in the supporting configuration, the one or more adjacent sections form a non-co-extensive angle with the second section (see Fig. 2); and a canopy (19) extending between a suspension end (20) and an opposing trailing end (toward 22), the suspension end of the canopy being engageable with the frame about the one or more adjacent sections of the frame, wherein the trailing end of the canopy is spaced apart from the portion of the frame in the supporting configuration such that the canopy is supportable by the frame and by wind (“the sail cloth will billow to accommodate prevailing wind”) for providing shade to the surface; wherein the suspension end of the canopy is spaced apart from and not in contact with the first section of the frame.
Beatty is silent on the use of a wind-responsive element. Wolfe teaches a system for providing shade onto a surface including a shade device (A, see below) and a wind-responsive element (B) that is a wind sock defined in relation to the canopy (the wind sock is positioned in a position related to the canopy) movable in response to blowing of the wind to indicate wind direction such that movement of the wind sock results in movement of the canopy in the wind direction (the user references the wind sock to position the canopy). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Beatty by adding a wind-responsive element as taught by Wolfe in order to, as Wolfe teaches, indicate the wind direction (see Abstract) and utilize the canopy in the most wind-efficient manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 42, Beatty, as modified, teaches that the first section and the second section are co-extensive with one another.
Regarding Claim 43, Beatty, as modified, teaches that the aligning component comprises a cable.
Regarding Claim 47, Beatty, as modified, teaches that the canopy defines at least one loop (20) extending along a length of the suspension end and configured for accepting a portion of the frame therethrough.
Regarding Claim 48, Beatty, as modified, teaches that the portion of the frame comprises the one or more adjacent sections.
Regarding Claim 49, Beatty, as modified, teaches that the canopy has at least one set of parallel sides (the left and right sides as shown in Fig. 2).
Claims 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beatty, as modified, as applied to Claim 41 above in view of Sotirkys et al. in US Patent 7789097. Beatty, as modified, fails to teach a canopy including a plurality of sections. Sotirkys teaches a canopy (10/80) that comprises a plurality of coupled sections (10 and 80), wherein the plurality of coupled sections are selectively engageable sections (detachable at 85/86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the canopy of Beatty, as modified, by using a plurality of sections as taught by Sotirkys in order to allow the user to select the amount of coverage available under the shelter.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beatty, as modified, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Furey in US Patent 4924893. Beatty, as modified, fails to teach a container. Furey teaches a shade system including a container (103) capable of housing and transporting the components of the system therein (“components may be readily carried in the anchoring member when it is emptied of sand” – Column 7, lines 22-23) as well as acting as an anchor to retain a frame in the supporting configuration see Fig. 1), the container capable of being coupleable (via 27) to one or both of the frame and the canopy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Beatty, as modified, by adding a container as taught by Furey in order to more securely erect the shade and contain all of the components of the device.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beatty, as modified, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Stein in US Patent 5080123. Beatty, as modified, teaches that the trailing end of the canopy, when in the supporting configuration, is attached to a cord (22) coupled to or engageable with an anchor (23), but is silent on the use of slits to receive the cord. Stein teaches a shade system including a canopy (14) with a trailing end (toward 43) wherein the trailing end of the canopy defines one or more slits (70’/72’), each of the one or more slits being arranged, in the supporting configuration, to receive a cord (60/62) coupled to or engageable with an anchor (78/80). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Beatty, as modified, by using slits in the trailing end of the canopy to receive the anchor cords as taught by Stein in order to securely attach the cords to the canopy.
Claims 51-53, 55-57, 62 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101315166 (Kang) in view of Joo-Tai in US Patent 6286531.
Regarding Claims 51, 52, 57, 62, and 63, Kang teaches a system for providing shade onto a surface, the system comprising: a frame (100/110) including a plurality of sections, wherein the sections comprise: a first section (110 at one end) defining a first end and an opposing second end (110 at the opposite end), the first end being embedded in the surface in the supporting configuration (see Fig. 2), and a canopy (200) extending between a suspension end (toward 230) and an opposing trailing end (toward 240), the suspension end of the canopy being engageable with the frame about the one or more adjacent sections of the frame, wherein the trailing end of the canopy is spaced apart from the portion of the frame in the supporting configuration such that the canopy is supportable by the frame and by wind for providing shade to the surface, wherein the suspension end of the canopy is spaced apart from and not in contact with the first section of the frame.
Kang is silent on details of the frame. Joo-Tai teaches a frame including a plurality of sections (2/7) and at least one aligning component that is a cable (5) affixed to one or more of the plurality of sections of the frame, the frame being maneuverable between a transport configuration (Fig. 1) and a supporting configuration (Fig. 3), wherein the sections comprise: a first section (A, see below) defining a first end (B) and an opposing second end (C), a second section (D, see below) defining a first end (E) and an opposing second end (F), the first end of the second section being engaged with (via intermediate sections 2 between the first and second sections) or coupled to the first section about the opposing second end of the first section, the first section and the second section being co-extensive (as best understood), and the aligning component extending between the first section and the second section from the first end of the first section to the second end of the second section, a fastener in the form of a cap 6/3’) arranged at the opposing second end of the second section, and one or more adjacent sections (G) engaged or coupled to one another in an end-to-end alignment, wherein in the supporting configuration, the one or more adjacent sections form a non-co-extensive angle with the first and second sections (as best understood), wherein the portion of the frame comprises the one or more adjacent sections. Joo-Tai further teaches an intermediate section (H) arranged between the first section and the second section, such that the intermediate section is co-extensive with the first and second sections (as best understood). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Kang by using a sectional frame with an aligning component as taught by Joo-Tai in order to provide a frame that collapses to a small size when not in use.
PNG
media_image2.png
541
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 53, Kang, as modified, teaches that the canopy is unitarily constructed or comprises a plurality of coupled sections (200 and 240).
Regarding Claim 55, Kang, as modified, teaches that the canopy defines one or more vent holes (240), one or more tails extending from a side opposite the suspension end, one or more wind socks, or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 56, Kang, as modified, teaches that the canopy defines at least one loop (212) configured for accepting a portion of the frame therethrough.
Claims 53 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, as modified, as applied to Claim 51 above in view of Sotirkys et al. in US Patent 7789097. Kang, as modified, fails to teach a canopy including a plurality of selectively engageable sections. Sotirkys teaches a canopy (10/80) that comprises a plurality of coupled sections (10 and 80), wherein the plurality of coupled sections are selectively engageable sections (detachable at 85/86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the canopy of Kang, as modified, by using a plurality of sections as taught by Sotirkys in order to allow the user to select the amount of coverage available under the shelter.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, as modified, as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Stein in US Patent 5080123. Kang, as modified, is silent on the use of a canopy with parallel sides. Stein teaches a canopy (14) having at least one set of parallel sides (20 and 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the canopy of Kang, as modified, by using a canopy with parallel sides as taught by Stein in order to provide more shade to the user.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, as modified, as applied to Claim 51 above in view of Furey in US Patent 4924893. Kang, as modified, fails to teach a container. Furey teaches a shade system including a container (103) capable of housing and transporting the components of the system therein (“components may be readily carried in the anchoring member when it is emptied of sand” – Column 7, lines 22-23) as well as acting as an anchor to retain a frame in the supporting configuration see Fig. 1), the container capable of being coupleable (via 27) to one or both of the frame and the canopy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kang, as modified, by adding a container as taught by Furey in order to more securely erect the shade and contain all of the components of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 41-50, 60, and 61 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The rejections set forth above do not rely on Beatty to teach the new limitations in Claim 41.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s 51-59, 62, and 63 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah Chandler Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636