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, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/10/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections -35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 1-4, 8, 10, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by PG Pub. US 2006/0060307 – Heitel; or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over PG Pub. US 2006/0060307 – Heitel In view of US Pat. 1,815,199 – Goldberg et al., hereinafter Goldberg.
Regarding claim 1.
Heitel discloses an awning (fig 1), comprising:
an awning body (10, fig 1), the awning body including:
a reel (12, fig 1);
an awning cover (26, fig 1);
a first swing arm (36, fig 1) including a first pivotable connection (The connections of the swing arm 36 to the body 10 and endbar 28 shown in fig 1 must pivot when joint 42 is articulated, or else the awning would not be able retract) disposed on a first end of the first swing arm (Adjacent body 10) and a second pivotable connection disposed on a second end (Adjacent endbar 28) of the first swing arm;
a second swing arm (38, fig 1) including a first pivotable connection (The connections of the swing arm 38 to the body 10 and endbar 28 shown in fig 1 must pivot when joint 42 is articulated, or else the awning would not be able retract) disposed on a first end of the second swing arm (Adjacent body 10) and a second pivotable connection disposed on a second end (Adjacent endbar 28) of the second swing arm;
and an endbar (28, fig 1) connected to the first swing arm by the second pivotable connection on the second end of the first swing arm and connected to the second swing arm by the second pivotable connection on the second end of the second swing arm, wherein
the awning cover is selectively attached (Shown attached in fig 3) between the reel and the endbar when the endbar is extended away from the awning body by the first swing arm and the second swing arm such that the awning cover can be detached from the awning (Cover is shown detached in fig 1).
Examiner notes that though the first and second pivotable connections of the first and second swing arms are not explicitly disclosed in Heitel, the connections must connect and pivot, else the awning would not be able to retract as disclosed. See paragraphs [0028]-[0030].
[0028] A header 28 attached to an end 32 of the fabric 26 along with arms 36, 38 support the fabric in an extended position. The arm 36 may be articulated through the use of an elbow joint 42 in a conventional manner.
[0029] As shown in FIGS. 1-4, sensors 46, 48, 50, 52, 54 of a conventional type are applied to surfaces in a conventional manner for sensing strain due to extended awning loading and produce load signals corresponding thereto.
[0030] A controller 58, see FIG. 1, interconnected to the sensors 46-54 and responsive to the load signals causes the motorized roller 12 to retract (see arrow 60) and extend (see arrow 62) the fabric 26 by movement of the arms 36, 38, in a conventional manner.
See also fig 1.
However, should it be found that Heitel does not disclose a first pivotable connection disposed on a first end of the first swing arm and a second pivotable connection disposed on a second end of the first swing arm; and
a first pivotable connection disposed on a first end of the second swing arm and a second pivotable connection disposed on a second end of the second swing arm,
Goldberg teaches a swing arm (fig 1) including a first pivotable connection disposed on a first end (See vertical bolt connecting arm at 2, fig 1) of the swing arm and a second pivotable connection disposed on a second end (See vertical bolt connecting arm at 30, fig 1) of the swing arm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the awning of Heitel with the pivoting connections of Goldberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the retractable awning to retract in the conventional manner.
Regarding claim 2.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Heitel further discloses the awning body includes one or more supporting mounts (66, fig 2).
Regarding claim 3.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Heitel further discloses the first swing arm (36, fig 1) and the second swing arm (38, fig 1) are connected to the awning body (10, fig 1) and the endbar (28, fig 1).
Regarding claim 4.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 3.
Heitel further discloses the first swing arm (36, fig 1) and the second swing arm (38, fig 1) are connected to a side of the endbar (28, fig 1) that is opposite to the side of the awning body to which the first swingarm and the second swingarm are connected, respectively (the swing arms are directly attached to a front of housing 18, directly opposite from a rear of endbar 28. See fig 1).
Regarding claim 8.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Heitel further discloses the first swing arm (36, fig 1) and the second swing arm (38, fig 1) are connected to the awning body (10, fig 1) and the endbar (28, fig 1) by their respective pivotable connections (The connections of the swing arms 36 and 38 to the body 10 and endbar 28 shown in fig 1 must pivot when joints 42 are articulated, or else the awning would not be able retract).
Regarding claim 10.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Heitel further discloses the awning cover (26, fig 3) is connected to the endbar (28, fig 3) and the reel assembly (12, fig 1).
Regarding claim 13.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Heitel further discloses one or more support mounts (64, fig 2) connected to the supporting mounts (66, fig 2) on the awning body.
Regarding claim 14.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Heitel further discloses the first swing arm (36, fig 1), the second swing arm (38, fig 1), and the endbar (28, fig 1) support the awning canopy (26, fig 3) when the awning canopy is connected to the endbar and extended away from the awning body (See fig 3).
Regarding claim 15.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Heitel further discloses the awning cover (26, fig 1) is connected to the reel tube (12, fig 1).
Regarding claim 16.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Heitel further discloses a tensioning mechanism (14, fig 1).
Regarding claim 19.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Heitel further discloses the reel includes a reel controller (58, fig 1).
Regarding claim 20.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 19.
Heitel further discloses the reel controller is accessible (See fig 1) through an endcap (22, fig 1).
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitel, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman in view of US Pat. 5,407,007 - Lowrey.
Regarding claim 5.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 4.
Heitel does not disclose the first swing arm and the second swingarm cross each other at an angle relative to each other in an extended position.
However, Lowrey teaches the first swing arm (10, fig 5) and the second swingarm (10, fig 5) cross each other at an angle relative to each other in an extended position (See fig 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the awning of Heitel, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman with the swing arms of Lowrey. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance the strength of the swing arm structure.
Regarding claim 6.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 3.
Heitel does not disclose the first swing arm and the second swing arm are telescoping.
However, Lowrey teaches the first swing arm and the second swing arm are telescoping (Column 2, line 53; telescopic X-brace assembly).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the awning of Heitel, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman with the swing arms of Lowrey. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for compact storage of a large awning.
Regarding claim 7.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Heitel does not disclose the first swing arm and the second swing arm fold into the awning body when the endbar is not extended away from the awning body.
However, Lowrey teaches the first swing arm and the second swing arm (10, fig 5) fold into the awning body (18, fig 5) when the endbar (22, fig 5) is not extended away from the awning body (See fig 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the awning of Heitel, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman with the foldability of Lowrey. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for compact storage of a large awning.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitel, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman in view of Goodman.
Regarding claim 9.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Heitel does not disclose comprising a support mount including an arcuate recess, the support mount adjusting an angle of the awning.
However, Goodman teaches comprising a support mount including an arcuate recess (See near 2, fig 1), the support mount adjusting an angle of the awning.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the awning of Heitel, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman with the arcuate recess of Goodman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for adjustment of the angle of the awning.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitel, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman in view of US Pat. 5,848,629 – Baka.
Regarding claim 11.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 10.
Heitel does not disclose the reel includes a reel spring which applies torsion and retraction forces on the awning cover.
However, Baka teaches the reel includes a reel spring (50, fig 6) which applies torsion and retraction forces on the awning cover (Column 3, lines 25-27; The torsion spring 50 is preloaded to bias the roller 20 toward a retracted position with the awning 18 rolled thereon.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the awning of Heitel, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman with the reel spring of Baka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a consistent retraction bias to ease stowage of the awning.
Regarding claim 12.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 10.
Heitel does not disclose the awning further includes a locking lever.
However, Baka teaches the awning further includes a locking lever (84, fig 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the awning of Heitel, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman with the locking lever of Baka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to lock the awning in position.
Regarding claim 17.
Heitel discloses, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman teaches all limitations of claim 16.
Heitel does not disclose the tensioning mechanism includes a main gear and a working pawl driven by a lever.
However, Baka teaches the tensioning mechanism includes a main gear (74, fig 9) and a working pawl (78, fig 9) driven by a lever (84, fig 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the awning of Heitel, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel and Goodman with the tensioning mechanism of Baka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide for manual operation.
Regarding claim 18.
The combination of Heitel and Baka, or alternatively, the combination of Heitel, Goodman, and Baka teaches all limitations of claim 17.
The combination, in Baka, further teaches the tensioning mechanism further includes a secondary pawl (80, fig 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Heitel fails to disclose “a first swing arm including pivotable connections disposed on a first end and a second end of the first swing arm;”. This is not persuasive, as the connections of the swing arm 36 to the body 10 and endbar 28 shown in fig 1 must pivot when joint 42 is articulated, or else the awning would not be able retract.
Examiner notes that though the first and second pivotable connections of the first and second swing arms are not explicitly disclosed in Heitel, the connections must connect and pivot, else the awning would not be able to retract as disclosed. See paragraphs [0028]-[0030].
Applicant argues that Goldberg fails to teach an “endbar” or “pivotable connection”. This is not persuasive, as firstly, Goldberg is not relied upon to teach an endbar, and secondly, the wooden bar 30 is disposed at an end of the swing arm, and is directly analogous to applicant’s endbar 120. Goldberg is directed to elements for a foldable awning. If the connections pointed out as pivotable connections did not pivot, the awning of Goldberg would not fold.
Conclusion
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 JOHN W HANES JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/J.W.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634