DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 9/30/2025. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-11 and 16-19 are pending. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-11 and 16-19 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 6 is 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. The claim recites, “in which a portion of the at least one load support surface region comprises a plurality of elongate rigid members arranged as a flexible array to provide lonqitudinally distributed support to the load.” It is unclear how the claimed members can be both rigid and flexible. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 4,057,859 to Setterholm.
Claim 1. A bridge hammock system for suspending at least one load between first and second anchor points (Setterholm, Fig. 1), the hammock system comprising: a suspension system comprising at least one suspension line (Setterholm, Fig. 1, #7, 8, and 9) and defining a first end (Setterholm, Fig. 1, #7) adapted to be connected to the first anchor point and a second end (Setterholm, Fig. 1, #9) adapted to be connected to the second anchor point; and a load bearing sling (Setterholm, Fig. 2, #33) having at least one load support surface region and at least one side panel region (Setterholm, Fig. 2, #15); wherein the suspension system defines a characteristic curve such that the first end of the suspension system defines a first slope and the second end of the suspension system defines a second slope (Setterholm, Fig. 1, suspension line #7 is higher than #9); the at least one side panel region supports the at least one load support surface region from the suspension system (see Setterholm Figs. 1-2); the at least one side panel region is sized and shaped to integrate the characteristic curve of the suspension system with the load support surface region such that an upper profile defined by the at least one side panel region cooperates with the characteristic curve of the suspension system, a lower profile defined by the at least one side panel region cooperates with a contour defined by the at least one load support surface region, (Setterholm, Figs. 1-2, sides #15 cooperate with bottom panel #13 and curved edges #35 and 33 to provide a curve in the suspension system at #35 and to provide a contour in the bottom panel at #15), tension forces on the first end of the suspension system are substantially upwardly directed (Setterholm Fig. 2, #7), and tension forces on the second end of the suspension system are at least one of substantially laterally and substantially downwardly directed (Setterholm Fig. 1, support lines #7, 8, and 9 are seen to have both a lateral and a downwardly component);
Claim 2. A bridge hammock system as recited in claim 1, in which
Claim 3. A bridge hammock system as recited in claim 1, in which the at least one load support surface portion is adapted to support a human occupant in a sitting or reclining posture (the hammock of Setterholm is intended to support a person).
Claim 7. A bridge hammock system as recited in claim 1, in which the suspension system comprises a single suspension line such that the at least one side panel region of the load bearing slinq suspends at least one load support surface region from the single suspension line (Setterholm Figs. 1-2 #35 discloses an upper edge of the apparatus which is equivalent to Applicant’s “single suspension line”; compare to Applicant’s Fig. 2)
Claim 10. A bridge hammock system as recited in claim 1, in which the hammock system operates in a hammock mode and in a tent mode, wherein: in the hammock mode, at least a portion of the load bearing sling is suspended above the ground for supporting the occupant the suspension system has an asymmetrical slopinq configuration and the at least one side panel region is dimensioned and shaped to integrate the suspension system havinq said asymmetrical slopinq confiquration such that that load bearing sling is asymmetrically proportioned, the hammock tent is substantially taller at the first end than at the second end and the internal volume of space is substantially qreater at the first end than the second end (see Sutterholm Fig. 2 in which the hammock is seen to be asymmetrical and is taller at a first end than at a second end).
Claim 16. The hammock system as recited in claim 1, in which the load bearing sling comprises a plurality of load support surface regions configured to support a plurality of individual load units, and in which each load support surface region is configured with parameters prescribed to provide optimum support for each individual load unit (See Setterholm Figs. 1-3; the hammock of Setterholm is considered to have various regions that support a user’s head, torso, and feet and the specific weight of each of these “units” of a user’s body; moreover, the claimed limitations do not recite structures that are not found in the prior art of Setterholm).
Claim 17. A bridge hammock system for suspending at least one load between two or more anchor points (Setterholm, Fig. 1), the hammock system comprising: a suspension system comprising at least one suspension line (Setterholm, Fig. 1, #7, 8, and 9) and defining a first end (Setterholm, Fig. 1, #7) adapted to be connected to the first anchor point and a second end (Setterholm, Fig. 1, #9) adapted to be connected to the second anchor point; and at least one load bearing sling (Setterholm, Fig. 2, #33) having at least one load support surface region and at least one side panel region (Setterholm, Fig. 2, #15); wherein the suspension system defines a characteristic curve such that the first end of the suspension system defines a first slope and the second end of the suspension system defines a second slope (Setterholm, Fig. 1, suspension line #7 is higher than #9); the at least one side panel region supports the at least one load support surface region from the suspension system (see Setterholm Figs. 1-2); the at least one side panel region is sized and shaped to integrate the characteristic curve of the suspension system with the at least one load support surface region such that an upper profile defined by the at least one side panel region cooperates with the characteristic curve of the suspension system, a lower profile defined by the at least one side panel region cooperates with a contour defined by the at least one load support surface region, (Setterholm, Figs. 1-2, sides #15 cooperate with bottom panel #13 and curved edges #35 and 33 to provide a curve in the suspension system at #35 and to provide a contour in the bottom panel at #15), tension forces on the first end of the suspension system are substantially upwardly directed (Setterholm Fig. 2, #7), and tension forces on the second end of the suspension system are at least one of substantially laterally and substantially downwardly directed (Setterholm Fig. 1, support lines #7, 8, and 9 are seen to have both a lateral and a downwardly component).
Claim 18. A bridge hammock system as recited in claim 17, in which the hammock system comprises a plurality of load bearing slings and at least one of the plurality of load bearing slings is configured to support an animal (the apparatus of Setterholm can inherently be used to support an animal).
Claim 19. A bridge hammock system as recited in claim 17, in which the hammock system comprises a plurality of load bearing slings and at least one of the plurality of load bearing slings is configured to support a plant (the apparatus of Setterholm can inherently be used to support a plant).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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 6 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,072,465 to Setterholm in view of US Patent 5,072,465 to Lyons, Jr. (“Lyons”).
Claim 6. A bridge hammock system as recited in claim 3,in which a portion of the at least one load support surface region comprises a plurality of elongate rigid members arranged as a flexible array to provide lonqitudinally distributed support to the load (Setterholm discloses rigid members as seen at Fig. 1 #79 and #73; Setterholm discloses #73 to be a rigid aluminum rod; Lyons discloses a inflatable spreader in column 2, lines 16-17 and Fig. 4 #42, which would inherently be a flexible member; the combined teachings of Setterholm and Lyons would disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art that it would be possible to provide multiple members of any desired rigidity or flexibility as a matter of design choice in order to optimize a user’s comfort, or as stated by Lyons in order to reduce weight and improve comfort”).
Claim 8. The bridge hammock system as recited in claim 1, further comprising a soft spreader in which the soft spreader contains a volume of air configured to assert distributed pressure against an internal portion of the load bearinq sling .
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,057,859 to Setterholm in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0123801 to Tillotson.
Claim 11. A bridge hammock system as recited in claim 10, further comprising at least a first elongate member and a second elongate member, where the first and second elongate members are configured configurable in: a first mode in which the first and second elongate members are separately arranged to engage the suspension system; and a second mode in which the first elongate member is connected to the second elongate member to form a riser pole having an effective length that is greater than lengths of either of the first and second elongate members (Setterholm does not teach riser poles, however, the prior art of Tillotson teaches poles in at least Fig. 1; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the hammock of Setterholm to poles in order to use the hammock in a location where other supports, such as trees, are not available).
Response to Applicant's remarks and amendments
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of Applicant’s remarks that the cited art of Setterholm does not teach “the side panel region supports the at least one load support surface region from the suspension system.” However, as is seen in Setterholm Figs. 1-3, the suspension system (comprising at least support ropes #7, 8, and 9) supports the entire hammock, including sleeping surface panel #13.
Applicant also argues that the prior art does not teach that “the side panel region integrates the characteristic curve with the at least one load support surface region” or " an upper profile defined by the at least one side panel region cooperates with the characteristic curve of the suspension system” or " a lower profile defined by the at least one side panel region cooperates with a contour defined by the at least one load support surface region.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The apparatus of Setterholm comprises a “characteristic curve” as seen in Fig. 1 at #35. Regarding the upper profile where the side panel “cooperates with the characteristic curve” of the suspension system and the lower profile where the side panel “cooperates with a contour” of the load support surface, these aspects can be seen in Sutterholm Figs. 1-3. More specifically, the side panels of Sutterholm connect at edges (“arrises”) #33 and 35 to provide these features. Moreover, the terms “integrates” and “characteristic curve” and “cooperates with” and “defined by” do not provide any patentable structural limitations to the claims. The functionality of this language is inherently provided by the structures of the cited prior art of Setterholm. However, it appears that the shape of the hammock of Applicant’s Fig. 1 is somewhat different than the shape of Setterholm’s Fig. 2. Providing limitations directed toward specific structural differences, and limitations that describe the shape, size, location, and configuration of each of the structures of Applicant’s invention, could help to differentiate over the prior art. Additionally, those structural details combined with language either in the claim ("configured to...[provide some functionality]"), or alternatively discussed in Applicant's written remarks, with reasoning as to the criticality and functionality of those specific structures and structural configurations could help to indicate non-obviousness.
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 MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 571-272-8525. 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673