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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,851,544 to Volin.
Regarding claim 1, Volin discloses a gazebo (structurally equivalent to a pergola) having a gutter beam system, side gutter beams and end gutter beams with a louver (slat) system which opens and closes (abstract). Regarding the functional limitations of directing wind flow and connection with second gazebos and robot assembly, these functional limitations are met, as structurally claimed since Volin is inherently capable of performing these functions.
Regarding claim 4, post leveling is disclosed (fig. 4B: see levelling means 173C, 137).
Regarding claim 5, the slats (louver blades) are a projector screen (claim 18).
Regarding claim 6, an automatic means is disclosed for the screen (column 24, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 7, Volin is inherently capable of use in all seasons.
Regarding claim 14, a control bar (fig. 1N, 1O) is disclosed for opening and closing slats (blades).
Regarding claim 17, the slats may inherently protect from rain by their leading edges.
Regarding claim 18, the leading edges of the slats are strip like and inherently provide a level of insulation.
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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,851,544 to Volin in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2020/0354962 to Whytlaw.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, retractable slats are not disclosed. Whytlaw discloses such a system [0005] in an automatic manner [0049]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Volin by using such a system to allow for more sunlight.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,851,544 to Volin.
Regarding claim 8, Volin discloses an angle adjustable system (column 13, lines 49-67) which may adjust gutter angles but not explicitly reversable spacers. The examiner takes official notice that reversable spacers are well known as simple disc shaped washers, rubber or metal, and are well known to be used in connections and may be reversable as their front and back sides are identical. The use of such washers/spacers would help connect to components. Additionally, the function of connecting to another gazebo/structure is inherent.
Regarding claims 9-12, Volin discloses the claimed invention except for multiple units connected even though there are length variations as seen in fig. 9G, which appears as two units when compared to fig. 10B. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple units, since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The use of multiple units would cover a larger area than that of just a single unit, the orientation being an obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,851,544 to Volin in view of U.S. Design Patent DE785,201 to Hassman.
Regarding claim 13, a canopy is not disclosed. Hassman discloses a canopy for a gazebo/structure (see description). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Volin by adding a canopy to better protect from high winds.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,851,544 to Volin in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,471,962 to Jones.
Regarding claim 16, an awning with crank is not disclosed. Jones discloses such a device (fig. 1 and fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Volin by using such a system to better protect from high winds.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not disclose the structural limitations of claims 1 and 15 combined or that of claims 1 and 19 combined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the 102 rejection in that Volin’s gutter beams do not connect with other gazebos, is not configured for robot assembly. However, the Applicant should note that the limitations in the claim are functional and are not positively claimed. The capability of connecting to another structure is possible, as not other structure has been claimed by the Applicant and the structural limitation which is required for connection to another structure is met, as Volin meets the claimed limitations of the instant application. Regarding the function of being capable of construction by robots, the Applicant should note that as claimed, Volin meets this limitations since it is possible for a robot to complete some type of construction step. Also, it is not clear as to what robot is being used, what function a robot might perform, or what portion of the structure may or may not be handled by a robot. This is a functional limitation and the prior art, may be assemble by a type of robot. For example, a simple piece of metal may be welded, riveted, or nailed by a “robot”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm 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, Brian Glessner can be reached on (571)272-6754. 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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633