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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-12 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-12 remain pending in the application. Previous 35 USC § 112 rejections have been partially withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendments to the claims. However, new 35 USC § 112 rejections have been introduced also as a result of the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 21 appears to be missing article “a” to precede “vertical slit”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the top of the flexible cover portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the height of the flexible cover portion”; is the applicant here referring to the extended or collapsed height of the cover?
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “a collapsed height of less than the extended height of the flexible cover portion between two adjacent hoops of the plurality of hoops”; this recitation constitutes new matter because there is no support in the original disclosure for this limitation. Note that the drawings are not mentioned to be to scale.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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 1-12 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 1 line 11 recites “an accordion-like fashion”; it is not clear what would constitute an arrangement or design to be “like” an accordion. The phrase "like" renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (all those encompassed by the "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites “a collapsed height of less than the extended height of the flexible cover portion between two adjacent hoops of the plurality of hoops”; in addition to the new matter rejection associated with this recitation, as detailed above, this recitation also raises indefiniteness issues because it is not clear if the applicant is reciting that the “extended height” is “between two adjacent hoops” in which case the “extended height” specific for this recitation would be different than that established in line 4 and would subsequently be lacking antecedent basis; or if that the collapsed height is “between two adjacent hoops”, in which case it would be further indefinite because, the distance between the hoops itself varies when the cover is extended or retracted. Examiner recommends a complete re-structuring of the above limitation to clearly point out what is being recited.
Claim 8 recites “a plurality of ropes designed to permit the raising and lowering of the flexible cover portion via at least one of a plurality of bottom holes and/or a plurality of top holes”; indefiniteness arises because the recitation above makes it possible for only the presence of “a plurality of bottom holes” which then makes it unclear how would the raising of the flexible cover portion (or lowering in a controlled manner from a raised position) take place when there are only bottom holes. In other words, the ropes attached to the top holes appear to be the only manner in which a user can raise the cover (at least according to the design/embodiment disclosed).
Claim 12 recites “an entire extended height, or what could alternatively be considered as an entire extended length”; this recitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not readily understood, neither is there description in the specification to explain what would constitute “what could alternatively be considered as an entire extended length”.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as well as 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/08/2025, have been fully considered, previous objections / rejections have been partially withdrawn, except for those argued below:
Applicant argues “claim 1 has been amended to remove the language relating to the accordion-like collapse of the flexible cover portion of the invention to a fractional portion of the extended height thereof and to insert that "the flexible cover portion is able to collapse in an accordion-like fashion to a collapsed height of less than the extended height of the flexible cover portion between two adjacent hoops of the plurality of hoops". Given that as-filed specification (see Paragraphs [0031] of US 2023/0413803 - the published version of the present patent application) clearly states that the hoops (11) of the present invention are attached to cover (10) at the bottom and top edges, and then at approximately every 6 inch interval, every 8 inch interval, every 10 inch interval, or even every 12 inch interval between the bottom and top edges along the entire height of cover (10)”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that:
The amendment to claim 1 while changes the language still falls under new matter since there is no support in the original disclosure for this limitation. Note that the drawings are not mentioned to be to scale.
The disclosure in the specification pointed to by the applicant does not provide support for “a collapsed height of less than the extended height of the flexible cover portion between two adjacent hoops of the plurality of hoops”; the different spacings between the hoops does not explain inherently disclose any dimensions of the collapsed position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634