Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a first office action on the merits for application serial number 18/296,371 filed 4/05/23. This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 9/03/24. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/03/24 and 9/10/24 are mostly compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Citation 3 on the IDS submitted 9/03/94 has too many numbers to be a U.S. Patent. The NPL cite submitted 9/03/24 listed no date and the copy included no date. As such, it has been lined out. The NPL cite submitted 9/10/24 has no date listed and no copy was submitted. As such, it has been lined out.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by on a 1449 form or by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The drawings are objected to because:
They are not black and white drawings using solid black lines as required by rule 37 CFR 1.84(a/b/l). They appear to be some sort of photographs or computer generated images and are replete with unnecessary and background shading which reduces legibility. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
The margins of all of the sheets are not in accordance with 37 1.84(g).
They should include as few words as possible and should use refence characters (numbers preferred) to identify the elements , rather than text. The refence numbers must all be found int eh specification and not be enclosed in boxes. (37 CFR 1.84(o-p)).
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 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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the language in parenthesis as well as “e.g.:” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) within parentheses are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “quick connect” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quick connect” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what the metes and bounds are of “quick connect”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, the language in parenthesis as well as “etc.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention and what the metes and bounds are of “etc.”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, it is unclear what the metes and bounds are of “etc.”.
Regarding claim 15, the language in parenthesis as well as “e.g.,” and “etc.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention and what the metes and bounds are of “e.g.,” and “etc.”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 10,856,631 to Schulhofer.
Schulhofer provides motorized umbrella assembly adapted to be retrofit to exist umbrellas (figs.3, 7) having a central post 104, a canopy frame 110 of long and short ribs operatively coupled to upper and lower hubs.
A centralized drive module 400 comprising a plurality of stacked and connected modularized units 402/404/406 is structurally/operatively/removably coupled to the frame through the pole via engagement fingers 602a-n.
Unit 404 is drive unit and gearing module.
Unit 402 houses and protects internal components and includes solar panel 408 [cls.12 and 20].
Unit 406 is a pole engagement module.
With respect to claims 2-4 and 16-18, as best understood and from the figures, the couplings of the stacked units are twist “quick connect”.
With respect to claims 5-6 and 14-15, see Fig. 13 and its description, in particular power source/batteries 1302.
With respect to claim 7, see control unit 800.
With respect to claims 8-9, the drive module opens/closes the umbrella frame by varying the distance between the upper via winding and unwinding of cord 702.
With respect to claims 10-11 and 19, see wind sensor 1500.
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 13, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,856,631 to Schulhofer.
Schulhofer provides each of the elements of the claim except for providing the module 400 atop a frame of a cantilevered offset umbrella frame.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to try using the module 400 of Schulofer a top a frame of a cantilevered offset umbrella frame, as cantilevered umbrellas are old and well known and a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. It would have been nothing other than an obvious carrying forward of the teaching of Schulofer to provide the module 400 atop a cantilevered umbrella frame absent any unexpected or unpredictable results.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note in particular:
U.S. Patent 10,538,937 cited against claims in the corresponding search report.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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 on 571-272-6670. 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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636