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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Request for Continued Examination” filed 8/10/2026.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0345049 to Gash.
Regarding claim 1, Gash teaches: A hammock (see Fig. 1, hammock system 10) comprising:
a bed layer having an upper surface and a lower surface (see Fig. 1, lower 102 hammock bed layer has upper and lower surfaces); and
an insulation section (see Fig. 1-7 insulating blanket 120) being non-removable (see para [0058]: in at least the embodiment shown in Fig. 7, the blanket 120 is formed as part of the lower surface of the hammock bed, e.g. integral and non-removable/replaceable), the insulation section containing insulating material (see para [0057]: “down, feathers, fleece, foam, etc”) and irremovably connected to the lower surface of the bed layer (see para [0058]: “In other embodiments, the lower hammock bed 102 may form the top surface or the top surface and the bottom surface of the thermal insulation blanket 120”), the insulation section is coplanar with the lower surface of the bed layer (see Fig. 1-7, as shown and taught in para [0058] lower bed layer may form the top of insulating blanket 120); and the insulation section occupies less than a full area of the bed layer (see Fig. 1-5, insulation blanket 120 is shown occupying less than the full area of bed layer 102, see also para [0050]).
Regarding claim 2, Gash teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the insulation section has a plurality of baffle boxes (see Fig. 6, plurality of baffles 152 form boxes filled with material 154).
Regarding claim 3, Gash teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, and additionally teaches: further comprising a plurality of partitions (see Fig. 6, baffles 152 are partitions) dividing the insulation section into separate baffle boxes from the plurality of baffle boxes (see Fig. 6) and running longitudinally (see Fig. 1-6, boxes 152/154 are shown running longitudinally w/r/t bed 102) or laterally.
Regarding claim 4, Gash teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 3, and additionally teaches: wherein each partition is an interior wall or barrier dividing the insulation section into separate areas and running longitudinally along the insulation section (see Fig. 6, baffles 152 divide the insulation 154 into sections and run longitudinally w/r/t to bed layer 102).
Regarding claim 5, Gash teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 4, and additionally teaches: wherein the plurality of partitions is secured to an upper insulating section surface and to a lower insulating section surface (see Fig. 6, baffles 152 connect to upper and lower surfaces of insulation section 120 as shown).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-20 allowed.
Regarding independent claims 6 and 11, Applicant’s arguments have been found persuasive in so much that it would not have been obvious to combine the closest prior art of record (Gash, Hennessy, Jacobson and/or Moriarty) without the application of impermissible hindsight bias.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, 8/10/2023, with respect to the rejections of claims 6-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding claims 1-5, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment filed 8/10/2026. However, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections in view of Gash have been maintained on the record as the claims are still considered anticipated by Gash and the rejections were not specifically traversed by Applicant in view of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
8/27/2026
Prosecution Insights