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 Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendment/Remarks” filed 1/15/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 (lines 7-8) states: “insulation layer” however this limitation/element was previously referred to in the claim as the “insulation section.” Please update for proper antecedent basis. 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 1-5 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.
Independent Claim 1, as amended on 1/15/2026, now requires “an insulation section being non-adjustable” (emphasis added). Applicant’s specification does not appear to provide support for the insulation section being “non-adjustable,” Attention is called to Applicant’s specification paragraph [0036] which states: Use of the mechanical joints securely affixes the insulation section 12 to the bed layer 11. The non-removable construction eliminates the need to adjust or re-secure the insulation section in place during transport or use. The examiner notes there is clear support for a “non-removable” insulation section in this paragraph, however, the remainder of the paragraph stating an elimination of and/or a lack of requirement for a need to adjust does not explicitly imply or give positive support for the insulation section being “non-adjustable” as claimed. The examiner requests further clarification on this matter.
Claims 2-5 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 1).
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 (as best understood), 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-adjustable (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-adjustable), 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).
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) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0345049 to Gash in view of U.S. Patent 8,296,880 to Hennessy in further view of U.S. Patent 4,125,909 to Jacobson.
Regarding claim 6, Gash teaches: A hammock (see Fig. 1-6, 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), an edging of the bed layer substantially tapering towards a central region of the bed layer (see Fig. 1, edge of 102 tapers towards middle as shown when suspended); and
an insulation section (see Fig. 1-7 insulating blanket 120) containing insulating material (see para [0057]: “down, feathers, fleece, foam, etc”) and fixed to the lower surface of the bed layer through a mechanical joint that does not penetrate the bed layer or the insulation section (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”) and forms a plurality of baffle boxes (see Fig. 6, plurality of baffles 152 form “baffle boxes” filled with material 154)
Gash does not explicitly teach: [a plurality of baffle boxes] running diagonally across the bed layer and a first portion of the edging of the bed layer tapering a length less than a second portion of the edging of the bed layer along a same edging.
Hennessy, however, teaches: [a plurality of baffle boxes] running diagonally across the bed layer (see Fig. 3, insulation panel 40 runs diagonally across hammock as shown).
Gash and Hennessy are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of hammocks with insulation. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gash with these aforementioned teachings of Hennessy in order to construct the insulation section of Gash to be oriented along a diagonal as taught by Hennessy with a reasonable expectation of success to provide proper insulation “beneath the expected user location” while allowing a user to lie diagonally on the hammock proving “good support for the lower back” (see Hennessy, col. 3, lines [27-38]).
Jacobson teaches: a first portion of the edging of the bed layer tapering a length less than a second portion of the edging of the bed layer along a same edging (see Jacobson, Fig. 1, edges of elongated base 12 are tapered at the spaced-apart ends 14, thus central (first) portions of the edging of 12 taper less than end (second) portions of edging).
Gash, Hennessy, and Jacobson are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of hammocks with insulation. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the bed layer of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient as shown/suggested by Jacobson. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, Gash as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 6, and additionally Gash teaches: wherein the insulation section shares a vertical wall of a binding with the upper surface and lower surface of the bed layer (see Fig. 6-7 and para [0058]: insulation blanket 120 may be formed as part of the lower hammock bed 102, vertical wall is 152).
Regarding claim 8, Gash as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 7, and additionally Gash teaches: wherein the plurality of baffle boxes are positioned between an upper surface and a lower surface of the insulation section by the use of the mechanical joint (see Fig. 6, baffle 152 is a mechanical joint).
Regarding claim 9, Gash as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 8, and additionally Gash teaches: wherein a lower surface of a first baffle box and a lower surface of a second baffle box abut (see Fig. 6-7, as shown lower surfaces of baffles 154 are coplanar/abut).
Regarding claim 10, Gash as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 9, and additionally Gash teaches: wherein a closed gap is formed between the first baffle box and the second baffle box (see Fig. 6-7, no gap exists between baffle boxes and thus they are “closed”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0345049 to Gash in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0177731 to Moriarty in further view of U.S. Patent 4,125,909 to Jacobson.
Regarding claim 11, Gash teaches: A hammock (see Fig. 1-6, 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);
an insulation section (see Fig. 1-7 insulating blanket 120) containing insulating material (see para [0057]: “down, feathers, fleece, foam, etc”) and fixed to 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 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]), the insulation section having a plurality of baffle boxes formed between an upper surface and a lower surface of the insulation section (see Fig. 6, plurality of baffles 152 form boxes filled with material 154).
Gash, however, does not teach: the lower surface of the insulation section having a length greater than the upper surface of the insulation section and the lower surface of the insulation layer and the bed layer separated by a binding of the insulation layer.
Moriarty, however, teaches: the lower surface of the insulation section having a length greater than the upper surface of the insulation section (see Fig. 3, lower surface of insulation section [approx 4] is shown with a greater length than upper layer 10).
Gash and Moriarty are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of insulation technology for thermal insulation user products. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gash with these aforementioned teachings of Moriarty in order to construct the insulation section of Gash to have a greater length along its lower surface than the upper surface as shown by Moriarty with a reasonable expectation of success and improved design to provide proper insulation and reduce cold spots (see Moriarty, para [0032]).
Jacobson teaches: the lower surface of the insulation layer and the bed layer separated by a binding of the insulation layer (see Fig. 2, flexible rigidity means 15 and peripheral margin 18 including lip 20 extending in overlapping relationship to the base….and strengthens base 12).
Gash, Moriarty, and Jacobson are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of hammocks with insulation. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gash and Moriarty with these aforementioned teachings of Jacobson in order to include a binding over the bed and insulation layers with a reasonable expectation of success to provide greater strength to the base (see Jacobson, col. 2, lines [20-27]).
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0345049 to Gash in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0177731 to Moriarty in view of U.S. Patent 4,125,909 to Jacobson in further view of U.S. Patent 8,296,880 to Hennessy.
Regarding claim 12, Gash as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 11, and additionally Gash teaches: further comprising a plurality of partitions (see Fig. 6, baffles 152) dividing the insulation section into individual baffle boxes from the plurality of baffle boxes (see Fig. 1-6) and running longitudinally across the bed layer (see Fig. 1-6, boxes 152/154 are shown running longitudinally w/r/t bed 102)
Gash, nor, Moriarty teach the following: [the baffle boxes running] diagonally across the bed layer.
Hennessy teaches: [the baffle boxes running] diagonally across the bed layer (see Fig. 3, insulation panel 40 runs diagonally across hammock as shown).
Gash, Moriarty, and Jacobson are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of hammocks with insulation. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gash with these aforementioned teachings of Hennessy in order to construct the insulation section of Gash to be oriented along a diagonal as taught by Hennessy with a reasonable expectation of success to provide proper insulation “beneath the expected user location” while allowing a user to lie diagonally on the hammock proving “good support for the lower back” (see Hennessy, col. 3, lines [27-38]).
Regarding claim 13, Gash as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 12, and additionally Gash teaches: wherein the bed layer is substantially rectilinear (see Fig. 3, 102 is rectangular, see also para [0046]).
Regarding claim 14, Gash as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 13, and additionally Gash teaches: wherein the insulation section is substantially rectilinear (see Fig. 3, insulation section 120 is shown as rectangular, see also para [0050]) and oriented longitudinally (see Fig. 3) and is substantially in a proximal end of the bed layer and running towards a distal end of the bed layer (see para [0050]: different lengths of insulating blankets are contemplated).
Additionally, the examiner notes that specific ends of the hammock which have been attempted to be defined by “proximal” and/or “distal” in the claim are considered arbitrary and reversibly selected without further context or defined spatial relationships to other claimed elements.
Regarding claim 15, Gash as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 14, and additionally Moriarity teaches: wherein a mechanical joint is secured along a perimeter of the insulation section using hot adhesive or sonic welding (see Moriarity, para [0032]: “welded or glued”).
Regarding claim 16, Gash as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 15, and additionally Gash teaches: wherein a first baffle box has a lower surface and an upper surface (see Fig. 6, individual boxes formed by 152 have upper and lower surfaces).
Regarding claim 17, Gash as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 16, and additionally Gash teaches: wherein a second baffle box has a lower surface and an upper surface (see Fig. 6, individual boxes formed by 152 have upper and lower surfaces).
Regarding claim 18, Gash as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 17, and additionally Gash teaches: wherein the lower surface of the first baffle box and the lower surface of the second baffle box are continuous (see Fig. 6-7, as shown lower surfaces of baffles 154 are coplanar/abut).
Regarding claim 19, Gash as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 18, and additionally Gash teaches: wherein the lower surface of the first baffle box and the second baffle box is separated from the upper surface of the first baffle box and the second baffle box by a joining material (see Fig. 6, baffle 152).
Regarding claim 20, Gash as modified teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 19, and additionally Gash teaches: wherein the upper surface of the first baffle box and the upper surface of the second baffle box are continuous (see Fig. 6, as shown upper surfaces of individual baffles 154 are continuous).
Response to Arguments
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments introduce a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), please review details above. Additionally, the newly added limitation is also met by the current prior art of Gash. Of note, Gash 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 and therefore would be integral and non-adjustable as claimed.
Regarding independent claims 6 and 11, Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/15/2026, with respect to the rejections applied, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previously held rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent 4,125,909 to Jacobson. For added details, please review the rejections provided above.
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 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
2/6/2026