DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of claims in the reply filed 3/23/26 is acknowledged. It is noted that the claims do not comply with the standards set forth in 37 CFR 1.121. Claims 5 and 7 - 9 have significant deletions indicated by double brackets which is improper. The relevant portion of 1.121 is set forth below.
When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn— currently amended.”
It is additionally noted that the claims are presented with single spaced lines. 1 ½ or double spacing is required (37 CFR 1.52).
In order to promote compact prosecution, applicant’s submission will be entered and examined, but applicant is reminded that future correspondence must comply with 37 CFR 1.121.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 - 9 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, in line 5, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the spa”.
The remaining claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1 - 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watkins et al. (US 5,685,031 hereinafter Watkins).
Regarding claim 1, Watkins discloses a hard spa cover (201) comprising: a first section (205); a second section (203); and a third section (207), wherein the third section is positioned between the first section and the second section when the hard spa cover is installed on the spa (see fig. 12), wherein each of the first, second, and third sections are separately removable from the spa (abstract)(col. 7, ln. 6-29), wherein the first section comprises one or more first anchors (269, 245) configured to secure the first section to the spa (at 269, see fig. 17, wall 269 overlaps the spa rim and laterally secures the first section) and to urge engagement of the first section with the third section (col. 6, ln. 59 - col. 7, ln. 29), wherein the second section comprises one or more second anchors (269, 245) configured to secure the second section to the spa (at 269, see fig. 17, wall 269 overlaps the spa rim and laterally secures the second section) and to urge engagement of the second section with the third section(col. 6, ln. 59 - col. 7, ln. 29), wherein the first section comprises a first mating surface (242) along one side, the third section comprises second (251) and third (351) mating surfaces along opposite sides, and the second section comprises a fourth mating surface (242) along one side, wherein the first mating surface complementarily mates with the second mating surface when the hard spa cover is installed on the spa, and wherein the third mating surface complementarily mates with the fourth mating surface when the hard spa cover is installed on the spa (see fig. 13, 8, 9), and wherein the hard spa cover is configured to cover an interior of the spa when the hard spa cover is installed on the spa (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Watkins shows that the first second (205) sealingly engages the third section along one side of the third section (at 212) and the second section sealing engages the third section along an opposite side of the third section (at 214) when the hard cover is installed on the spa. See fig. 12.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Watkins shows that rotation of the first section relative to the third section and rotation of the third section allows all of the sections to be removed from the spa independently of the others (abstract)(col. 7, ln. 6-29).
Regarding claim 6, Watkins shows a seal (col. 4, ln. 26-29) configured to provide sealing engagement between the cover and the spa when the cover is installed (col. 5, ln. 37-39, note that the structural advantages of the first embodiment 13 can be equally applied to the second 201).
Regarding claim 9, Watkins further shows that the comprise one or more edges and one or more notches which matingly engage one another. 242 constitutes a notch while 251 and 351 constitute ledges.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins, as applied to claim 1, in view of Cross (US 5,471,685).
Regarding claim 6, Watkins as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show a cover storage rack as claimed. Attention is turned to Cross which teaches a similar spa (10) having a cover storage rack (18) attached to an outside portion (14) of the spa, wherein the cover storage rack includes storage rails (38) configured to receive the first section, the second section, and the third section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have provided a storage rack in the spa of Watkins in order to provide a convenient place to hold the cover while the spa is being used. Under the proposed modification, the storage rack is fully capable of receiving each section of the spa one at a time after removal from the spa and to support the first section, the second section, and the third section in a horizontal stacked orientation on the outside portion of the spa. It should be noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114(I).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins, as applied to claim 1, in view of Pesterfield (US 5,367,722).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Watkins shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show that one or more of the first and second anchors comprise anchor clips which are positioned along sides of the first and second section opposite respective mating surfaces. Attention is turned to Pesterfield which teaches a spa cover having multiple sections (24, 26) and a mating surface of each section (along 46) and an anchor clip (96, 68) associated with the side of each section opposite to the mating surface (col. 4, ln. 13-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the depending first and second anchors 269 of Watkins with an additional clip in order to also vertically restrain the cover on the spa.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In section III(A), applicant argues that claim 1 requires anchors which secure the ends sections to the spa. It is noted that the anchors 269 laterally constrain and therefore secure the end sections to the spa. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the anchors are on the end sections, positively latch or clasp, each section is independently secured, or that the anchors are “spa secured”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In section III(B), applicant argues that the depending rim piece 269 is not an anchor configured to secure the end piece to the spa. As noted above, such a depending rim at least laterally constrains the spa cover relative to the spa and thus secures it in place. Absent further structural limitation, the prior art of Watkins reads on the claim.
In section III(C), applicant argues that the mating surfaces are structurally distinct from the anchors. As mapped above, the resilient fingers 245 bias the sections of the spa to one another and are the anchors. The interface of 242 and 251/351 are mating surfaces which are structurally distinct
In section III(D) that the mating surfaces of the instant invention are “fundamentally different” as they are shingled and do not require mechanical interlocking as taught by Watkins. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In section IV, applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would not look to Cross to teach a rack, since the roller arm mechanism is incompatible with separate stacking of individually separated spa sections. In response to applicant's argument that, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, Cross teaches a rack attached to the side of the spa, and could apply a similar rack to the side of the spa of Watkins which is capable of supporting the pieces of the spa individually and independently as claimed. Applicant is reminded that a “person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP 2141(II)(C).
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 ERIN L DEERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur, 7:30am - 4:30pm; Fri 8:00am-12:00pm.
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 Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/ERIN DEERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights