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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that an IDS was submitted on 7/1/2025, however the IDS was blank and therefore crossed through by the Examiner. None the less, the identification of the PCT/US24/31603 has been acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 6, line 12, “positioned om” should be changed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 and 15-17 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 7 recites “the coating has an ultraviolet protection coefficient rating of 30 or more in accordance with ASTM D6544”. It is not clear exactly what this claim limitation entails, espeically since standards can change over time and are not permanent. Clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites “the blowing or floating in the wind has a lower noise level compared to a sail without an attachment”. It is unclear how the sail of the claimed invention can be compared to another sail when none of the details of the other sail are known. Are the sails made of the same material? Are they the same size? Clarification is required.
Claim 16 recites “movement of the sail in response to the wind is decreased compared to a sail without an attachment”. It is unclear how the sail of the claimed invention can be compared to another sail when none of the details of the other sail are known. Are the sails made of the same material? Are they the same size? Clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites “the attachment is permanently attached to the trailing edge of the sail”. However, claim 14 from which 14 depends recites “positioning the attachment on the trailing edge of the sail” (line 2). It is unclear how the method of using the assembly can require positioning the attachment on the sail when the attachment is permanently attached to the sail. Clarification is required.
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, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hart (US 2004/0261953 A1).
Claim 1: Hart discloses a sun shade assembly comprising: a sail (1120) defined by: a leading edge (that forms 1121) and an opposed trailing edge (that forms the back terminal edge of 1120 and surrounds 1122); at least one side edge positioned between the leading and trailing edges (as seen in FIG. 11, there are two edge portions); a top face and an opposed bottom face (as a three-dimensional flat sheet, there inherently must be a top face and a bottom face); an attachment (1122) comprising a first edge (smallest edge of trapezoidal-shaped 1122), second edge (edge parallel to the first edge and flush with the other portion of the trailing edge of the sail), and one or more side edges (angled edges of the trapezoidal-shaped 1122), wherein the first edge is attached at the trailing edge of the sail (as seen in FIG. 11, the first edge and second edges are all attached to the trailing edge); wherein the attachment is constructed from silk, satin, sateen, mesh, or combinations thereof (mesh; as seen in FIG. 11 and discussed in paragraphs 143, 220, 240).
Claim 4: Hart does not teach the attachment as having a coating.
Claim 9: Hart discloses the leading edge of the sail as having a length that comprises a channel (1121) that spans the length (see FIG. 11).
Claim 10: Hart discloses the channel as comprising one or more apertures along the leading edge (as seen in FIG. 11, there is one aperture in the center of the channel).
Claim 12: Hart discloses the attachment as being releasably attached to the trailing edge of the sail (via VELCRO; paragraph 137).
Claim 14: Hart discloses a method of using the sun shade assembly of claim 1, the method comprising: positioning the attachment on the trailing edge of the sail (and connecting it via VELCRO; paragraph 137); stabilizing the sail leading edge with a support (1130), mast, or both to anchor the assembly in the ground (the sail has to be anchored to the ground via other components in order to function; see FIGS. 1A, 1B, 6, 9, 10, 13); wherein the sail and attachment blow or float in response to wind (paragraph 137).
Claim 15: Hart discloses the wind has a lower noise level compared to a sail without an attachment (as best understood, providing a means for the wind to pass through a portion of the assembly would inherently reduce the amount of noise due to the sail not flapping in the wind).
Claim 16: Hart discloses movement of the sail in response to the wind is decreased compared to a sail without an attachment (as best understood, providing a means for the wind to pass through a portion of the assembly would inherently reduce the amount of force the wind would impart on the sail and therefore it would not move as much).
Claim 18: Hart discloses the attachment is releasably attached to the trailing edge of the sail (via VELCRO; paragraph 137).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnes et al. (US 2023/0126867 A1).
Claim 1: Barnes et al. discloses a sun shade assembly comprising: a sail (first panel 44 closest to 14; paragraph 81) defined by: a leading edge (42) and an opposed trailing edge (edge of 44 directly opposite 42); at least one side edge (80, 82) positioned between the leading and trailing edges; a top face and an opposed bottom face (as a three-dimensional flat sheet, there inherently must be a top face and a bottom face); an attachment (other panel 44 connected to the sail, as seen in FIG. 1) comprising a first edge (edge attached to the sail), second edge (edge of 44 directly opposite the first edge), and one or more side edges (80, 82), wherein the first edge is attached at the trailing edge of the sail (FIG. 1); wherein the attachment is constructed from silk, satin, sateen, mesh, or combinations thereof (paragraph 81, the shade assembly made be comprises of multiple materials, which includes mesh).
Claim 3: Barnes et al. discloses the attachment positioned along an entire length of the trailing edge (as seen in FIG. 1).
Claim 5: Barnes et al. discloses the sail as being constructed from nylon, polyester, vinyl, rayon, canvas, acrylic fabric, neoprene, linen, polypropylene, hemp, cotton, or combinations thereof (paragraph 81, the shade assembly made be comprises of multiple materials, which includes nylon or polyester, therefore the sail could be made one or both of those materials).
Claim 9: Barnes et al. discloses the leading edge of the sail as having a length that comprises a channel (40) that spans the length (paragraph 83).
Claim 11: Barnes et al. discloses the attachment can be permanently attached to the trailing edge of the sail (paragraph 81; “coupled sections 44 and/or selectively engageable sections 44”).
Claim 12: Barnes et al. discloses the attachment can be releasably attached to the trailing edge of the sail. (paragraph 81; “coupled sections 44 and/or selectively engageable sections 44”).
Claim 14: Barnes et al. discloses a method of using the sun shade assembly of claim 1, the method comprising: positioning the attachment on the trailing edge of the sail (and “selectively engaging”; paragraph 81); stabilizing the sail leading edge with a support (14), mast, or both to anchor the assembly in the ground (as seen in FIG. 1); wherein the sail and attachment blow or float in response to wind (as seen in FIG. 1).
Claim 17: Barnes et al. discloses the attachment can be permanently attached to the trailing edge of the sail (paragraph 81; “coupled sections 44 and/or selectively engageable sections 44”).
Claim 18: Barnes et al. discloses the attachment can be releasably attached to the trailing edge of the sail. (paragraph 81; “coupled sections 44 and/or selectively engageable sections 44”).
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) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart (US 2004/0261953 A1).
Hart is discussed above but is silent on the dimensions of the attachment. However, it would have been obvious to make the attachment have a length of about 3-20 feet and a width of about 0.1-3 feet since it has generally been recognized that changes in size involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137.
Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (US 2023/0126867 A1) alone.
Barnes et al. discloses the assembly as having the length of about 3-20 feet (17 feet; paragraph 82; which implies the attachment would also have this length), but lacks the width being 0.1-3 feet (5 or 4 feet; paragraph 82), but states the size can be larger or smaller (paragraph 82). Therefore, it would have been obvious to make the attachment have a width of about 0.1-3 feet since it has generally been recognized that changes in size involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (WO 2021/040863 A1) in view Hart (US 2004/0261953 A1).
Claim 1: James discloses a sun shade assembly comprising: a sail (20) defined by: a leading edge (61) and an opposed trailing edge (62); at least one side edge (63) positioned between the leading and trailing edges; a top face (70) and an opposed bottom face (71); an attachment (hem 82) at the trailing edge of the sail (FIGF. 9d). James lacks the attachment comprising a first edge, second edge, and one or more side edges, wherein the first edge is attached at the trailing edge of the sail, and wherein the attachment is constructed from silk, satin, sateen, mesh, or combinations thereof.
Hart discloses a sun shade assembly comprising: a sail (1120) defined by: a leading edge (that forms 1121) and an opposed trailing edge (that forms the back terminal edge of 1120 and surrounds 1122); at least one side edge positioned between the leading and trailing edges (as seen in FIG. 11, there are two edge portions); a top face and an opposed bottom face (as a three-dimensional flat sheet, there inherently must be a top face and a bottom face); an attachment (1122) comprising a first edge (smallest edge of trapezoidal-shaped 1122), second edge (edge parallel to the first edge and flush with the other portion of the trailing edge of the sail), and one or more side edges (angled edges of the trapezoidal-shaped 1122), wherein the first edge is attached at the trailing edge of the sail (as seen in FIG. 11, the first edge and second edges are all attached to the trailing edge); wherein the attachment is constructed from silk, satin, sateen, mesh, or combinations thereof (mesh; as seen in FIG. 11 and discussed in paragraphs 143, 220, 240).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify James to include an attachment that comprises a first edge, second edge, and one or more side edges, wherein the first edge is attached at the trailing edge of the sail, and wherein the attachment is constructed from silk, satin, sateen, mesh, or combinations thereof, as disclosed by Hart, as an equivalent means to achieve the same goal of noise reduction and less flapping if/when desired by the user.
Claim 2: James discloses at least one mast (30), a support defined by at least one arm (15) or rib (10), or both.
Claim 4: Hart does not teach the attachment as having a coating.
Claim 5: James discloses the sail as being constructed from nylon, polyester, vinyl, rayon, canvas, acrylic fabric, neoprene, linen, polypropylene, hemp, cotton, or combinations thereof (page 16, lines 21-25).
Claim 6: James discloses the sail as comprising a coating (21) on the top face, bottom face, or both (page 16, line 30 through page 17, lines 1-2).
Claim 7: James discloses the coating as having an ultraviolet protection coefficient rating of 30 or more in accordance with ASTM D6544 (page 16, lines 26-28).
Claim 8: James discloses the coating is selected from one or more of urethane polyurethane, polyethylene, resin, epoxy, polystyrene, rubber, lacquer, or combinations thereof (page 17, lines 7-9).
Claim 9: James discloses the leading edge of the sail as having a length that comprises a channel (65) that spans the length (FIG. 9d).
Claim 10: James discloses the channel comprises one or more apertures (91, 92) along the leading edge (Fig. 10d).
Claim 12: Hart discloses the attachment as being releasably attached to the trailing edge of the sail (via VELCRO; paragraph 137).
Claim 13: Hart is silent on the dimensions of the attachment. However, it would have been obvious to make the attachment have a length of about 3-20 feet and a width of about 0.1-3 feet since it has generally been recognized that changes in size involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137.
Claim 14: If James was modified to include a deatachble attachment as taught by Hart, then the combination would discloses a method of using the sun shade assembly of claim 1, the method comprising: positioning the attachment on the trailing edge of the sail (and connecting it via VELCRO; paragraph 137 of Hart); stabilizing the sail leading edge with a support (10, 15), mast (30), or both to anchor the assembly in the ground (via anchor 35); wherein the sail and attachment blow or float in response to wind (page 20, lines 2-3).
Claim 15: Hart discloses the wind has a lower noise level compared to a sail without an attachment (as best understood, providing a means for the wind to pass through a portion of the assembly would inherently reduce the amount of noise due to the sail not flapping in the wind).
Claim 16: Hart discloses movement of the sail in response to the wind is decreased compared to a sail without an attachment (as best understood, providing a means for the wind to pass through a portion of the assembly would inherently reduce the amount of force the wind would impart on the sail and therefore it would not move as much).
Claim 18: Hart discloses the attachment is releasably attached to the trailing edge of the sail (via VELCRO; paragraph 137).
Claim 19: Hart is silent on the dimensions of the attachment. However, it would have been obvious to make the attachment have a length of about 3-20 feet and a width of about 0.1-3 feet since it has generally been recognized that changes in size involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137.
Claim 20: Hart does not disclose the attachment as having a coating and James teaches the sail as having a coating (page 16, line 30 through page 17, lines 1-2).
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 DANIELLE JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2268. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11AM-7PM 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, David Dunn can be reached at (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.
/DNJ/Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636