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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 18/386,567, filed 11/2/2023.
Claims 1-8 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 17 and 18(see Fig. 5), and 19 and 20(see Fig. 2). 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. 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 drawings are objected to because it is not clear in Fig. 5 how the inner panel sections 15 and 16 interrelate with the sides panel sections 13 and 14 and the top panel 11, as discussed in the specification(see para. [0045], canopy 10 is made up of a top panel 11 and perpendicular side panel sections12, 13 and 14, see Figs. 2 and 3, and the panels/sections are made of two layers but it is not clear how the sides panel sections 13 and 14 are angled with respect to what appears to be a top panel, as shown in Fig. 5, and the inner panels angle with respect to the side panels and top panel). 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 drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the opening(pocket) along the mounting edge(see claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 1-8 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.
In claim 1, line 3, “said layer” is not clear which layer is begin referred to and renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. By changing the term to “said” layers” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 3, line 2, “a fourth edge” is not clear if referring to an additional edge or to the “mounting edge” and renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. By changing the term to “the mounting edge” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 4, line 2, “a second edge” is not clear which edge of the canopy is being referred to and renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. By changing the term to “a second of the edges” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 4, line 3, “a third edge” is not clear which edge of the canopy is being referred to and renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. By changing the term to “a third of the edges” the rejection would be overcome.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Webb(5,911,654; cited on PTO 892).
Webb discloses a canopy(10, see Figs. 1-3; considered by definition to be “a covering hung or held up over something” thereby meeting the claim limitation) comprising:
a rectangular top panel(14, 16, see Figs. 1-3; the term top panel is given no locational limitation and thereby considered met by panels 14 or 16 of Webb; also the panels are over the headboard and footboard of the bed and considered over “top” meeting the claim limitation) having two layers(14a/14b, 16a/16b, see Fig. 3) of flexible material(see column 2, lines 63-65) connected to each other on parts of a perimeter of said layers(stitching of 14c or 16c to layers 14a/b or 16a/b, see column 4, line 47-51 and 62-66) and having at least one opening(see Fig. 3 for being placed over 24, 26) along at least a portion of a mounting edge(edge with opening for receiving 24 or 26) of said panel(see Fig. 3), wherein said layers are not connected in at least an area accessible through said opening and configured to permit insertion of a support(24 or 26, see Fig. 3) through said opening and into said area;
a drape(19) connected to a first edge of said top panel(see Figs. 3 and 4); and
the two layers of flexible material are connected on three edges of said top panel and open on a fourth edge of said top panel(see Fig. 3).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bright(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2017/0159320; cited on PTO 892).
Bright discloses a canopy(10, see Figs. 2-4) comprising:
a top panel(5, see Fig. 5) having two layers(5, 35, see Fig. 4) of flexible material(see paras. [0017] and [0024]) connected to each other on parts of a perimeter of said layers(see Fig. 3) and having at least one opening(see Figs. 3-5) along at least a portion of a mounting edge of said panel(see Figs. 5 and 6A), wherein said layers are not connected in at least an area accessible through said opening and configured to permit insertion of a support(20, see Fig. 5) through said opening and into said area;
drapes(5, 10, 15, see Figs. 3 and 6A) connected to a first, second and third edges of said top panel(see Figs. 3 and 4).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright.
Bright discloses the canopy according to claim 1, but lacks the shape of the top panel.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific shape of the top panel(see para. [0027]).
Therefore, the specific number of drapes used and the placement thereof is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the canopy and design requirements, such as rectangle when used on a rectangular support.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright in view of Dayton(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2024/0229498; cited on PTO 892) and Lawler(7,232,184; cited on PTO 892).
Bright disclosed the canopy according to claim 1, with three drapes but lacks the layers of three edges of the top panel connected.
Dayton discloses a canopy(see Figs. 1-3) having a top panel(see para. [0019]) with two layers(26, 28, see para. [0019] and Fig. 2) covering a support(12), with drapes extending from edges of the top panel(18, 20, 22 and 24, see para. [0017]), the top panel having an opening for receiving the support(see Figs. 1 and 3), with two edges of the layers connected.
Dayton lacks the top panel having three edges connected with one edge having an opening.
Lawler discloses a canopy(10, considered by definition to be “a covering hung or held up over something” thereby meeting the claim limitation) considered a “top panel” with two layers having three sides of the panel connected and one side having an opening for receiving a support(see Fig. 11) and a strap(12).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the top panel layers of Bright with the multiple sided interconnection, such as disclosed by Dayton and Lawler, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for the canopy to be easily slid over the support to cover the support given the intended use of the canopy and design requirements thereof.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb in view of Miller(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2007/0176474; cited on PTO 892).
Webb discloses the canopy according to claim 1, wherein the canopy has attachment mechanism(110a, 110b) for attachment of drapes 19 to either side of the bed, but lacks the specific use of multiple drapes on first and second edges of the panel.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific number of drapes used(see paras. [0027] and [0028]).
Therefore, the specific number of drapes used and the placement thereof is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the canopy and design requirements, such as on both sides of the bed for placement of the bed accessible from both sides of the bed.
Miller discloses a canopy/cover(30) having an opening to receive a support(furniture 10, see para. [0018]), and a panel(41) and a drape(41a) connected thereto(see para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the canopy of Webb with a drape on a third edge of the panel, such as the drape/ruffle disclosed by Miller, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have added decoration to the canopy and/or covered any space between the top panel and floor given the intended use of the canopy and design requirements thereof.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb and Miller, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hankey(5,806,925; cited on PTO 892).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright and Dayton and Lawler, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hankey.
Webb and Miller, disclose the canopy according to claim 1, but lack the specific material of the top panel and drape(s).
Bright and Dayton and Lawler, disclose the canopy according to claim 1, wherein the canopy of Lawler discloses a strap, but lack the specific material of the top panel and drape(s).
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific material of the top panel or drapes(see para. [0045]).
Hankey discloses a protective cover with a panel and an opening for receiving a support(see abstract and Fig. 1), the panel is waterproof(see column 2, lines 60-61 and column 3, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the top panel of the canopy of Webb/Miller or Bright/Dayton/Lawler of a waterproof material, such as disclosed by Hankey, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have protected the bedframe from damage due to liquid or water given the intended use of the canopy and design requirements thereof.
The specific material of the drapes is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the canopy and design requirements, such as vinyl or mesh to see the headboard/footboard under the canopy, or opaque to have the headboard/footboard not be visible thru the canopy.
The use of a strap with the canopy of Bright and Dayton would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to have provided to secure the canopy to the structure given the intended use of the canopy and design requirements thereof.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb and Miller and Hankey, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lawler.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bright and Dayton and Lawler, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lawler.
Webb and Miller and Hankey disclose the canopy according to claim 1, but lack the use of straps.
Lawler discloses a canopy/cover with a panel and an opening for receiving a support as discussed above.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the panel of the canopy of Webb and Miller and Hankey with a strap, such as disclosed by Lawler, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for the canopy to be secured in place and prevented from moving away from the headboard/footboard given the intended use of the canopy and design requirements thereof.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bright(2017/0159320) discloses the canopy having a top panel with an opening and drapes connected to the panel.
Owens(6,371,190) discloses the canopy having a top panel(100) with an opening(101) and a drape(102) connected to the panel, and straps(105).
Lawler(7,232,184) discloses the canopy(10) having a top panel(10) with an opening(101) and a strap(12, see Fig. 11).
Prior Art
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 BETH A. STEPHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
BETH A. STEPHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Stephan/