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 .
Specification
The corrected Abstract was received on 3/17/2026 and is accepted.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shurie in US Publication 2018/0352922 in view of Ferrara et al. in US Publication 2018/0140060 and You in US Publication 2007/0034241.
Regarding Claim 1, Shurie teaches a cooling umbrella device comprising: an umbrella body (14); a shaft (12); a handle (11); a heating and cooling element (2); and a battery (31) that powers the heating and cooling element. Shurie is silent on the materials used for the body or the grip. Ferrara teaches an umbrella body (20) wherein the umbrella body is a polyester umbrella body (see paragraph 0032). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shurie to have a polyester body as taught by Ferrara in order to provide a lightweight and durable body for the umbrella. You teaches an umbrella including a handle (Fig. 2C) wherein the handle is a plastic handle (2 – “thermoplastic” – see Paragraph 0015) comprising a raised texture rubber grip (51- a flexible gripping portion of “silicon rubber” – see Paragraph 0015). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shurie, as modified, by using a textured rubber handle as taught by You in order to prevent the user from dropping the umbrella.
Regarding Claim 5, Shurie, as modified, teaches that the handle is comprised of a button (32).
Regarding Claim 6, Shurie, as modified, teaches that the button turns the heating and cooling element on and off (see Paragraph 0019).
Regarding Claim 7, Shurie, as modified, teaches that the button adjusts a temperature setting of the heating and cooling element (see Paragraph 0019).
Regarding Claim 8, Shurie, as modified, teaches that the heating and cooling element is comprised of a fan (22) or a misting fan.
Regarding Claim 9, Shurie, as modified, teaches that the heating and cooling element is comprised of an electric heating coil (23) or an electric heating coil with a fan.
Claims 10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shurie in US Publication 2018/0352922 in view of Goodling in US Patent 11401728, Ferrara et al. in US Publication 2018/0140060, and You in US Publication 2007/0034241.
Regarding Claim 10, Shurie teaches a cooling umbrella device comprising: an umbrella body (14); a shaft (12); a handle (11); a heating and cooling element (2); a battery (31) that powers the heating and cooling element. Shurie is silent on the use of a solar panel. Goodling teaches an umbrella including an umbrella body (112) and a battery (161); and a solar panel (163) positioned on the umbrella body, wherein the solar panel powers the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shurie by adding a solar panel as taught by Goodling in order to provide clean renewable power to the device. Shurie, as modified, is silent on the materials used for the body or the grip. Ferrara teaches an umbrella body (20) wherein the umbrella body is a nylon umbrella body (see paragraph 0032). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shurie to have a polyester body as taught by Ferrara in order to provide a lightweight and durable body for the umbrella. You teaches an umbrella including a handle (Fig. 2C) wherein the handle is a plastic handle (2 – “thermoplastic” – see Paragraph 0015) comprising a recessed texture rubber grip (between 51 and 3 and between 51 and 4 - a flexible gripping portion of “silicon rubber” – see Paragraph 0015). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shurie, as modified, by using a textured rubber handle as taught by You in order to prevent the user from dropping the umbrella.
Regarding Claim 14, Shurie, as modified, teaches that the handle is comprised of a button (32).
Regarding Claim 15, Shurie, as modified, teaches that the button turns the heating and cooling element on and off (see Paragraph 0019).
Regarding Claim 16, Shurie, as modified, teaches that the button adjusts a temperature setting of the heating and cooling element (see Paragraph 0019).
Regarding Claim 17, Shurie, as modified, teaches that the heating and cooling element is comprised of a fan (22) or a misting fan.
Regarding Claim 18, Shurie, as modified, teaches that the heating and cooling element is comprised of an electric heating coil (23) or an electric heating coil with a fan.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shurie, as modified, as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Meyer in US Patent 3170474. Shurie, as modified, is silent on the use of a telescopic shaft. Meyer teaches an umbrella including a telescopic shaft (15/16), and wherein the shaft is comprised of a locking mechanism (25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shurie, as modified, by using a telescopic shaft as taught by Meyer in order to provide an umbrella that collapses to a smaller size.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shurie, as modified, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Meyer in US Patent 3170474. Shurie, as modified, is silent on the use of a telescopic shaft. Meyer teaches an umbrella including a telescopic shaft (15/16), and wherein the shaft is comprised of a locking mechanism (25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shurie, as modified, by using a telescopic shaft as taught by Meyer in order to provide an umbrella that collapses to a smaller size.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shurie in US Publication 2018/0352922 in view of Coleman in US Patent 11297914 and You in US Publication 2007/0034241.
Shurie teaches, through the normal and customary use of the device, a method of using a cooling umbrella device, the method comprising the following steps: providing a cooling umbrella device comprised of an umbrella body (14), a shaft comprised of a handle (11), a unit (2), and a button (32); opening the body; and pressing the button to power on the unit, wherein the unit is comprised of a cooling unit (22), a heating unit (23), or a heating and cooling unit. Shurie further teaches a rechargeable battery (31) of the cooling umbrella device.
Shurie is silent on the use of a means for recharging the battery. Coleman teaches a method including providing an umbrella with a rechargeable battery (268) and charging the battery via a USB charging port (284). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shurie by adding a USB charging port as taught by Coleman in order to allow the user to conveniently recharge the battery.
Shurie, as modified, is silent on the materials used for the handle. You teaches an umbrella including a handle (Fig. 2C) wherein the handle comprises a raised texture rubber grip (5- a flexible gripping portion of “silicon rubber” – see Paragraph 0015). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shurie, as modified, by using a textured rubber handle as taught by You in order to prevent the user from dropping the umbrella.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Heale, Hoogendoorn, and Tsui et al. teach umbrella body materials. Edson, GB 2151134, and WO 2005011816 teach umbrella handles.
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 NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah Chandler Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636