DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment dated 2/19/26.
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 Objections
In claim 1, “the first sheet flat” in line 9 should read --the first sheet flap--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1 - 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Epple (US 6,519,788).
Regarding claim 1, Epple discloses a pool cover apparatus (12) for a retractable pool cover comprising: a draw cord (44) extending over a length (fig. 2)(col. 2, ln. 61-66) and forming a cord surface (exterior surface of cord, see fig. 3); and a webbing (40) extending along the length and enclosing the cord surface (fig. 3); wherein the webbing includes a first sheet flap and a second sheet flap fused with the first to define a webbing interface proximate the draw cord (see annotated figure below); the first sheet flap overlaps the second sheet and extends past the second sheet to define a bonding surface (see annotated figure below); and a pool cover having a perimeter edge coupled to the bonding surface to define a cover interface, wherein the webbing and pool cover are coupled together to define a ‘clearance’ thickness extending over the webbing interface and cover interface. The ‘clearance’ thickness is defined as the thickness of the portion of the pool cover and first flap sheet, the first flap sheet, and the overlapped portion of the second flap sheet with the first flap sheet. It is noted that ‘clearance’ is not defined within any context relating to other structures of the pool. It is also noted that the claim does not require a uniform thickness.
Regarding claim 2, Epple shows that the perimeter edge overlaps the first sheet flap and does not overlap the second sheet flap. See annotated figure below.
Regarding claim 3, Epple shows that the second sheet flap terminates at the webbing interface to form an exposed portion of an interior side of the first sheet flap.
Regarding claim 5, Epple shows that the ‘clearance’ thickness is limited to a combination of two layers of the webbing (where first and second flap overlap at the webbing interface) or to a layer of webbing in combination with the cover (at the cover interface). See figure 1, the webbing and cover interfaces define the thickest portions of the apparatus and are thus the limiting elements.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
494
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 - 9 and 21 -22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that claim 1 was amended to include allowable claim 4. The Examiner notes that all of the limitations of claim 4 were not incorporated in to claim 1, and claim 1 was further amended to remove previously presented limitations. Accordingly, the claims are rejected as noted 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 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