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 18/424,554, filed 1/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 were canceled in the preliminary amendment filed on 10/7/2024 and claims 21-39 added, and the title was amended.
Claims 21-39 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/23/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 21, line 3, “each leg” should be changed to “each of the legs”; and in claim 29, line 2, “at least one leg” should be changed to “at least one of the legs”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23-24, 26, 28, 30-32, 34-35, 37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The following claims include features not previously disclosed and considered new matter: claim 23 sets forth a strip at a corner of the support structure; claim 24 sets forth the sliding connection as two strips; claim 26 sets forth an axle with a vibration absorbing material; claim 28 sets forth a downspout connected to the gutter system; claims 30 and 35 set forth the louver being double-walled/hollow; claims 31-32 set forth louver adjustable angle of opening of the louvers; claim 34 sets forth the pergola being aluminum; claim 37 sets forth a privacy screen; and claim 39 sets forth that the louvers are to adapt to changing environmental factors.
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.
Claim 23 is 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 23, line 2, “between components” is not clear what elements of the claim are being referred to and the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. The “components” are considered the louvers and frame for examination purposes
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 21-27, 31-32, 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rieber(11,168,481; cited on IDS filed).
Regarding claims 21 and 27, Rieber discloses a pergola(20, see Fig. 1A) comprising:
a plurality of vertically extending legs(30) configured to provide structural stability and support for the pergola(the legs inherently provide support/stability and meet the claim limitation), each of the legs having a base portion for secure attachment to a surface(the base portions are capable of being attached to the underling surface 28 and considered to meet the functional claim limitation, see Fig. 1A; or see Figs. 8A-C);
a horizontally extending support structure(24) positioned above and connected to the plurality of vertically extending legs(see Fig. 1A), the horizontally extending support structure including beams(54A/54B, see Fig. 1B) and cross- members(32A/32B, see Fig. 1B) configured to define a framework(24, see column 3, lines 33-34 and Fig. 1B);
a plurality of rotatably mounted louvers(38/40/42) operatively connected within the horizontally extending support structure(see Figs. 1A, 1B and 2A), wherein the louvers are adjustable between an open and a closed position to provide variable shading and ventilation(see column 3, lines 54-60 and Figs. 1B, 2A and 3B); and
an integrated gutter system attached to the horizontally extending support structure for directing rainwater away from the pergola(392, see column 13, lines 53-56 and Fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 22, Rieber discloses the pergola of claim 21, further comprising a securing mechanism(62/62A/62B, see Figs. 2E, 2F and 9A) for maintaining the louvers in desired positions within the horizontally extending support structure(considered the position of closed and open meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 23, Rieber discloses the pergola of claim 22, wherein the securing mechanism(62, 62A, 62B) comprises a sliding connection between components(considered the louvers and frame as best understood; the mechanism 62 slides to rotate the louvers with respect to the beam and is considered to meet the claim limitation), the sliding connection including at least one strip(considered 62/62A, 62B) positioned at a corner of the support structure(see Figs. 2A, 2E, 2F, 2G and 9A the end of the strip is adjacent the end of element 56A/56B, as well as the beams 54A/54B as shown in Fig. 2G).
Regarding claim 24, Rieber discloses the pergola of claim 23, wherein the sliding connection(62/62A, 62B) comprises two strips(62A, 62B, see Fig. 2A) positioned to provide enhanced stability and resistance to twisting forces.
Regarding claim 25, Rieber discloses the pergola of claim 21, wherein the louvers are mounted via at least one noise-canceling axle(48) to minimize noise during operation(the term “noise-cancelling” lends no limitation to the claim and is considered met by the axle used).
Regarding claim 26, Rieber discloses the pergola of claim 25, wherein the noise-cancelling axle(48) includes a vibration-absorbing material(bushing 78) to further dampen noise generated by wind or manual operation of the louvers(the bushing is snugly fit around the axle and considered to meet the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 31, Rieber discloses the pergola of claim 21, wherein the louvers are adjustable within a range of 0 to greater than 90 degrees to provide variable shading and ventilation(the louvers are moveable from horizontal to the position as shown in Fig. 2E considered from 0 to 90 degrees, see column 3, lines 54-61 meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 32, Rieber discloses the pergola of claim 31, wherein the louvers are adjustable within a range of 0 to 95 degrees for optimal sunshade or rain protection(the louvers are adjustable from 0 to 90 degrees which is within the range of 0 to 95 degrees and meets the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 36, Rieber disclose the pergola of claim 21, wherein the louvers are configured to fully open or fully close, allowing control over shading and ventilation see Fig. 2E and column 3, lines 54-61).
Regarding claim 39, Rieber discloses the pergola of claim 38, wherein the louvers are configured to adapt to changing environmental factors(considered opening and closing due to weather meeting the claim limitation).
Claims 21-23, 25, 27-33, 35-36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2021/0010270; cited on PTO 892).
Regarding claims 21 and 27, Zhao discloses a pergola(see Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of vertically extending legs(1) configured to provide structural stability and support for the pergola(the legs inherently provide support/stability and meet the claim limitation), each of the legs having a base portion for secure attachment to a surface(the base portions are capable of being attached to the underling surface and considered to meet the functional claim limitation, see Fig. 1);
a horizontally extending support structure(2a, 2b) positioned above and connected to the plurality of vertically extending legs(see Figs. 1 and 3), the horizontally extending support structure including beams(2a, see Fig. 3) and cross- members(2b, see Fig. 3) configured to define a framework(see Fig. 3);
a plurality of rotatably mounted louvers(9) operatively connected within the horizontally extending support structure(see 4), wherein the louvers are adjustable between an open and a closed position to provide variable shading and ventilation(see para. [0032]); and
an integrated gutter system(200) attached to the horizontally extending support structure for directing rainwater away from the pergola(see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 22, Zhao discloses the pergola of claim 21, further comprising a securing mechanism(4, see para. [0032 and Fig. 8) for maintaining the louvers in desired positions within the horizontally extending support structure(considered the position of closed and open meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 23, Zhao discloses the pergola of claim 22, wherein the securing mechanism(4) comprises a sliding connection between components(considered the louvers and frame as best understood; the mechanism 4 slides to rotate the louvers with respect to the beam and is considered to meet the claim limitation), the sliding connection including at least one strip(considered 4) positioned at a corner of the support structure(see Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 25, Zhao discloses the pergola of claim 21, wherein the louvers are mounted via at least one noise-canceling axle to minimize noise during operation(the term “noise-cancelling” lends no limitation to the claim and is considered met by the axle used).
Regarding claim 28, Zhao discloses the pergola of claim 27, further comprising an integrated downspout connected to the integrated gutter system to channel water away from the pergola(see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 29, Zhao discloses the pergola of claim 27, wherein the integrated gutter system is configured to direct rainwater through a built-in downspout located within at least one leg of the pergola(see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 30, Zhao discloses he pergola of claim 21, wherein the louvers have a double-walled configuration(see Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 31, Zhao discloses the pergola of claim 21, wherein the louvers are adjustable within a range of 0 to greater than 90 degrees to provide variable shading and ventilation(the louvers are moveable from horizontal to vertical, see para [0032]) considered within a range from 0 to 90 degrees meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 32, Zhao discloses the pergola of claim 31, wherein the louvers are adjustable within a range of 0 to 95 degrees for optimal sunshade or rain protection(the louvers are adjustable from 0 to 90 degrees which is within the range of 0 to 95 degrees and meets the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 33, Zhao discloses the pergola of claim 21, further comprising a manual crank mechanism(see para. [0032] and Fig. 8) operatively connected to the louvers, wherein rotation of a manual crank of the manual crank mechanism allows for opening and closing of the louvers to adjust shading and ventilation.
Regarding claim 35, Zhao discloses the pergola of claim 21, wherein the louvers include a double-layer hollow(see Fig. 14) design providing enhanced thermal insulation.
Regarding claim 36, Zhao disclose the pergola of claim 21, wherein the louvers are configured to fully open or fully close, allowing control over shading and ventilation see para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 39, Zhao discloses the pergola of claim 38, wherein the louvers are configured to adapt to changing environmental factors(considered opening and closing due to weather meeting the claim limitation).
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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao.
Zhao discloses the pergola of claim 23, but lacks the securing mechanism having two strips.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the use of two strips (no specific strips are disclosed).
Therefore, the use of multiple strips to connect the louvers is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan in order to provide more structure to the connection given the intended use of the pergola and design requirements thereof.
Claim 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Rieber.
Zhao discloses the pergola of claim 25, but lacks the use of a vibration absorbing material.
Rieber discloses the pergola 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 axle of Zhao with a vibration absorbing material, such as disclosed by Rieber, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have decreased the amount of noise generated by wind or use of the louvers given the design requirements and intended use of the pergola.
Claims 28-30, 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieber in view of Zhao.
Regarding claims 28-29, Rieber discloses the pergola of claim 21, but lacks an integrated downspout connected to the integrated gutter system to channel water away from the pergola or to direct rainwater through a built-in downspout located within at least one leg of the pergola.
Zhao discloses the pergola with gutter system 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 gutter system of Rieber with a downspout, such as disclosed by Zhao, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have drained any rainwater away from the pergola given the design requirements and intended use of the pergola. The specific use of a leg as the downspout or an additional element of a downspout is considered a feature best determined by the skilled artisan given the design requirements and intended use of the pergola.
Regarding claims 30 and 35, Rieber discloses the pergola of claim 21, but lacks the louvers having a double-walled configuration or including a double-layer hollow design providing enhanced thermal insulation.
Zhao discloses the pergola with louvers 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 substituted the louvers of Rieber with the louvers of Edwards given that KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 547 U.S. __ (2006) has found that the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 33, Rieber discloses the pergola of claim 21, but lacks a manual crank mechanism operatively connected to the louvers, wherein rotation of a manual crank of the manual crank mechanism allows for opening and closing of the louvers to adjust shading and ventilation.
Zhao discloses the pergola with manual crank mechanism 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 louver system of Rieber with a manual crank mechanism, such as disclosed by Zhao, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for manual opening and closing or the louvers if no power is getting to the pergola given the design requirements and intended use of the pergola. The specific use of a leg as the downspout or an additional element of a downspout is considered a feature best determined by the skilled artisan given the design requirements and intended use of the pergola.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieber or Zhao, as evidenced by Weaver(10,724,236; cited on IDS filed)
Rieber and Zhao disclose he pergola of claim 21, but lack the specific use of aluminum.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific metal of the pergola used(no specific metal is disclosed).
The use of aluminum for pergola slats is considered well known in the construction art, as evidenced by Weaver(see column 3, lines 44-46 and Fig. 1).
Therefore, the specific material chosen for the elements of the pergola of Rieber or Zhao are considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the pergola and design requirements thereof.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieber and Zhao in view of Lynch(4,947,884; cited on PTO 892).
Rieber and Zhao disclose the pergola of claim 21, but lacks an integrated privacy curtain system that provides protection from outdoor pests and enhances user privacy
Lynch discloses a canopy having a privacy curtain(24, see Fig. 1).
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 pergola of Rieber and Zhao with a privacy curtain, such as disclosed by Lynch, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for privacy during use of the pergola given the design requirements and intended use of the pergola.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieber and Zhao in view of Froerer(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2003/0159355; cited on PTO 892).
Rieber and Zhao disclose the pergola of claim 21, but lacks the louvers being automatically adjustable.
Froerer discloses a louver having an automated control to open and close the louvers.
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 pergola of Rieber or Zhao with automated adjustment, such as disclosed by Froerer, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for ease of the use of the pergola given the design requirements and intended use of the pergola.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2021/214677 shows a pergola with a frame with rotatable louvers, legs, and a privacy curtain(see Figs. 2A and 3A).
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/