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 final office action in response to the amendment filed 5/20/2026.
Claims 21, 23, 29 and 31-32 are amended, and claims 1-20, 24, 30, 34-35, 37 and 39 are canceled.
Claims 21-23, 25-29, 31-33, 36 and 38 are pending and examined.
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 21-23, 25-27, 31-32 and 36 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) wherein the horizontally extending support structure comprises an anti-twisting anti-warping outer corner system configured to provide reverse tension to the framework(the corner system is considered the interaction of the beams and cross members and the angled support between the leg and support structure, although the disclosure does not discuss tension the angled support between leg 30 and beam/cross member inherently provides tension and reverse tension of the framework meeting the claim limitation);
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 sliding member(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 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 O 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).
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 28-29 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieber in view of Zhao(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2021/0010270; cited on PTO 892).
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 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)
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 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 as discussed above with manual crank mechanism(see para. [0032] and Fig. 8).
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 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieber in view of Froerer(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2003/0159355; cited on PTO 892).
Rieber discloses 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 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous objections and rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Rieber reference and the amendment to claim 21 has been carefully considered but not persuasive. As discussed in the above rejection, the angled brace of Rieber is considered to provide “anti-twisting anti-warping” and “configured to provide reverse tension to the framework”. The brace tensions in two direction and thereby is considered tension and reverse tension. The claims lack any specific structure to the corner structure that provides reverse tension to the framework.
Applicant’s argument that the disclosure points out that the prior art lacks any anti warping anti twisting reverse tension is not persuasive and is considered a mere assertion by the applicant
Applicant’s argument that Rieber lacks a “dynamic corner structure” is moot given that this feature is not claimed or appears to not be disclosed.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim objections, 112 rejections and rejection of claims as anticipated by or unpatentable in view of Zhao are moot as they have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument regarding the dependent claims have been discussed above(with respect to claim 21).
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 BETH A. AUBREY(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. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights