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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 1-2, 5, 12, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D395,934 to Lamppa in view of US Patent 10,443,263 to LaHood and US Patent 9,512,632 to Cook.
Re. claims 1 and 12, Lamppa discloses a portable (see item 54) and sauna tent comprising a collapsible tent (see figure below) wherein the insulated enclosure reaches and maintains a temperature when a portable sauna stove (see Lamppa, figure 1) is placed inside the insulated enclosure and heated up (see figure below), and a continuous fabric awning that is weatherproof and insulated, wherein the fabric awning is attached to and covers an entirety of the tent frame (see figure below), and the tent frame and the fabric awning together form an insulated enclosure with a plurality of tent sidewalls and a roof top when the tent frame is assembled into an upright position (see figure below). Although Lamppa discloses all of the limitations of the invention including a portable tent with a sauna, Lamppa fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of connectable framing rods; a fabric that is multi-layered, weatherproof; as claimed, attention is directed to the LaHood, an analogous prior art reference in the same field of endeavor which teaches an insulated fabric 62,64 (see para 23), a sauna frame including a plurality of connectable framing rods 72; and a continuous fabric awning that is multi-layered, weatherproof, and insulated (col. 4, lines 1-8), wherein the fabric awning is attached to and covers an entirety of the tent frame, and the tent frame and the fabric awning together form an insulated enclosure with a plurality of tent sidewalls and a roof top when the tent frame is assembled into an upright position by connecting the framing rods (see LaHood figure below) and Cook which teaches a weatherproof material. Therefore, in consideration of Lamppa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an insulating fabric and connecting rods in view of LaHood and Cook because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The motivation for utilizing a multilayered, weatherproof, insulating fabric that continuously covers a tent frame with rods would have been to keep the interior of the tent warm and prevent leakage due to exposure to the environment and connecting rods to form a frame for stabilizing the tent in an upright position to prevent premature collapse.
Lamppa:
PNG
media_image1.png
298
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LaHood:
PNG
media_image2.png
454
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 2, Lamppa further discloses the portable sauna stove (see item 54 and figure 2 above).
Re. claims 5 and 15, Lamppa modified; LaHood further discloses the fabric awning comprises at least an outermost layer of water-resistant fabric, an innermost layer of water-resistant fabric, and a layer of insulation material in between the outermost layer and the innermost layer (col. 6, lines 10-34).
Claim(s) 3, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamppa and LaHood, Cook as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of US Patent 9 ,283, 143 to Krasilnikov.
Re. claims 3, 11 and 13, Although Lamppa modified by LaHood discloses all of the limitations of the invention, the references fails to explicitly disclose the temperature in the tent in the range of 176°F to 212°F and whether the sauna stove is electric or wood fired; as claimed, attention is directed to the Krasilnikov, an analogous prior art reference reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor which teaches a portable sauna reaching a temperature up to 260°F (see para 021) and a sauna 12 having electric or wood-fired capabilities (see para 0030). Therefore, in consideration of Lamppa modified by LaHood and in view of Krasilnikov, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a device having the ability of a range of high temperatures, either by electric or wood-fired stove in view of Krasilnikov because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The motivation for a device having a range of high temperatures from an electric or wood fired stove would have been to safely maintain temperatures for the purpose of therapeutic use.
PNG
media_image3.png
369
267
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamppa and LaHood and Cook as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of US Patent 9,777,507 to Walter.
Re. claims 4 and 14, Although Lamppa modified by LaHood discloses all of the limitations of the invention, the references fail to explicitly disclose the framing rods made of a metal alloy or polymer; as claimed, attention is directed Walter, an analogous prior art reference in the same field of endeavor which teaches framing rods made of a metal alloy 52,54 (see para 018). Therefore, in consideration of Lamppa modified by LaHood and in view of Walter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to framing rods made of a metal alloy because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The motivation for a device having framing rod made of a metal alloy would have been for durability to the tent in an upright position and exposure to the environment and internal tent temperature. The Applicant should note that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamppa and LaHood and Cook as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of EP 4459079 A1 to Hui Zhou.
Re. claims 6 and 16, Although Lamppa modified by LaHood discloses all of the limitations of the invention, the references fail to explicitly disclose the outermost layer and the innermost layer are made of either an Oxford fabric or a Taffeta fabric with a polyurethane coating; as claimed, attention is directed to the Hui Zhou, an analogous prior art reference reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor which teaches the use of an Oxford fabric with polyurethane coatings (see para 031). Therefore, in consideration of Lamppa modified by LaHood and in view of Hui Zhou, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a fabric having Oxford fabric with a polyurethane coating because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The motivation for a fabric having Oxford fabric with a polyurethane coating is to extend the durability of the fabric. The Applicant should note that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamppa and LaHood and Cook as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of CN 117264337 A to Zhao.
Re. claims 7 and 17, Although Lamppa modified by LaHood discloses all of the limitations of the invention, the references fail to explicitly disclose the fabric awning is quilted and thermal-sealed; as claimed, attention is directed to the Cook and Zhao, analogous prior art references in the same field of endeavor and/or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor which teaches the use of a fabric being quilted (see Cook para 0020) and thermally-sealed (see Zhao para 001). Therefore, in consideration of Lamppa modified by LaHood and in view of Cook and Zhao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a fabric having Oxford fabric with a polyurethane coating because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The motivation for a fabric being quilted and thermally sealed is to extend the durability of the fabric. The Applicant should note that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamppa and LaHood and Cook as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of US Patent 8,925,564 B2 to Zeldin.
Re. claims 10 and 20, Although Lamppa modified by LaHood discloses all of the limitations of the invention, the references fail to explicitly disclose a hole opening on top of the roof top, wherein the hole opening is shaped to receive a chimney pipe of the portable sauna stove; as claimed, attention is directed to Zeldin, an analogous prior art references in the same field of endeavor and/or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor which teaches a hole opening on top of the roof top, wherein the hole opening is shaped to receive a chimney pipe of the portable sauna stove (see figure below). Therefore, in consideration of Lamppa modified by LaHood and in view of Zeldin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a chimney for exiting gases or vapor because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The motivation for a hole opening on top of the roof top, is to remove harmful gases and vapors from the interior of the tent.
PNG
media_image4.png
384
762
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamppa, LaHood and Cook.
Re. claims 9 and 19, At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the roof top cover out of fiberglass because Applicant has not disclosed that fiberglass provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the prior art of record, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either material or the claimed fiberglass because both materials would perform the same function and are equally capable of covering the roof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lamppa in view of LaHood and Cook to obtain the invention as specified in claim because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of record. See also MPEP 2144.04. A change in ornamental design having no mechanical function is an aesthetic design consideration within the skill of the art. The Applicant should note that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see USPTO Form 892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. More specifically, US Patent 11, 554,078 B2 to Zack is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a modular sauna having an infrared heater. Claims 8 and 18 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4971. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday: 9 am - 6 pm CST. Upon filing an amendment, please notify the Examiner to ensure timely processing for review.
Providing representative information in an Application Data Sheet (ADS) does not constitute a power of attorney. See 37 CFR 1.76(b)(4) and MPEP § 408. For information on appointing a power of attorney, see MPEP § 402.02 et seq.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Patents Application Assistance Center
Toll-Free:
1-888-786-0101
Local:
1-571-272-4000
Email: HelpAAU@uspto.gov
Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) Customer Service Center
Toll-Free:
866-217-9197
Local:
571-272-4100
ebc@uspto.gov
PAIR https://ppair.uspto.gov/epatent/portal/home
For ordering issues or general questions please contact:
Customer service phone line
Hours: 8:30 am – 5 pm ET, Monday – Friday (except federal holidays)
Toll free: 1-800-972-6382 | Local number: 571-272-3150
For sign in and USPTO.gov account issues contact:
USPTO.gov account customer service
Hours: 8:30 am – 8 pm ET, Monday – Friday (except federal holidays)
Toll free: 1-800-786-9199 | Local number: 571-272-1000
TTY: 1-800-877-8339
Inventor and Entrepreneur Resources
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/inventors-entrepreneurs-resources
Inventors Assistance Center (IAC)
The Inventors Assistance Center (IAC) provides patent information and services to the public. The IAC is staffed by former Supervisory Patent Examiners, experienced Primary Patent Examiners, various intellectual property specialists and attorneys who can answer general questions concerning patent examining policy and procedure.
The IAC is available Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 8PM EDT, except for federal holidays or when the USPTO is otherwise closed.
Contact the IAC
Toll Free: 800-786-9199
Local: 571-272-1000
TTY: 800-877-8339
The MPEP can be accessed at the following web address: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html
Information about the Pro Se Assistance Program, which can aid inventors who file patent applications without the assistance of a registered attorney or agent, is available at the following web address:
hftps://www.uspto.gov/patents
COMMUNICATIONS VIA THE INTERNET AND AUTHORIZATION
Communications via Internet e-mail is at the discretion of the applicant.
Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application.
The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
"Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file."
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
"The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with me via the Internet is hereby withdrawn. I understand that the withdrawal is effective when approved rather than when received."