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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/31/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 3/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 0026, the fabric of the first and second panels is described as being “xenon.” Xenon is a heavy, odorless, and colorless noble gas. It cannot be formed into a panel. This paragraph also describes the panels as being formed of well-known fabrics polyester or nylon. The specification uses inconsistent materials terminology for the panels.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the photographs submitted 2/9/24 and 3/13/24 are of insufficient quality to discern the claimed details of the device. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 9 recites that “ fabric of the first panel and second panel is composed of xenon” which is not considered enabled by the disclosure. Xenon is a heavy, odorless, and colorless noble gas. It cannot be formed into a panel. The state of the art at the time of filing shows that there is no known means for forming a noble gas into a panel and the specification does not provide direction as to how to do so. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of Claim 9. Thus, the claim is not enabled by the disclosure. For the purposes of examination, any panel that is polyester or nylon and between 20 and 30 denier will be considered sufficient to meet the limitations of Claim 9.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiseman in US Publication 2019/0338551 in view of Clark et al. in US Publication2014/0223662. Wiseman teaches a tarpaulin system comprising: a first panel (11); a second panel (12); a bonded ridgeline (along 24) coupling the first panel and the second panel; and a plurality of pull-outs (31) located in an upper region of both the first panel and the second panel. Wiseman is silent on the use of a ridge line support. Clark teaches a tarpaulin system including panels (56 on either side of the centerline) and pullouts (46) on both the panels as well as a ridge line support (44) in the form of a flexible rod (“flexible rod 44”) extending along both the first panel and the second panel. 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 Wiseman by adding a ride line support as taught by Clark in order to better support the device when in a tent form.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiseman, as modified, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mankame et al. in US Patent 12024915.
Regarding Claim 2, Wiseman, as modified, is silent on the use of silicone coating. Mankame teaches a tarpaulin system with panels that are coated with at least eighty percent silicone (see Paragraph 0049) and formed from 20 denier and 30 deniers of polyester or nylon (“20D (denier) … ripstop nylon” – see Paragraph 0049). 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 Wiseman, as modified, by using panels that are coated by at least eighty percent silicone as taught by Mankame in order to better protect the occupant.
Regarding Claim 3, Wiseman, as modified, teaches that the tarpaulin system includes a plurality of tie materials (“rope” – paragraph 0241) and hardware (34) to suspend the first panel and the second panel from supports.
Regarding Claim 4, Wiseman, as modified, teaches that the pull-outs further include a d-ring (A77) in a central region of the pull-out.
Regarding Claim 5, Wiseman, as modified, teaches (see Clark above) that the ridge line support is a flexible rod.
Regarding Claim 6, Wiseman, as modified, teaches that the first panel and the second panel further include a bonded patch (30) at each upper corner of the first panel and second panel.
Regarding Claim 7, Wiseman, as modified, teaches that the first panel and the second panel further include a lower edging (along 10b/10c) located in a lower region of the first panel and the second panel.
Regarding Claim 8, Wiseman, as modified, teaches that the tie materials and hardware include a grommet (A78), a metal ring (A77) and a suspension rope (the “rope”).
Regarding Claim 9, Wiseman, as modified, teaches (see Mankame above) that a fabric of the first panel and the second panel is composed between 20 denier and 30 deniers of polyester or nylon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Burch, Steele, Craighead Jr et al., Wiles, Horner, Mojica, Dominick, Miller, Shires, Double et al., Nakajima et al., Setterholm, Malone, and Wigutow teach tarpaulins of interest.
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
Prosecution Insights