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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/30/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The use of the term “Xenon fabric”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Please note: the term Xenon fabric is also indefinite, as it can be confused with an intent to use fabric made of xenon. It is suggested that the applicant utilize the trademarked term “Xenon Sil” or remove the trade name altogether and refer to the fabric used in the device by generic terms such as polyester or nylon.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9 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. Claim 9 contains the trademark/trade name “xenon fabric”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe polyester fabric and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. As above, the term “xenon fabric” is also indefinite, as it can be confused with an intent to use fabric made of xenon. It is suggested that in this claim, the applicant remove the trade name altogether and refer to the fabric used in the device by generic terms such as polyester or nylon.
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 (fig. 39); a second panel (fig. 41); a bonded ridgeline (fig. 40) coupling the first panel and the second panel; and a first pair of pull-outs (347) having one of the first pair located in an upper region of the first panel and the other of the first pair located in the upper region of 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 a pair of pullouts (46) on the panels as well as a ridge line support (44) connecting the first pair together, the first ridge line support is perpendicular to the bonded ridgeline, the pullouts 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 and 17-20 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.
Regarding Claims 17-20, Wiseman, as modified, is silent on a second pair of pullouts and second ridgeline. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify he device of Wiseman, as modified, by adding a second pair of pullouts and a second ridgeline in order to better support the device when erected. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Such a device, as modified, would inherently teaches that the tarpaulin system further includes a second pair of pull-outs having one of the second pair located in an upper region of the first panel and the other pair located in an upper region of the second panel, the second pair of pull-outs including a second ridge line support connecting the second pair together, wherein the second ridge line support is perpendicular to the bonded ridgeline and extending along both the first panel and second panel, and wherein the second ridge line support is parallel to the first ridge line support.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiseman, as modified, as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Laasko et al. in US Publication 2003/0178055. Wiseman, as modified, is silent on the attachment of the pull-outs to the panels. Laasko teaches the attachment of pullouts (30) to tent panels (10) wherein the pullouts are sewn then bonded to the first and second panels (see Paragraph 0030). 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 first and second pairs of pull-outs of Wiseman, as modified, by using pull-outs that are sewn then bonded as taught by Laasko in order to more securely attach the pull-outs to the tent panels and to use the same method of manufacture for all of the pull-outs to ensure security of all of the pull-outs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the term “Xenon fabric” in the Specification and Claim 9, please see objections/rejections set forth above. The use of a term that is a trademark or trade name is inappropriate and breeds confusion.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 1: please see amended rejections set forth above. A different embodiment of Wiseman is relied upon which explicitly teaches two panels that are bonded together.
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 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 C. Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights