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 new drawings received September 23, 2025 have been accepted.
Specification
The amendment to the abstract and specification received September 23, 2025 has been accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although the amendments to the claims overcome the rejections made under 35 USC 102, the amendments incorporate limitations from previously presented claims 6 and 8-10, which were addressed by the combination of Williams and Ewing and the combination of McDonald and Ewing.
Applicant argues that the combination fail to disclose or teach the claimed subject matter. Firstly, Applicant argues that McDonald teaches permanent attachment, not detachable connection. Secondly, Applicant argues that Ewing teaches two layers of cloth sewn together to form pockets and argues that the construction forms enclosed compartments, not pockets with an accessible opening for insertion and removal and provides no disclosure of an “upper end opening” or detachability. Applicant fails to specifically address the teachings of Williams and broadly states that Williams, McDonald, and Ewing, taken alone or in combination fail to disclose or teach the claimed limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to McDonald failing to teach detachable connection, McDonald teaches “a plurality of stiffening-strips 24, which are secured to the fabric or sewed into it.” The attachment means of being “sewed” is not a permanent connection, thus detachable. Further, in response to Ewing failing to teach pockets having an accessible opening and detachability, Ewing states “flexible sheet 50 is comprised of an upper layer of cloth 102. These layers of material 100 and 102 are sewing to each other so as to form a plurality of pockets 104 within which the roof bows 70 and 72 can be positioned.” The bows 70 and 72 are positioned, not permanently attached within the pockets. Further, the pockets have openings in order for the ends of the bows to pass through, Figures 8 and 9 show tapered end portions 86/88 and the bearing surface 86 slide along the track, therefore, the pockets have openings at to allow for the passing of the portions of the bows into the tracks. The teachings of Williams were not specifically addressed and the rejections have been maintained.
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 1-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 7,219,709) in further view of Ewing et al. (US 6,015,184), hereinafter referred to as Ewing.
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses a retractable gate fence (Fig 2), comprising:
a spool (33) and a pulling cloth (12) (Fig 2),
wherein one end of the pulling cloth (12) is connected to the spool (33), and the pulling cloth (12) has a first state that is wound onto the spool (shown in Fig 6) and a second state that is unfolded from the spool shown in Figs 1 and 2); and
the pulling cloth is provided with a plurality of reinforcing strips (16) at intervals (Fig 1).
Williams discloses the reinforcing strips (16) are providing on the pulling cloth. Williams fails to disclose wherein the pulling cloth comprises a first cloth strip and a second cloth strip stacked on the first cloth strip, and the plurality of reinforcing strips are embedded between the first cloth strip and the second cloth strip. However, Ewing teaches a first cloth strip (100) and a second cloth strip (102) stacked (Fig 6) and reinforcing strips (70 or 72) embedded between the two cloth strips (Fig 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Williams such that the gate is provided with a pulling cloth having a first cloth strip and a second cloth strip in the manner taught by Ewing and provide the plurality of reinforcing strips between the first and second cloth strips in order to attach and secure the reinforcing strips. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Williams as modified with Ewing teaches wherein a plurality of pockets (104, taught by Ewing) matching the plurality of reinforcing strips are sewn between the first cloth strip and the second cloth strip, and the plurality of reinforcing strips are provided in the plurality of pockets.
Williams as modified with Ewing teaches wherein the plurality of reinforcing strips are detachably connected to the pulling cloth.
Williams as modified with Ewing teaches wherein an upper end of each of the plurality of pockets is provided with an opening, and the plurality of reinforcing strips are inserted into the plurality of pockets from the opening to be detachably connected to the pulling cloth.
Regarding claim 2, Williams discloses wherein the plurality of reinforcing strips are parallel to the spool (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, Williams discloses neighboring reinforcing strips separated by a distance, but does not specifically disclose that the two neighboring separating distances are not equal. However, modifying the distances such that they are not equal would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since modifying the distances would not lead to any new or unpredictable result. The modification of distances involves a mere change in size of the distances. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 4, Williams discloses wherein each of two ends of each of the plurality of reinforcing strips is provided with a protective cover (14; as evident in Fig 2, 16 extends between two members 14 respectively located at the top and bottom of the cloth and members 14 are understood to be protective covers).
Regarding claim 5, Williams discloses wherein each of the plurality of reinforcing strips (16) is provided as a whole (16, Fig 2) or is provided in segments.
Regarding claim 7, Although Williams as modified with Ewing teach the first and second cloth strips are of cloth, they are not specifically disclosed to be made of Oxford cloth. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to form the materials of Oxford cloth since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 832,335) in view of Ewing
Regarding claim 1, McDonald discloses a retractable gate fence, comprising:
a spool (4) and a pulling cloth (3) (Fig 3),
wherein one end of the pulling cloth (3) is connected to the spool (Fig 3), and the pulling cloth has a first state that is wound onto the spool and a second state that is unfolded from the spool (Fig 1); and
the pulling cloth (3) is provided with a plurality of reinforcing strips (24) at intervals.
McDonald discloses the reinforcing strips (16) are providing on the pulling cloth. McDonald fails to disclose wherein the pulling cloth comprises a first cloth strip and a second cloth strip stacked on the first cloth strip, and the plurality of reinforcing strips are embedded between the first cloth strip and the second cloth strip. However, Ewing teaches a first cloth strip (100) and a second cloth strip (102) stacked (Fig 6) and reinforcing strips (70 or 72) embedded between the two cloth strips (Fig 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify McDonald such that the gate is provided with a pulling cloth having a first cloth strip and a second cloth strip in the manner taught by Ewing and provide the plurality of reinforcing strips between the first and second cloth strips in order to attach and secure the reinforcing strips. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
McDonald as modified with Ewing teaches wherein a plurality of pockets (104, taught by Ewing) matching the plurality of reinforcing strips are sewn between the first cloth strip and the second cloth strip, and the plurality of reinforcing strips are provided in the plurality of pockets.
McDonald as modified with Ewing teaches wherein the plurality of reinforcing strips are detachably connected to the pulling cloth.
McDonald as modified with Ewing teaches wherein an upper end of each of the plurality of pockets is provided with an opening, and the plurality of reinforcing strips are inserted into the plurality of pockets from the opening to be detachably connected to the pulling cloth.
Regarding claim 2, McDonald discloses wherein the plurality of reinforcing strips (24) are parallel to the spool (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, McDonald discloses neighboring reinforcing strips separated by a distance, but does not specifically disclose that the two neighboring separating distances are not equal. However, modifying the distances such that they are not equal would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success since modifying the distances would not lead to any new or unpredictable result. The modification of distances involves a mere change in size of the distances. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 5, McDonald discloses wherein each of the plurality of reinforcing strips (24) is provided as a whole (Fig 1) or is provided in segments.
Regarding claim 7, although McDonald as modified with Ewing teach the first and second cloth strips are of cloth, they are not specifically disclosed to be made of Oxford cloth. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to form the materials of Oxford cloth since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
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 Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634