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 are objected to because they are not proper black and white line drawings. Figures 1-16 and 22 contain improper shading (with figure 14-16 being of particularly low quality) and figures 18-20 and 23-27 are photographs. 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 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, claim 2 only recites that the base is fixedly mounted to the first bow, while claim 3 recites that the lid is fixedly mounted to the second bow- both of which are already recited in parent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindaman US 7,389,737 in view of Rondeau US 8,056,497.
Regarding claim 1, Schwindaman teaches a bimini system comprising:
a bimini frame including a plurality of bows 14, 16, the plurality of bows being movable to transform the bimini system between an open configuration and a retracted configuration; and
a cover 12 supported by the bimini frame.
PNG
media_image1.png
252
369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Schwindaman Figures 1 and 3
Schwindaman does not teach a storage boot having a hollow interior for a receiving the cover therein, the storage boot including a base mounted to a first bow of the plurality of bows and a lid mounted to a second bow of the plurality of bows. Rondeau teaches a bimini system comprising:
a bimini frame (column 6, lines 16-18) on a tower 40;
a cover 45 supported by the bimini frame; and
a storage boot 47 having a hollow interior for a receiving the cover therein, the storage boot including a base 46 mounted to the tower and a lid mounted to the front of the cover.
PNG
media_image2.png
308
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Rondeau Figure 3
Note that Rondeau teaches that the cover storage system “is contemplated that other types of canopies 45, such as bimini tops” (column 6, lines 16-18), meaning that the cover would be supported by a bimini frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bimini top of Schwindaman with the cover storage boot of Rondeau in in order to conceal the cover when not in use to protect it from the environment and improve the aesthetic appeal of the vehicle.
As modified, the base is mounted to the first bow 16 and the lid is mounted to the second bow 14. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mount the base to the first bow and the lid to the second bow in order to retain the device while keeping the larger base out of view and/or maintain the base at the point of deployment, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Schwindaman and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As taught, the base is fixedly mounted to the first bow 16. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mount the base to the first bow in order to retain the device while keeping the larger base out of view and/or maintain the base at the point of deployment, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3, Schwindaman and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As taught, the lid is fixedly mounted to the second bow 14. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mount the lid to the second bow in order to retain the device while keeping the larger base out of view and/or maintain the base at the point of deployment, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Schwindaman and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Schwindaman also teaches that the first bow 16 is a rear bow and the second bow 14 is a front bow.
Regarding claim 5, Schwindaman and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Schwindaman also teaches that the second bow 14 is movable relative to the first bow 16 to transform the bimini system between the open configuration and the retracted configuration.
Regarding claim 6, Schwindaman and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Rondeau also teaches that the lid is positioned relative to the base 46 to close the storage boot when the bimini frame is in the retracted configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Schwindaman and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Schwindaman also teaches that the bimini frame is manually movable between the open configuration and the retracted configuration, in that it can be manually activated or manually pulled. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a manual method of actuating the system in order to have a backup in the event of power failure, since it has been held that changing between a mechanical or automatic means and a manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Regarding claim 8, Schwindaman and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Schwindaman also teaches that the bimini frame further comprises a lift-assist device 20 configured to control movement of at least one of the plurality of bows 14, 16 of the bimini frame.
Regarding claim 10, Schwindaman and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Schwindaman also teaches that the bimini frame is automatically movable between the open configuration and the retracted configuration (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Schwindaman and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Schwindaman also teaches that the bimini frame further comprises an actuator 20 configured to control movement of at least one of the plurality of bows 14, 16 of the bimini frame.
Regarding claim 12, Schwindaman and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Schwindaman also teaches that the actuator is connected to the first bow 16 of the bimini frame.
Regarding claim 13, Schwindaman and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Schwindaman also teaches that the actuator is connected to the second bow 14 of the bimini frame.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feikema US 4,951,594 in view of Rondeau US 8,056,497.
Regarding claim 1, Feikema teaches a bimini system comprising:
a bimini frame T including a plurality of bows 50, the plurality of bows being movable to transform the bimini system between an open configuration and a retracted configuration;
a cover 80 supported by the bimini frame; and
a storage boot 68 having a hollow interior for a receiving the cover therein, the storage boot including a base 68t mounted to a first bow 12 of the plurality of bows and a lid 14, 16 mounted to a first bow of the plurality of bows.
PNG
media_image3.png
302
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Feikema Figures 3 and 4
Feikema does not teach that the lid is mounted to a second bow 52 of the plurality of bows. Rondeau teaches a bimini system comprising:
a bimini frame (column 6, lines 16-18) on a tower 40;
a cover 45 supported by the bimini frame; and
a storage boot 47 having a hollow interior for a receiving the cover therein, the storage boot including a base 46 mounted to the tower and a lid mounted to the front of the cover.
Note that Rondeau teaches that the cover storage system “is contemplated that other types of canopies 45, such as bimini tops” (column 6, lines 16-18), meaning that the cover would be supported by a bimini frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bimini top of Feikema by mounting the lid to the front of the cover/second bow as taught by Rondeau in in order to simplify deployment by not requiring a series of lid movements.
Regarding claim 2, Feikema and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Feikema also teaches that the base is fixedly mounted to the first bow 12.
Regarding claim 3, Feikema and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As taught, the lid is fixedly mounted to the second bow 52. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mount the lid to the second bow in order to retain the device while keeping the larger base out of view and/or maintain the base at the point of deployment, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Feikema and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Feikema also teaches that the first bow 12 is a rear bow and the second bow 52 is a front bow.
Regarding claim 5, Feikema and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Feikema also teaches that the second bow 52 is movable relative to the first bow 12 to transform the bimini system between the open configuration and the retracted configuration.
Regarding claim 6, Feikema and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Feikema also teaches that the lid 14, 16 is positioned relative to the base 68t to close the storage boot when the bimini frame is in the retracted configuration. This is still the case after the modification.
Regarding claim 7, Feikema and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Feikema also teaches that the bimini frame is manually movable between the open configuration and the retracted configuration, in that it can be manually pulled.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feikema US 4,951,594 in view of Rondeau US 8,056,497 and Ritchel US 11,472,512.
Regarding claim 8, Feikema and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Feikema does not teach that the bimini frame further comprises a lift-assist device configured to control movement of at least one of the plurality of bows of the bimini frame. Ritchel teaches a bimini frame which comprises a lift-assist device 42, 44 configured to control movement of at least one of a plurality of bows 16, 22 of the bimini frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bimini top of Feikema with a lift assist device on the bows as taught by Ritchel in order to simplify the act of deploying the bows.
PNG
media_image4.png
276
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Ritchel Figure 18
Regarding claim 9, Feikema, Rondeau and Ritchel teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Ritchel also teaches that the lift-assist device 42, 44 includes a gas shock (column 9, lines 23-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bimini top of Feikema with a lift assist gas shock on the bows as taught by Ritchel in order to simplify the act of deploying the bows.
Regarding claim 10, Feikema and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Feikema does not teach that the bimini frame is automatically movable between the open configuration and the retracted configuration. Ritchel teaches a bimini frame which comprises an actuator 42, 44 configured to automatically move the bimini frame between the open and retracted configurations (column 9, lines 23-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bimini top of Feikema with an automatic deployment actuator as taught by Ritchel in order to simplify the act of deploying the bows.
Regarding claim 11, Feikema, Rondeau and Ritchel teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Ritchel also teaches that the bimini frame further comprises an actuator 42, 44 configured to control movement of at least one of the plurality of bows 16, 22 of the bimini frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bimini top of Feikema with an automatic deployment actuator as taught by Ritchel in order to simplify the act of deploying the bows.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Feikema, Rondeau and Ritchel teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Ritchel also teaches that the actuator 44 is connected to the first 16 and second 22 bows of the bimini frame.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindaman US 7,389,737 in view of Rondeau US 8,056,497 and Ritchel US 11,472,512.
Regarding claim 9, Schwindaman and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Schwindaman does not teach that the lift-assist device includes a gas shock. Ritchel teaches a bimini frame which comprises a lift-assist gas shock device 42, 44 configured to control movement of at least one of a plurality of bows 16, 22 of the bimini frame (column 9, lines 23-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bimini top of Schwindaman with a lift assist gas spring on the bows as taught by Ritchel in order to provide passive assistance to the lift mechanism and reduce load on the actuators.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindaman US 7,389,737 or Feikema US 4,951,594 in view of Rondeau US 8,056,497 and James US 7,921,797.
Regarding claim 14, Schwindaman or Feikema (separately) and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Neither Schwindaman nor Feikema teach a gathering mechanism operably coupled to the cover, the gathering mechanism being configured to fold the cover as the bimini frame transforms from the open configuration to the retracted configuration. James teaches a bimini system 50 comprising a gathering mechanism 64, 82, 98, 106 operably coupled to the cover 58, the gathering mechanism being configured to fold the cover as the bimini frame transforms from the open configuration to the retracted configuration. In this case, the elastic cord biases the frame sections together, which will fold the cover as the frame is collapsed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bimini top of Schwindaman or Feikema with a gathering mechanism as taught by James in order to ensure that the frames and cover are biased toward the proper storage position.
PNG
media_image5.png
297
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5- James Figure 5
Regarding claim 15, Schwindaman or Feikema (separately), Rondeau and James teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. James also teaches that the gathering mechanism 106 includes at least one tension member 64, 82, 98 affixed to the cover 58 at a plurality of locations.
Regarding claim 16, Schwindaman or Feikema (separately), Rondeau and James teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 15. James also teaches that the length of the at least one tension member 106 (when not under tension) is less than a length of the cover 58 (column 2, lines 62-67).
Regarding claim 17, Schwindaman or Feikema (separately), Rondeau and James teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 15. James also teaches that the at least one tension member 64, 82, 98 has a biasing force (column 2, lines 54-62).
Regarding claim 18, Schwindaman or Feikema (separately), Rondeau and James teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Schwindaman, Feikema and James each also teach that the gathering mechanism includes at least one shadow bow pivotably coupled to the bimini frame and operably coupled to the cover (see respective figures).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 6- Dupuy Figure 4)]
PNG
media_image6.png
278
300
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindaman US 7,389,737 or Feikema US 4,951,594 in view of Rondeau US 8,056,497 and Dupuy US 2013/0220194.
Regarding claim 19, Schwindaman or Feikema (separately) and Rondeau teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Rondeau does not teach that the storage boot further comprises at least one cover guide. Dupuy teaches a marine vessel storage box 16 which includes a cover guide 36, 44. In this case, the lip and lid serve to guide the cover into position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the storage boot of Rondeau with a cover guide as taught by Dupuy in order to ensure that the base and lid are properly aligned at closing. Also as taught, the lip and lid will serve to guide the cover into the correct position.
Regarding claim 20, Schwindaman or Feikema (separately), Rondeau and Dupuy teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 19. Dupuy also teaches that at least one cover guide 36 extends from the lid. In an alternative interpretation, Dupuy does not teach that cover guide 44 extends from the lid, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the lip and lid arrangement in order to obtain the desired form factor or sight lines, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zirkelbach US 2020/0108895 teaches a storage boot that is integral with the cover and stays attached to the rear bow.
Cittadine US 9,534,393 teaches a retractable boat cover in which the lid of the storage box extends from the base with the cover.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615