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 .
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 only recites that “the lid is fixedly mounted to the second bow-” while parent claim 1 already recites “a lid mounted to a second bow.” There is no appreciable difference between “mounted” and “fixedly mounted.” 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, 3-8 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, Clark US 4,171,013 or Glaser US 7,086,684 (separately).
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, a retracted configuration, and a stowed configuration; and
a cover 12 supported by the bimini frame.
PNG
media_image1.png
482
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Schwindaman Figures 1-3
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, wherein the base is fixedly mounted to the first bow such that the base is rotatable with the first bow about an axis during transformation of the bimini system between the retracted configuration and the stowed configuration. 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 order to conceal the cover when not in use to protect it from the environment and improve the aesthetic appeal of the vehicle.
In alternative 1, Clark teaches an awning system comprising:
a vehicle frame 15, 18;
a cover 10 supported by the frame; and
a storage boot 13 having a hollow interior for a receiving the cover therein, the storage boot including a base 11 mounted to the frame and a lid 12 mounted to the front of the cover.
PNG
media_image3.png
322
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Clark Figure 2a
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 Clark in order to conceal the cover when not in use to protect it from the environment and improve the aesthetic appeal of the vehicle.
In alternative 2, Glaser teaches an awning system comprising:
a vehicle frame 10;
a cover 22 supported by the frame; and
a storage boot 14 having a hollow interior for a receiving the cover therein, the storage boot including a base 38, 40 mounted to the frame and a lid 40, 22 mounted to the front of the cover.
PNG
media_image4.png
308
462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Glaser Figure 1
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 Glaser 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 and the lid is mounted to the second bow, such that the base is rotatable with the first bow about an axis during transformation of the bimini system between the retracted configuration and the stowed configuration. 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 3, Schwindaman and Rondeau, Clark or Glaser 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, Clark or Glaser 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, Clark or Glaser 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, Clark or Glaser 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.
In alternative 1, Clark also teaches that the lid 12 is positioned relative to the base 11 to close the storage boot 13 when the bimini frame is in the retracted configuration.
In alternative 2, Glaser also teaches that the lid 40, 22 is positioned relative to the base 38, 40 to close the storage boot 14 when the bimini frame is in the retracted configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Schwindaman and Rondeau, Clark or Glaser 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, Clark or Glaser 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, Clark or Glaser 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, Clark or Glaser 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, Clark or Glaser 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, Clark or Glaser 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.
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, Clark US 4,171,013 or Glaser US 7,086,684 (separately), and further in view of Ritchel US 11,472,512.
Regarding claim 9, Schwindaman and Rondeau, Clark or Glaser 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 in view of Rondeau US 8,056,497, Clark US 4,171,013 or Glaser US 7,086,684 (separately), and further in view of James US 7,921,797.
Regarding claim 14, Schwindaman and Rondeau, Clark or Glaser teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Schwindaman does not 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 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 and Rondeau, Clark or Glaser 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 and Rondeau, Clark or Glaser 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 and Rondeau, Clark or Glaser 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 and Rondeau, Clark or Glaser 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).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindaman US 7,389,737 in view of Clark US 4,171,013 or Glaser US 7,086,684 (separately).
Regarding claim 19, Schwindaman and Rondeau, Clark or Glaser teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
In alternative 1, Clark also teaches that the storage boot 13 further comprises at least one cover guide 38 (column 5, lines 62-64).
PNG
media_image6.png
344
296
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6- Clark Figure 6
In alternative 2, Glaser also teaches that the storage boot 14 further comprises at least one cover guide (the inside edges of 20 that align with the opening in base 38, 40).
PNG
media_image7.png
250
361
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7- Glaser Figure 4
Regarding claim 20, Schwindaman and Rondeau, Clark or Glaser teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 19.
In alternative 1, Clark also teaches that the at least one cover guide 38 extends from the lid 12.
In alternative 2, Glaser also teaches that the at least one cover guide (the inside edges of 20 that align with the opening in base 38, 40) extends from the lid 20.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 8- Dupuy Figure 4)]
PNG
media_image8.png
278
300
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 19 and 20 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 and Dupuy US 2013/0220194.
Regarding claim 19, Schwindaman 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, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the applicant argues that “If a person having ordinary skill in the art were motivated to modify the bimini of Schwindaman…in view of Rondeau, the design would required [sic] that the cover pivot relative to the front bow and the rear bow at its interface therewith to maintain this horizontal orientation of the cover as the bimini system rotates down toward a stowed configuration. Modification of the system in another manner such that the horizontal orientation is not maintained throughout the rotation of the bimini frame would change the principle of operation of Rondeau” (page 8). The examiner disagrees for 2 reasons:
First, Rondeau is only relied upon for the teaching of a lidded storage boot to contain a retractable boat top. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how this boot would be applied to Schwindaman’s bimini top, and would easily understand that the boot would need not remain horizontal to function. As modified, the base is rotatable with the first bow.
Second, even if (as modified) the storage boot did pivot to remain horizontal, it would still meet the claim as written. The storage boot pivot with respect to the bow does not preclude it being “fixedly mounted to the first bow such that the base is rotatable with the first bow.”
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 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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
Prosecution Insights