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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 502(?) (text is hard to distinguish on the bottom-most reference character shown in FIG. 9).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of second inserted joint apertures (claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Sixth page of specification, “After the blown up” should be changed for grammatical reasons.
Seventh page of the specification, “During insertion joint” should be changed for grammatical reasons.
Seventh page of the specification, “V-shaped elastic plate 124” should be changed to --V-shaped elastic plate 241--.
Ninth page of the specification (first line), “rubber strip” should be changed to --rubber sleeve-- for consistency purposes.
Tenth page of the specification (first line), “ground insert 410” should be changed to --ground plug 410-- for consistency purposes.
Tenth page of the specification (last paragraph), “mounting seat 291” should be changed to –mounting base 291-- for consistency purposes.
Eleventh page of the specification, “elastic ring 292” should be changed to – locking ring 292-- for consistency purposes.
Eleventh page of the specification, “By rotating, the adjacent bottom support sleeve 260, middle support sleeve 280 or top support sleeve 270 allow the locking ring 292 rotates relative to the eccentric shaft 2912.” is not grammatically correct.
Twelfth page of the specification, “Connection method 3: the” should be changed to --Connection method 3: The--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 5, “top support rods” should be changed to --top support rod--.
Claim 4, line 4, “each of the support rod” should be changed to --each of the support rods--.
Claim 4, line 14, “elastically abuts” should be changed to --elastically abut--.
Claim 4, line 19, “When” should be changed to --when--.
Claim 6, line 4, “mounting seat” should be changed to --mounting base—for consistency purposes (see line 2 of the claim).
Claim 7, line 4, “a plurality of latch apertures (213) are provided with interval” is awkwardly worded and should be changed.
Claim 10, lines 14-15, “a second inserted joint tube (322) is fixed at both ends of the middle transverse tube (320), the end of the communicating transverse tube (390) away from the middle transverse tube (320)” should be changed to --a second inserted joint tube (322) is fixed at both ends of the middle transverse tube (320) and the end of the communicating transverse tube (390) away from the middle transverse tube (320)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3, 4 and 6-12 are 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 3 recites “the bottom support rod (210) and the middle support rod (220) therebeween, adjacent middle support rods (220) therebetween, as well as the middle support rod (220) and the top support rod (230) therebetween are detachably connected by a snap-in structure (240)” in lines 7-9. Due to the word of this claim limitation, it is unclear exactly what elements are detachable connected by a snap-in structure. It is also not understood what is meant limitations such as “the bottom support rod (210) and the middle support rod (220) therebeween” – the middle support rod between the bottom rod and what other element? Clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites “the first inserted joint tube (211)”, “the first inserted joint aperture (221)”, “the second limiting aperture (222)” multiple times throughout the claim, however a plurality of each of these elements was initially recited (lines 2, 4-5, and 9-10, respectively). It is unclear exactly which of the plurality of these elements is being referred to when recited as an individual element (i.e. “the” versus “one of” or something similar). Clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the limiting plate" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the latch aperture” in both lines 6 and 7. It is unclear exactly which latch aperture is being referred to in these instances since a plurality of latch apertures was previously recited (line 4). Clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the upper side of the thimble" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the transverse rods comprise a middle transverse tube (320) connected to the vertical support rod (200) and a terminal transverse tube (330) located at both ends, a plurality of communicating transverse tubes (390) are respectively provided between both ends of the middle transverse tube (320) and the terminal transverse tube (330)” in lines 1-5. First, it is unclear exactly what the terminal transverse tube is located “at both ends” of. Second, it is unclear if there is just one terminal transverse tube that is somehow located at both ends of one (unknown) element or two terminal transverse tubes, each located at a respective end of the element. For examination purposes, the latter is assumed. Additionally, is there are two terminal transverse tubes, it is not clear which exactly is being referred to in lines 4-5 by “the terminal transverse tube”. Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “when the telescopic tube assembly (370) is shortened, the rubber column (381) elastically abuts inside the end of the mounting sleeve (360)” in lines 10-12. It is not clear how the rubber column abuts the inside of the end of the mounting sleeve when the diameter of the rubber column was previously recited as being larger than the inner diameter of the mounting sleeve (lines 9-10). As such, it does not seem that the rubber column would be able to be located inside the mounting sleeve. Clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites “a plurality of second inserted joint apertures are provided on the ground plug (410) with intervals along the vertical direction”. It is not understood what is meant by this limitation. What are the “second inserted joint apertures” and how do they function/what is their purpose? The specification merely states “A plurality of second inserted joint apertures are provided with interval on the ground plug 410 and along the vertical direction” (pages 4 and 9-10) and these second inserted joint apertures do not appear to be shown in the drawings. Clarification is required.
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(s) 1, 2, 8, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel (US 2023/0235592 A1) in view of Jenkins (US 9,051,756 B1).
Claim 1: Michel discloses a portable beach sunshade tent, comprising a sunshade canopy (100) and a vertical support rod (60, 50), one end of the vertical support rod can be plugged and fixed on the ground (paragraph 27), and the other end of the vertical support rod is detachably and rotationally connected (via 70/85) to a transverse support rod (80, 90).
Michel is silent on the attachments means between the sunshade canopy and the transverse support rod. Jenkins teaches a portable beach sunshade tent (1; FIG. 3), comprising a sunshade canopy (3) and a vertical support rod (13), one end of the vertical support rod can be plugged and fixed on the ground (col. 3, lines 65-67), and the other end of the vertical support rod is detachably connected (via 16, 17) to a transverse support rod (12), wherein one side of the sunshade canopy is detachably connected to the transverse support rod (via sleeve 11; col. 3, lines 58-60). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michel to include a sunshade canopy that is detachably connected to the transverse support rod, as taught by Jenkins, so the sunshade could be removed from the transverse support pole and replaced if necessary/desired.
Claim 2: Michel discloses a plurality of support rods (FIG. 2), the plurality of support rods are sequentially connected, and the total length of the vertical support rod is adjustable (paragraph 28).
Claim 8: Jenkins teaches a thimble (16) is fixed on the end of the vertical support rod close to the transverse support rod (as seen in FIG. 5); a penetrative mounting aperture (14) is provided in the middle of the transverse support rod col. 3, lines 60-63), the mounting aperture is perpendicular to the lengthwise direction of the transverse support rod (as seen in FIG. 5), and the thimble (250) passes through the mounting aperture (310) and is rotatably connected to the mounting aperture (Jenkins does not appear to disclose any sort of connection between the thimble and the mounting aperture that would prevent rotation); a sleeve (17) is provided on the upper side cover of the thimble (FIG. 3; col. 4, lines 2-6). It would have been obvious to modify Michel to include a connection means between the support rod and the transverse support rod like that taught in Jenkins, in order to reduce the number of parts for assembly/disassembly (there would not be a need for two sections 80, 90 of the transverse support rod and a connector piece 70/85 in between them, as taught by Michel).
It noted that while Jenkins does not explicitly disclose the sleeve being made of rubber, it would have been obvious to make the sleeve from rubber since it has generally been recognized that selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 12: Michel teaches a rope (30, 40) is connected to the end of the vertical support rod close to the transverse support rod (as seen in the figures), and the other end of the rope is connected to a ground plug (10, 20). While Michel does not teach a plurality of second inserted joint apertures are provided on the ground plug with intervals along the vertical direction, as best understood, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of second inserted joint apertures on the ground plug so that the position/angle of the rope could be adjusted relative to the ground plug and/or the vertical support rod.
Claim 13: Jenkins teaches one side of the sunshade canopy is sewn with a strip-shaped edging (11), and a connecting aperture is formed within the edging (the sleeve 11 has an aperture along its longitudinal length through which the transverse support rod passes), and a mounting opening (14) is provided in the middle of the edging (as seen in FIG. 8); the vertical support rod passes through the mounting opening and is connected to the transverse support rod (FIG. 3 and 5; col 4, lines 1-2).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel (US 2023/0235592 A1) in view of Jenkins (US 9,051,756 B1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sosnowski (US 11,603,875 B2).
The combination of Michel and Jenkins is discussed above and Michel teaches the vertical support rod can be telescoping to adjust the height of the beach sunshade tent (paragraph 28; FIG. 2); however, Michel does not explicitly teach the structure of the vertical support rod in other to make it adjustable. Sosnowski teaches a collapsible pole comprising: a plurality of the support rods (15, 32, 22) detachably connected (the ends of the support rods can be taken out of coaxial alignment and folded relative to each other); wherein the support rods are connected by a snap-in structure (FIGS. 12A and 12B); the one support rod (210) is formed with a first inserted joint tube (34); the other support rod is formed with a first inserted joint aperture (24), and the outer diameter of the first inserted joint tube is smaller than the diameter of the first inserted joint aperture (FIG. 12A); a first limiting aperture (1204a) is provided on the side wall of the first inserted joint tube, and a second limiting aperture (1206) is provided on the support rod where the first inserted joint aperture is located (FIG. 12B), and is connected with the first inserted joint aperture (12B); the snap-in structure (240) comprises a V-shaped elastic plate (1122), which is located in the first inserted joint tube (FIG. 12B), and both ends of the elastic plate elastically abuts against the inner wall of the first inserted joint tube (as seen in FIG. 12B); a dowel pin (1108a) is fixed on the side of the elastic plate away from the center of the first inserted joint tube, and the dowel pin passes through the first limiting aperture; when the first inserted joint tube is inserted into the first inserted joint aperture, the dowel pin can pass through the second limiting aperture (FIG. 14B). 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 combination to include a snap-in structure between a plurality of segment, as suggested by Sosnowski, so that the length of the vertical support rod can be easily adjusted to a variety of desired heights depending on the intended use of the sunshade structure and kept locked in that height. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have a plurality of middle support rods so that when the vertical support pole was taken apart so it could be folded down into a short, more compact size.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel (US 2023/0235592 A1) in view of Jenkins (US 9,051,756 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patsalaridis (US 7,191,996 B2).
The combination of Michel and Jenkins is discussed above and Michel teaches a spiked portion 50 at the end of the vertical support rod, but lacks a chamfered portion and a plurality of latch apertures on the end of the vertical support rod that is plugged and fixed on the ground. Patsalaridis teaches an anchor for a beach shade comprising: a chamfered portion (24 or 18); a plurality of latch apertures provided with intervals therebetween along the vertical direction on the rod segment (12) close to the chamfered portion (as seen in FIG. 2); a long latch rod (26) is detachably inserted into the latch aperture (as seen in FIG. 3), and the long latch rod passes through the latch aperture (as seen in FIG. 3, 26 is placed in an aperture and passes through into the interior of the rod segment). 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 combination to include a chamfered portion and a plurality of apertures and latch rod, as taught by Patsalaridis, so that the vertical support rod could easily be secured into the ground while allowing the height of the vertical support pole to be adjusted as necessary/desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6 and 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2268. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11AM-7PM EST.
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 (571)272-6670. 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.
/DNJ/Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636