Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 5/12/26. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The replacement drawing sheet filed 5/12/26 is not approved and has not been entered as it contains new matter. There is no support found for the specific shape and locations of the solar panel or the LED lighting extending along the permitier of the sail. Paragraph [0034] of the specification only recites “In one embodiment, a sail 50 can include rigid or flexible solar panels 62 to enable the production of electricity”.
Paragraph [0035] of the specification only recites “In one embodiment, a sail 50 can include integrated lighting 66, such as light emitting diodes (LEDs) 66, which can be integrated with or attached to the fabric and/or sail structure to provide light, a light show, or to function as a screen for displaying images or videos”.
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 claimed materials of the flexible pole(s) (cls. 2-4, 9, 10, 12, 16), the taper (cls. 4, 12, 17), the solar panel and battery (cls.5, 13, 19), the LED lighting (cls. 6, 14, 20), an embodiment with a base oriented such that the longitudinal axis of the sleeve is inclined away from a plane of the sail wherein the sail in cantilevered from the pole (cl. 7) and a foundation permanently or semi-permanently connected to a supporting surface (cl. 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. NOTE the replacement sheet filed 5/12/26 has not been 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 appears to be a hybrid embodiment not disclosed or shown as it requires both the inclined sleeve and a cantilevered sail.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 5,241,977 to Flores et al.
Flores provides shading system S with bases 110a configured to be rigidly fixed a supporting surface/ground via anchors 200 inserted into holes 111b of a foundation 111, each base having a tubular lower mast portion or “sleeve” 113 defining a longitudinal axis forming an acute angle with the plane of the supporting surface/ground, an upper mast portion 114 or pole is inserted into the sleeve forming a mast means 110, the masts means formed of a lightweight materials, such as steel or an equivalent plastic material (col.5, lns. 31-34) each of which are inherently flexible materials and inherently attenuate any applied loads, each mast or pole having an end cap/hook 116 at the distal end thereof for fixing a covering or “sail” 130/130A of flexible material (mesh M, canvas or equivalent (col. 7, lns, 43-52)) thereto to provide a shade.
With respect to claims, the embodiment of figures 13-14 uses cords 600 and three pole sections tapering in diameter along the length.
Claims 1, 8, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 9,010,348 to Kite.
Kite provides bases 16 configured to be rigidly fixed a supporting surface/ground, each base having a tube or “sleeve” 14 defining a longitudinal axis forming an acute angle with the plane of the supporting surface/ground, a pole 9 comprised of sections of circular cross section formed of aluminum (cl.3) is inserted into the sleeve (aluminum inherently being “flexible”), each pole having an end cap 30 at the distal end thereof for fixing a covering or sail 8 of flexible material thereto to provide a shade. Figure 1 shows constant circular cross-section of the poles.
With respect to claims 8, 11 and 15, column 4, lines 27-33 disclose cord or ties as an alternative means for securing the covering to the upper end of the poles.
Claims 2-4, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,241,977 to Flores et al.
Flores provides each of the elements of the claims except for specifying the pole(s) are comprised of an unsaturated polyester resin [cls. 2, 9, 12, 16], comprised of a unidirectional fiberglass rod with a thermoplastic veil [cls. 3, 10, 12, 16] or comprised of stainless steel, aluminum, wood or fiber glass [cl.17]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have selected poles comprised of an unsaturated polyester resin or comprised of a unidirectional fiberglass rod with a thermoplastic veil, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The claimed materials have inherent material properties which would lend themselves as suitable for providing the support masts/poles of Flores and a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. Flores suggests the mast means 110 considered to meet the limitation of “poles” may be manufactured from a lightweight materials, such as galvanized sheet metal or equivalent plastic materials at col. 5, lines 31-34. There would have been no unexpected or unpredictable results obtained in forming poles comprising the claimed materials as each are known materials for use as tent/shade poles..
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,241,977 to Flores et al. in view of U.S. 2008/0029141 to Grand Pre et al.
Flores provides each of the elements of the claims as noted above except for providing the shade or sail with a solar panel connected to a battery [cls. 5, 13, 19 ] and LED lighting [cls. 6, 14, 20 ].
Grand Pre teaches that at the time of the effective filing date of the invention it was known to provide a vehicle shade with an LED lighting system connected to a battery powered by a solar panel [0004, 0031].
It would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to one having ordinary skill in the art that the system of the Flores would have been provided with a solar panel, battery and LED lighting as taught by Grand Pre to providing powered by a renewable power source.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of providing lighting powered by a renewable power source to the system of McAndrew.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2017/0321426 to Greer.
Greer provides a shade system comprised of a PVC post 14 which is inherently flexible, an end cap having an aperture for receipt of cord 33 attached to a grommet of canopy or “sail” 16. The sail supported in a cantilevered fashion (Fig.2). The proximal end inserted into a sleeve 49 of base 48 which may be rigidly filed to a supporting surface at 45. The base includes a rotatable portions 46 which allows for the angle of the sleeve to inclined at an acute angle.
With respect to claims 5 and 13, see PV or solar cells 72 to charge batteries [0084].
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Greer fails to provide a base comprising a sleeve forming an acute angle. This is not persuasive as Greer provide sleeve 49 which is rotated at 46 thus the angle can be selected as an acute angle.
In response to applicant's argument that the references (particularly Greer) fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the flexible pole is intentionally biases away from the sail such that tensions in the sail bends the pole towards the sail) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to McAndrew and Graham are not necessarily persuasive but the rejections have been withdrawn to simplify issues for appeal.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note:
U.S. Patent 4,655,236 to Dorame et al. provides bases 19 configured to be rigidly fixed a supporting surface/ground, each base having a receiver or “sleeve” 16 defining a longitudinal axis forming an acute angle with the plane of the supporting surface/ground, an aluminum [col. 5, ln. 24] pole is inserted into the sleeve (aluminum inherently being “flexible”), each pole having an end cap 7A at the distal end thereof for fixing a covering or “sail” 2 of flexible material thereto to provide a shade. The poles taper in cross sections from sections 16 to 11. Dorame appears to meet at least claim 1 but has not been applied to avoid undue multiple rejections.
U.S. Patent 3,195,898 to Respini which teaches a ground anchor 14 having mounting section 30 for flexible aluminum pole 12 that forms an acute angle with the ground.
U.S. Patent 2,777,454 to Kramer has sleeves 23 firmly anchored to the ground with augers 24. The sleeves receive poles 15 with caps 16 for securing cover 10.
The various flexible pole 20 materials disclosed in U.S. Patent 4,750,508 to Tatoian used to support a sail 14 via cords 42. Tatoian provides no distal end caps.
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 ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights