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 § 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, 3-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nipke in US Patent 7017598 in view of Eeles in US Patent 2143978.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, and 8, Nipke teaches a patio umbrella assembly comprising: a base (125) being configured to be positioned on a surface; a pole (190/195) being coupled to and extending upwardly from the base; a plurality of ribs (510) being pivotably coupled (at 505) to the pole distal to the base, the plurality of ribs being movable between a storage position (Figs. 16-17) and a usage position (Fig. 1); a handle (165) being mechanically coupled to the plurality of ribs for moving the plurality of ribs between the storage position and the usage position, the handle being positioned on the pole; a canopy (150) being coupled to the plurality of ribs, the canopy extending between each of the plurality of ribs. Nipke is silent on the use of a fastener in the canopy. Eeles teaches an umbrella with a canopy (15) and a fastener comprising a zipper (22) being coupled to the canopy, the fastener being openable to form an access cavity through the canopy wherein the access cavity is configured to facilitate a user in accessing a handle (26) when the plurality of ribs is in the storage position, the fastener being positioned adjacent to a single rib (14 at the bottom) of the plurality of ribs wherein the single rib of the plurality of ribs is configured to structurally reinforce the fastener and inhibit deformation of the fastener while the user is manipulating the fastener (the inherent tension in the canopy fabric between the end of the rib and the fastener will hold the tensioner in place when in use). Eeles teaches (see Fig. 2) that the fastener extends past a free edge of the canopy wherein the fastener forms a tab (at the lowermost end of 22), the tab being configured to be gripped by a user wherein the fastener is configured to facilitate a user in manipulating the fastener. 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 device of Nipke by adding a fastener as taught by Eeles in order to allow the user to more easily access the pole of the umbrella when it is collapsed.
Regarding Claim 3, Nipke, as modified, teaches that the handle is rotatably coupled to the pole and wherein rotation of the handle pivots the plurality of ribs between the storage position and the usage position (see Column 8, lines 64-67) .
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Nipke, as modified is silent on the size of the fastener. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fastener with a width between 0.5 inch and 2.5 inches and a length between 1.5 feet and 3.5 feet in order to meet the size needs of the umbrella on which it is installed, since such a change would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized a being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 9, Nipke, as modified is silent on the material used for the zipper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plastic zipper in order to provide a lightweight and durable fastener, 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, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 10, Nipke teaches a patio umbrella assembly comprising: a base (125) being configured to be positioned on a surface; a pole (190/195) being coupled to and extending upwardly from the base; a plurality of ribs (510) being pivotably coupled (at 505) to the pole distal to the base, the plurality of ribs being movable between a storage position (Figs. 16-17) and a usage position (Fig. 1), wherein plurality of ribs is folded downwardly proximate to the pole when the plurality of ribs is in the storage position, and wherein the plurality of ribs extends outwardly from the pole when the plurality of ribs is in the usage position; a handle (165) being mechanically coupled to the plurality of ribs for moving the plurality of ribs between the storage position and the usage position, the handle being rotatably coupled to the pole and wherein rotation of the handle pivots the plurality of ribs between the storage position and the usage position (see Column 8, lines 64-67); a canopy (150) being coupled to the plurality of ribs, the canopy extending between each of the plurality of ribs.
Nipke is silent on the use of a fastener in the canopy. Eeles teaches an umbrella with a canopy (15) and a fastener comprising a zipper (22) being coupled to the canopy, the fastener being openable to form an access cavity through the canopy wherein the access cavity is configured to facilitate a user in accessing a handle (26) when the plurality of ribs is in the storage position, the fastener being positioned adjacent to a single rib (14 at the bottom) of the plurality of ribs wherein the single rib of the plurality of ribs is configured to structurally reinforce the fastener and inhibit deformation of the fastener while the user is manipulating the fastener (the inherent tension in the canopy fabric between the end of the rib and the fastener will hold the tensioner in place when in use. Eeles teaches (see Fig. 2) that the fastener extends past a free edge of the canopy wherein the fastener forms a tab (the lowermost end of 22), the tab being configured to be gripped by a user wherein the fastener is configured to facilitate a user in manipulating the fastener. 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 device of Nipke by adding a fastener as taught by Eeles in order to allow the user to more easily access the pole of the umbrella when it is collapsed.
Nipke, as modified is silent on the size of the fastener. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fastener with a width between 0.5 inch and 2.5 inches and a length between 1.5 feet and 3.5 feet in order to meet the size needs of the umbrella on which it is installed, since such a change would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized a being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Nipke, as modified is silent on the material used for the zipper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plastic zipper in order to provide a lightweight and durable fastener, 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, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah Chandler Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636