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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to communication filed on 03/10/2026. Claims 1-9 remain pending, with claims 1, 4, and 8 currently amended. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous objection to drawings, objection to claims, and 112(b) rejections.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, the scope is unclear because claim 1 requires the covering to be walkable, but claim 9 which depends from claim 1 requires the covering to be not walkable. Accordingly, which one is it? For the purpose of examination, it is being treated as not walkable due to the claimed shape of claim 9. Correction is required.
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 9 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. Claim 9 recites the covering is NOT walkable (emphasis added). This fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends as claim 1 requires the covering to be walkable. 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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 9,422,737 (hereinafter Black et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Black et al. discloses a covering (1) comprising at least one planar support structure (11) provided with a cover on a top part thereof, wherein the cover (1) is walkable (col. 5, ln. 50-54)wherein the support structure is provided with at least one folding beam (10, 10A) on its underside (fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 2, Black et al. discloses wherein the at least one folding beam (10, 10A) is connected to the support structure (11) by joints (along first end 21) that enable rotational movement of the at least one folding beam (10, 10A) (col. 4, ln. 4-30).
Regarding claim 3, Black et al. discloses the at least one folding beam (10, 10A) is arranged in a width direction of the covering (1) (fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 4, Black et al. discloses wherein the at least one folding beam is a plurality of folding beams (10, 10A), wherein the beams (10, 10A) are positioned partially over one another in a folded position (col. 6, ln. 20-31).
Regarding claim 5, Black et al. discloses wherein the at least one folding beam (10, 10A) has a structure of solid, and a shape of rectangular (fig. 2A, 2B).
Regarding claim 6, Black et al. discloses wherein the at least one folding beam (10, 10A) is provided with a lifting mechanism (40) which folds the at least one beam horizontally (along a horizontal plane; fig. 1A) before moving the covering to an opened position.
Regarding claim 7, Black et al. discloses wherein the top part of the covering is at a level of a surrounding area (fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Black et al. discloses wherein the covering (1) contains at least two planar support structures (11) located above one another in an opened position (fig. 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black et al. in view of US Patent 6,430,879 (hereinafter Nuiry).
Regarding claim 9, Black et al. fails to show wherein the cover is not walkable, with the top part having a shape selected from the group of arched, beveled, and combinations thereof, to increase the static load capacity and/or to drain water from the top part. Attention is turned to Nuiry which shows a cover having an arched shape (fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include an arched shape top part with the cover of Black et al. to assist with water drain off as is known in the art and evidenced by the teachings of Nuiry mentioned above. Regarding the limitation that the “cover is not walkable,” matters pertaining to intended use are deemed to be met by the prior art so long as the structure is present. In the instant case, there is nothing to preclude a user from not walking on the cover if so desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that Black does not show a cover being walkable in both position, above the pool and next to the pool is not commensurate in scope with the claim language as such a feature is not recited The claim merely states the cover is walkable.
Applicant’s argument that Black does not show a beam that folds by pivoting rotationally under the support structure is not commensurate in scope with the claim language as such a feature is not recited. The claim merely states the support structure is provided with at least one folding beam on its underside. The beams (10, 10A) fold the cover and are located under the support structure (11).
Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention does not require pantograph units or wheels is not persuasive since “comprising” claims do not preclude additional structures being present in the prior art.
The rejection is deemed proper and maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754