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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of screws (claim 1) and the flat base (claim 7) 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 8, “sky” should be changed to --the sky--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are 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 1 recites “a vertical pole attached to the canopy via a plurality of screws and the plurality of ribs” in lines 4-5. The specification does not explain exactly how this limitation works. While the specification states “a vertical pole attached to the canopy via a plurality of screws and the plurality of ribs” (paragraphs 13, 28, 30), it is not clear how this is achieved, i.e. is the canopy attached to the vertical pole directly via screws (which is not considered standard practice in the umbrella art) or are other elements (such as the ribs, to which the canopy is attached via screws) needed to produce this attachment (much more common practice in the art). As such, the subject matter of claim 1 does not comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 2 recites “the first layer and the second layer are separated by a windproof pole”. The specification provides no explanation of how exactly the two layers are separated by the windproof pole. In the drawings, specifically FIG. 5B, element 518 has been identified as the “windproof pole”; however, element 518 appears as it is in the same location and has the same shape as the extended bat. Therefore, it is unclear how the windproof pole differs from the extended bat and what qualifies it as “windproof”. It is noted that in FIG. 5B, element 518 does not appear to separate the first and second layers, it’s seemingly above both layers. As such, the subject matter of claim 2 does not comply with the written description requirement
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 1-7 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 1 recites “a canopy attached to a plurality of ribs” (line 2) and “a first layer from an inside of the canopy configured to protect the user from ultraviolet rays and a second layer on a top center of the canopy configured to provide a clear view of sky to the user” (lines 6-8). It is unclear exactly how many “layers” there are for the canopy. The claim appears to recite a layer (first layer) located below the canopy (“a first layer from an inside of the canopy”) and another layer (second layer) located on top of/above the canopy (“a second layer on a top center of the canopy”), with the “canopy” itself being a different “layer”. However, it is believed based on the specification and the pictures that the canopy itself is comprised of the first and second layers. Clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites “the canopy is customized by a plurality of color materials in accordance with regulatory standards and industry requirements”. This claim is indefinite because the phrases “regulatory standards” and “industry requirements” are not defined or referenced with sufficient particularity. The scope of the claim depends on unspecified, potentially changing standards, leaving a person of ordinary skill in the art unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacik (US 9,038,298 B2) in view of Afonso (US 9,943,147 B2).
Claim 1: Bacik discloses an adjustable umbrella, comprising: a canopy (31) attached to a plurality of ribs (39), whereby the plurality of ribs configured to support and extend the canopy to provide a protected area for a user (as seen in the figures); a vertical pole (comprised of elements 33 and 14) attached to the canopy and the plurality of ribs (ribs 39 are attached to pole 33 as seen in FIG. 2; col. 4, lines 14-18), the vertical pole configured to enable a user to open and close the canopy (col. 4, lines 3-6); and an extended bat (33a combined with 18) above the canopy (as seen in FIG. 1) configured to make easy for mounting (via 60) at least one board, whereby the at least one board comprising at least one of: a direction sign board; an advertisement board; a billboard; and a traffic sign board (it is noted that while Bacik teaches flags 64/64a as being mounted to the extended bat, that the construction of the extended bat is configured to allow a board to be attach thereto as well, for instance if the board was attached to a stick/pole like element 64 of the flags).
It is noted the Bacik is silent on how the canopy and/or ribs are attached to the vertical pole; however, screws are an old and well-known attachment means in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a plurality of screws to attach these elements to the vertical pole so that they could be easily and securely installed and/or replaced, if necessary, by using conventional tools.
While Bacik teaches a canopy that protects a user from ultraviolet rays (col. 4, lines 22-25) and teaches a second layer (36) as part of the canopy (col. 4, lines 37-40), Bacik does not explicitly teach a first layer from an inside of the canopy configured to protect the user from ultraviolet rays and a second layer on a top center of the canopy configured to provide a clear view of sky to the user. Afonso teaches an umbrella (FIG. 2) comprising a canopy (1) wherein the canopy comprises a first layer (1-b) from an inside of the canopy configured to protect the user from ultraviolet rays (col. 2, lines 42-45) and a second layer (1-a) on a top center of the canopy (all layers 1-a through 1-c are located across the entire span of the canopy, therefore 1-a is located “on a top center of the canopy”) configured to provide a clear view of sky to the user (the entire canopy is transparent, therefore all layers including 1-a are transparent and “provide a clear view of the sky”; col. 2, lines 19-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bacik to include a transparent layer(s) and a UV protecting layer, as taught by Afonso, so that the user could be protected from harmful UV rays while also maintaining a view of the sky, signs, above the canopy or still receive warmth from the sun on colder days.
Claim 2: As best understood, Bacik teaches a windproof pole (33, 33a) extending from both layers of the canopy in the same manner as the present invention, and therefore, the first and second layers are separated by a windproof pole.
Claim 3: Afsonso teaches the first layer as comprising an ultraviolet protection layer and the second layer as comprising a transparent layer, as discussed above.
Claim 4: Afonso teaches the second layer as being configured to provide the clear view of the mounted board and overhead hazards, as discussed above.
Claim 5: Bacik teaches that the canopy can have multiple different colors/tapes added thereto (col. 4, lines 28-29 and 32-34) and as such, can be customized by a plurality of color materials in accordance with regulatory standards and industry requirements, as best understood.
Claim 6: Bacik teaches the vertical pole as comprising an adjuster configured to adjust the canopy to user’s height or preferential length of coverage (col. 3, lines 18-49 and 53-67).
Claim 7: Bacik teaches the vertical pole as comprising a flat base (90) configured for easy handling to the user (the user can easy insert pole 14 into the base 90).
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