Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a first office action on the merits for application serail number 18/605/931 filed 3/15/24. Claims 1-9 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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there are several occurrences of numbered sentences rather than numbered paragraphs. See at least [0005-0009, 0026-0030, 0032-0065].
Appropriate correction is required.
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, each long rod connected to a frame [cl.6] and each short rod connected to a frame [cl.7] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The figures show frame 21, short rods 14 and long rods 15 but never show the rods connected to the frame as claimed. Are the rods 14/15 comprised of frame 21? 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.
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 1-9 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.
The terms “long” and “short” in claims 1-9 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear where “long” and “short” begin and end.
The examiner suggests changing “long groove” to - - elongated groove - - and changing the plurality of short and long rods to “first” and “second” rods. Alternatively use the term “ribs” for the long rods 15 and the term “stretchers” for the short rods 14 as these are common art terms for the disclosed umbrella frame components.
With respect to claims 6-7, it is not clear where the rods are connected to a frame. Are the rods comprised of frame 21 or how the frame 21 connects to the rods?
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
While the term “flexible” is also a relative term it is being interpreted consistent with the standard described in paragraph [0019] of the specification.
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 1-9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,646,011 to Wei et al. in view of U.S. 2015/0062890 to Camarata.
Wei provides an umbrella having long rods 300, short rods 400, a support column 21, an upper nest 220 and a lower nest 230. Figure 2 provides an embodiment where a light strip 20 is proving with a light unit 22 in an elongated groove (below 232), a connecting portion 231 and a concave diffuser portion 23 with sloped slide walls. The connecting portion 231 connects to a slot 101 of a rib.
Weil fails to specify that the light unit is flexible light strip made of a flexible silicone material.
Camarata teaches that the time of the effective filing date of the invention it was known to provide a flexible lighting strip formed of a flexible light tape 102 and a flexible housing formed of polymer such as silicone 535U [0085].
It would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the invention one having ordinary skill in the art that the light strip 20 of Wei could have been formed of the materials taught by Camerata to provide for flexibility and achieve a better illumination and eliminate hot spots. Further, 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). Silicon would have been an obvious material choice for its inherent material properties such as flexibility and stability at high and low temperatures and has better resistance to UV rays than rigid plastics.
Alternatively, 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 modified the flexible light strip of Camarata to have provided the housing with connecting portions as taught at 231 to Wei to allow the strip to be connected in a slot/groove 101 of an umbrella rod.
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 proving an umbrella with lighting strips which are flexible and suitable for use in an outdoor environment.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note in particular:
U.S. Patent 12,281,780 to Nichols, which has an effective filing date of 2/08/23, teaches at the time of the effective filing date of the invention LED strip lights, also known as LED tape, tape lights, or ribbon lights, are generally linear flexible circuit boards having surface mounted devices (SMD) in the form of multiple LEDs and their supporting circuitry arranged along a length of narrow flexible strip or band. LED strip lights often come with an adhesive backing. Originally, LED strip lights were used solely in accent lighting, backlighting, task lighting, and decorative lighting applications. With the increased luminous efficacy of higher power LEDs, LED strip lights are now used in applications such as high brightness task lighting, and as replacements for fluorescent and halogen lighting fixtures. LED tape light is widely available in the lighting industry and is both cost effective and easy to install. LED tape light is very versatile and can be cut to the correct length with ease and without requiring additional tools. LED tape light is available in indoor versions, weatherproof and waterproof versions, and color changing versions, and comes in variable widths normally between eight and fifteen millimeters. Securing LED tape light is usually achieved using an adhesive backing with a cover that is removed, whereupon the product is adhered to the end use item (col.1, lns. 23-44).
U.S. Patent 11,255,526 to Stegeman teaches a flexible light strip formed a light tape 507 revied in an elongate groove 511 and a housing with a concave diffuser portion 501 formed of flexible weatherproof polymers/rubbers. Attaching elements 531 which may be anything from tape to clamps are provided in connecting portions 519.
U.S. Patent 9,265,312 to Chow teaches LED lights in long 28 and short 27 rails of an umbrella.
U.S. Patent 9,408,44 to Jin teaches lighting bars 14 in notches 101 of long 4 and short 1 umbrella ribs.
U.S. Patent 5,584,564 to Phyle teaches connecting light units 12 to the ribs 22 of an umbrella.
U.S. Patent 5,911,493 to Walker et al. teaches inserting flexible strings of rope lights 32 into channels 30 on the underside of umbrella ribs 16.
U.S. 2023/0400161 to Trundle et al provides a flexible lighting strip 100 comprised of track 9 of flexible polymer having channel with a light trip 8a/mounted therein and a cover/diffuser 4 thereover.
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