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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group B, Figs. 6-12, Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
PLEASE NOTE: Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (the claim recites suspension straps, which are only found in non-elected Group A), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hambleton in US Patent 4782616.
Regarding Claim 1, Hambleton teaches a portable, one-person free-standing blind comprising a leg assembly (12) for supporting the blind upon the ground, a lower portion (13) rotatably mounted to the leg assembly, a foldable seat (14/53/54/55 – the component of the seat and foldable relative to each other) mounted above the lower portion, an upper portion (33), struts (30/34) extendable from the foldable seat to the upper portion, and a camouflage shroud (11) for concealing a user seated on the seat, the blind being convertible between a disassembled, compact configuration (Fig. 9) and an assembled, extended configuration (Fig. 1), and wherein the blind is roughly cylindrical (see Fig. 3) and sized to accommodate a single user, and wherein the blind is configured and adapted to be rotated by user seated on the seat.
Regarding Claim 3, Hambleton teaches that the camouflage shroud includes a window portion (59) having a non-polygon shape.
Regarding Claim 4, Hambleton teaches that the roughly cylindrical shape is slightly tapered, with the blind being broader at the bottom than at the top (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Hambleton teaches a carrying strap (26) for carrying the portable blind in its disassembled, compact configuration.
Regarding Claim 6, Hambleton teaches a fabric cover (61) for covering and containing substantially all of the portable blind in its disassembled, compact configuration.
Regarding Claim 8, Hambleton teaches a weighted (by 35/36/37) lower skirt (44).
Regarding Claim 10, Hambleton teaches (see Fig. 9) that the blind is adapted and configured to be convertible into a backpack.
Regarding Claim 11, Hambleton teaches at least one carrying strap (26) for carrying the portable blind in a disassembled, compact configuration.
Regarding Claim 12, Hambleton teaches a fabric cover (61) for covering and containing substantially all of the portable blind in its disassembled, compact configuration.
Regarding Claim 15, Hambleton teaches that the blind can be rotated by the user 360 degrees or more while a user of the blind is seated upon the seat (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 16, Hambleton teaches that the bottom of the blind is open to the ground (see Figs. 1 and 6).
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 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hambleton as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Zemov in US Patent 7427101. Hambleton fails to teach the use of multiple legs or a folding fabric seat. Zernov teaches a portable blind including a chair with a folding leg assembly wherein the leg assembly comprises a folding leg assembly with at least 3 legs (32) and wherein the seat (36) comprises a flexible, foldable fabric seat. 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 Hambleton by using a folding fabric seat with multiple legs as taught by Zernov in order to provide a more comfortable and compact folding seat.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hambleton, as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Webb in US Patent 2992503. Hambleton is silent on the appearance of the outer surface of the blind. Webb teaches a portable blind that is adapted and configured to roughly have the appearance of a trunk of a tree (see Fig. 1). 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 Hambleton by using a blind with the appearance of a tree as taught by Web in order to better conceal the user from game.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hambleton as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Robinson in US Patent 4825578. Hambleton is silent on the use of pockets. Robinson teaches a portable blind including a blind (14) and comprising internal storage pockets (23) positioned on the inside of the blind. 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 blind of Hambleton by adding pockets as taught by Robinson in order to allow the user to store items when in the blind.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Csajaghy et al., Kates, Zietz, Small, Wood et al, Johnson, and Radig teach chair-style blinds.
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