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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Turning now to the substantive rejections, claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gerken (NPL dated January 20, 2023) (hereinafter referred to as "Gerken") in view of US Publication No. 2016/0213130 issued to Frazer (hereinafter referred to as "Frazer"). This reason for rejection is respectfully traversed. Applicant does not admit or agree that "Gerken" is prior art, however, for the sake of moving the prosecution of this application forward, claim 1 will be distinguished from Gerken. The Office Action admits that "Gerken does not explicitly disclose that the anaconda sleeve is a mesh netting." (Office Action at p. 7), and looks to Frazer to cure this defect. However, Frazer is directed to an enclosure with vertical walls around a hammock. As explained in the reference "At least the front side and the back side of the hammock enclosure 100 comprises a mesh netting 175 ... . Preferably all vertically situated sides of the hammock enclosure 100 employs this mesh netting, and in some embodiments the top and bottom also comprise a mesh netting 175." Frazer, paragraph [0042]. The Office Action suggests that the rationale for combining these references is that Frazer teaches that mesh netting prevents insects from getting into the enclosure (Office Action at p. 7) but Applicant respectfully submits that this basic knowledge of the function of insect netting would not result in the extensive modifications required to the disclosure of Gerken to arrive at the claimed invention.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. On page 7 of the Non-Final rejection dated 30 July 2025, the Examiner provided a clear motivation statement for combining Gerken and Frazer by utilizing a mesh material to form the anaconda sleeve of Gerken. The Applicant argues “but Applicant respectfully submits that this basic knowledge of the function of insect netting would not result in the extensive modifications required to the disclosure of Gerken to arrive at the claimed invention” but does not provide further discussion regarding what is considered extensive modifications and why one having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to make such a combination. The Examiner disagrees that such a modification of a mere selection of material for a taught element (i.e. the anaconda sleeve of Gerken) would have been considered extensive modification. Additionally, “preventing insects, water and the like from entering [an] enclosure” as taught as an advantage of mesh netting by Frazer would be desired when forming an enclosure used outdoors as with the invention of Gerken. The Examiner disagrees that the combination of Gerken and Frazer would be non-obvious and is lacking motivation.
Applicant argues “Claim 1, as amended, recites that the mesh is substantially cylindrical, which is supported in the specification as filed at paragraph [0035]. There is no teaching or suggestion in either of the Gerken or Frazer to provide a cylindrical mesh structure as set forth in amended claim 1. In view of this difference between claim 1 (the only independent claim) and the prior art (assuming solely for the sake of argument that he combination of references is appropriate), Applicant respectfully submits that this reason for rejection should be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to the rejection of amended claim 1 below which provides proper evidence for the rejection of the amended claims.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerken (NPL dated 20 January 2023 – hereinafter Gerken) in view of Frazer et al. (US PG Publication No. 2016/0213130 – hereinafter Frazer).
Regarding Claim 1: Gerken discloses a tarpaulin shroud (anaconda system as taught by Gerken) comprising: a first cover (see annotated screenshot of Gerken – labeled Fig. 1 below); a second cover indirectly coupled to the first cover (see annotated screenshots of Gerken – labeled Figs. 1 and 2 below point to the second cover in a first configuration and a second loose configuration respectively); a container fixed to the first cover (see annotated screenshots of Gerken – labeled Figs. 1 and 2 show the container relative to the first cover and minutes 6:15-6:47 of Gerken show the anaconda device being unpacked showing that the container is at least indirectly fixed to the first cover since when pulling the container and sleeve away from the first cover, the container does not separate from the first cover as shown clearly in the screenshot of the video of Gerken in Fig. 5 below), the container having an interior (minutes 6:17-6:47 of the video of Gerken show Gerken removing a packed hammock encased in a sleeve from the interior of the container) a substantially cylindrical [an anaconda sleeve] attached to the interior (see minutes 6:20-6:47 of the video of Gerken which shows Gerken pulling the anaconda sleeve from the container and then pulling the anaconda sleeve off of the hammock; also see the cylindrical shape of the anaconda sleeve in at least the screenshots of Gerken labeled Figs. 2 and 5 below) and engulfing a tarpaulin (the hammock of Gerken – see Fig. 5 below which shows the anaconda sleeve engulfing the hammock), the tarpaulin peelable from the [anaconda sleeve] (see minutes 6:30-6:47 of Gerken which shows the anaconda sleeve being retracted from the hammock), wherein the [anaconda sleeve] further includes an interior cavity (see annotated screenshot of the video of Gerken – labeled Fig. 5 shows the anaconda skin still partially encapsulating and being pulled away from the hammock, making it clear that the anaconda skin includes an interior cavity which ends in the opening annotated in Fig. 5), and a mesh opening that extends into the interior cavity (see annotated screenshot of the video of Gerken labeled Fig. 5 which shows the opening of the anaconda skin).
Examiner Note: The Examiner considers a hammock to be equivalent to a tarpaulin based on the Applicant’s disclosure which uses the terms interchangeably throughout the disclosure and because the claims do not require any features of the tarpaulin which preclude a hammock from being considered equivalent to a tarpaulin. See paragraph [0042] of the specification of the current application dated 27 March 2024 which discloses “a hammock or tarpaulin 80….The hammock 80.”
Examiner Note: In paragraph [0035] of the Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, the Applicant discloses “The mesh netting 62 is a cylindrical member as shown in Figs. 7-10. Figures 7-10 of the Applicants figures show nearly identical views of the mesh compared to the anaconda sleeve of Gerken. For this reason, the Examiner relies on the screenshots of the video of Gerken for evidence that the anaconda sleeve is substantially cylindrical. Additionally, note that a soft flexible fabric such as the mesh of the claimed invention and the anaconda skin of Gerken will not maintain a shape on its own but rather are malleable and influenced by their surroundings. In other words, when the hammock 80 of the current invention is surrounded by the mesh the mesh would likely be more cylindrical in shape then when not filled as shown in Fig. 10 of the current Application. Since both Gerken and the Applicant are teaching tubular sleeve elements with the anaconda sleeve and the mesh respectfully, they are both considered to be substantially cylindrical in view of the Applicant’s use of the term and the properties of flexible mesh materials.
PNG
media_image1.png
765
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1: Screenshot of Gerken displaying the shroud in a closed configuration.
PNG
media_image2.png
868
1233
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2: Screenshot of Gerken displaying the shroud in an open configuration.
PNG
media_image3.png
862
958
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5: Screenshot of Gerken pulling the anaconda skin away from the hammock.
Gerken teaches an anaconda sleeve that engulfs the tarpaulin (hammock) and the tarpaulin (hammock) being peelable from the anaconda sleeve, but Gerken does not explicitly disclose that the anaconda sleeve is a mesh netting.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hammocks and hammock enclosures (see the abstract of Frazer), Frazer teaches a mesh netting enclosure encapsulating a hammock (Fig. 1B and paragraph [0042] of Frazer – “At least the front side and the back side of the hammock enclosure 100 comprises a mesh netting 175 designed to prevent insects, water and the like, from entering the enclosure. Preferably all vertically situated sides of the hammock enclosure 100 employs this mesh netting, and in some embodiments the top and bottom also comprise a mesh netting 175.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gerken by selecting a mesh netting material to form the anaconda skin with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination since Frazer teaches that the mesh netting is “designed to prevent insects, water and the like, from entering the enclosure” (paragraph [0042] of Frazer) and preventing insects or water from getting inside of the anaconda skin of Frazer would be beneficial in protecting the hammock when in a covered configuration (see time stamp 6:34 in the video of Gerken or the screenshot of the video shown in Fig. 5 below).
Regarding Claim 2: Gerken in view of Frazer make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 1, wherein the first cover includes a first wall and a second wall (see annotated screenshot of minute 5:34 of Gerken, labeled Fig. 3) and the second cover includes a first wall and a second wall (see annotated screenshot of minute 5:34 of Gerken, labeled Fig. 3 and note that the second cover first wall is the surface under the user’s right hand in labeled Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
779
1004
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3: Screenshot of Gerken displaying the shroud in a closed configuration, annotated to show the first wall, second wall, and pull handle.
Regarding Claim 3: Gerken in view of Frazer make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 2, wherein the first wall of the first cover includes a pull handle (see Figs. 1 and Fig. 3 showing annotated screenshots of Gerken displaying the pull handle) arranged at a central position of the first wall (as shown in the screenshot of Gerken labeled Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4: Gerken in view of Frazer make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 3, wherein the first cover includes a pair of buckle straps (see annotated screenshot of the video of Gerken labeled Fig. 1 showing an annotated first buckle strap; a second buckle strap is shown in the video of Gerken between minutes 5:38-5:47 when Gerken is shown loosening and unclipping the straps).
Regarding Claim 5: Gerken in view of Frazer make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 4, wherein the first cover and the second cover are coupled together by the pair of buckle straps (see the video of Gerken between minutes 5:38-5:47 when Gerken is shown loosening and unclipping the straps resulting in the second cover suspending from the first cover via straps).
Regarding Claim 6: Gerken in view of Frazer make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 5, wherein the container includes an outer wall (see annotated screenshot of the video of Gerken – labeled Fig. 2 shows an outer wall of the container) and an inner wall (see the annotated screenshot of the video of Gerken labeled Fig. 2 showing an inner wall at the opening; the inner wall has not been labeled in order to more easily see both the opening and inner wall).
Regarding Claim 7: Gerken in view of Frazer make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 6, wherein the outer wall and inner wall formulate an opening (see the annotated screenshot of the video of Gerken labeled Fig. 2 showing the opening).
Regarding Claim 8: Gerken in view of Frazer make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 7, wherein the container further including a container pull string (see annotated screenshot of the video of Gerken labeled Fig. 4; see also minutes 6:15-6:18 which shows Gerken pulling the pull string to release the hammock).
PNG
media_image5.png
745
1101
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4: Screenshot of Gerken pulling the pull string.
Claim(s) 9 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerken (NPL dated 20 January 2023) in view of Frazer et al. (US PG Publication No. 2016/0213130 – hereinafter Frazer) further in view of Pancy et al. (US PG Publication No. 2016/0316897 – hereinafter Pancy).
Regarding Claim 9: Gerken in view of Frazer make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 8.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 8, Gerken teaches a container pull string as labeled in Fig. 3 above. However, neither Gerken nor Frazer discuss or explicitly teach wherein the container pull string intertwines with the opening.
However, in the same field of endeavor, portable and packable hammocks (see the abstract of Pancy), Pancy teaches a container pull string (cinch cord 33 of Pancy – Fig. 1) wherein the container pull string intertwines with the opening (Figs. 1-5 of Pancy all shown the pull string 33 intertwining with the opening of Pancy by its positioning within a channel at the opening of Pancy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gerken (hammock assembly with anaconda skin) as modified by Frazer (mesh material) by utilizing a container pull string which intertwines with the opening of the container as taught by Pancy with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination since Gerken shows a cord opening the container at minutes 6:15-618 and Pancy teaches a cinch cord 33 intertwined with an opening of a container for use opening and closing the container (paragraphs [0026]-[0027] of Pancy teach “The open end 31 of the bag 16 is closed using the cinch cord 33” and “The cinch cord 33 at the right end 31 of the bag 16 is loosened to allow that end to be opened” respectively).
Regarding Claim 13: Gerken in view of Frazer and Pancy make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 1, wherein the mesh netting further includes a mesh netting pull string (see annotated screenshot of the video of Gerken – labeled Fig. 6 shows Gerken loosening the anaconda skin pull string to enable retraction of the anaconda skin from the hammock).
PNG
media_image6.png
789
1046
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6: Screenshot of Gerken pulling the anaconda skin pull string to loosen and retract the anaconda skin from the hammock.
Regarding Claim 14: Gerken in view of Frazer and Pancy make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 13. Gerken does not explicitly disclose and Pancy does not explicitly teach wherein the mesh netting pull string intertwines with the mesh opening.
However, Frazer teaches a mesh netting pull string (see annotated copy of Fig. 1B or Frazer below) wherein the container pull string intertwines with the opening (see the openings receiving the hammock straps as well as the abstract of Frazer which teaches “The lines for the hammocks pass through openings which may be cinched close to again prevent water, insects, and the like from entering the enclosure.”).
PNG
media_image7.png
727
788
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Gerken (hammock assembly with anaconda skin) as modified by Frazer (mesh material), and Pancy (container pull string which intertwines with the opening of the container) further in view of the teachings of Frazer by intertwining the anaconda pull string of Gerken with the anaconda skin opening with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination since Gerken shows a cord releasing the anaconda skin at minute 6:34 and Frazer teaches a cord for cinching intertwined with an opening of a mesh enclosure for use opening and closing the enclosure and preventing insects and water from entering (see Fig. 1B and the abstract of Frazer - “The lines for the hammocks pass through openings which may be cinched close to again prevent water, insects, and the like from entering the enclosure.”).
Regarding Claim 15: Gerken in view of Frazer and Pancy make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 14, wherein an end of each buckle strap of the pair of buckle straps is positioned on opposing sides of the second wall (annotated in the screenshot of Gerken labeled Fig. 3) of the first cover (see annotated screenshot of the video of Gerken labeled Fig. 1 shows a first buckle strap; a second buckle strap is shown in the video between minutes 5:38-5:47 when Gerken is shown loosening and unclipping the straps).
Regarding Claim 16: Gerken in view of Frazer and Pancy make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 15, wherein a second end of each buckle strap of the pair of buckle straps is positioned on opposing sides of the second wall of the second cover (see annotated screenshot of the video of Gerken – labeled Fig. 1 shows a first buckle strap, a second buckle strap shown in the video between minutes 5:38-5:47 when Gerken is shown loosening and unclipping the straps).
Regarding Claim 17: Gerken in view of Frazer and Pancy make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 16, wherein the container is positioned between the first and second cover (as shown in the annotated screenshot of Gerken labeled Fig. 1 in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 18: Gerken in view of Frazer and Pancy make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 17, wherein the tarpaulin is positioned through the mesh opening (anaconda skin opening of Gerken as modified with the material of Frazer) and coupled with the interior cavity (see Fig. 4 above which shows an annotated screenshot of the video of Gerken where the hammock is positioned through the anaconda skin opening and coupled with the interior cavity).
Regarding Claim 19: Gerken in view of Frazer and Pancy make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 18, wherein the mesh netting (anaconda skin of Gerken as modified with the material of Frazer) extends a length of the tarpaulin (see Fig. 5 above which shows an annotated screen shot of Gerken when the anaconda skin is extending the length of the hammock, further made clear between minutes 6:34 and 6:47 of Gerken when he is seen pulling the anaconda skin towards the first cover).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Pub. No. 2020/0121064 to TenBrink is cited for teaching a hammock enclosure sack.
US Patent No. 9,359,786 to Fenton is cited for teaching a hammock enclosure with holes for straps to extend through.
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 AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/A.L.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673