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 18 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “Claim 1 requires more than a sleeve and more than mesh material. Claim 1 requires a substantially cylindrical mesh netting attached to the interior of the container, engulfing a tarpaulin, and having an interior cavity and a mesh opening extending into that interior cavity. The rejection does not identify that claimed structure in the prior art. Gerkan is relied upon for an anaconda sleeve, but the Examiner acknowledges that Gerken "does not explicitly disclose that the anaconda sleeve is a mesh netting." Frazer is relied upon for mesh netting, but Frazer does not disclose a substantially cylindrical sleeve attached to a container interior and configured to peel away from a tarpaulin. Frazer instead discloses mesh netting as part of a hammock enclosure, including front and back sides and vertically situated sides of the enclosure. The Examiner states that both Gerken's anaconda sleeve and Applicant's disclosed mesh are tubular sleeve elements and therefore both are considered substantially cylindrical. That does not cure the defect. The issue is not whether Gerken's sleeve can be characterized as cylindrical. The issue is that Gerken's cylindrical structure is not mesh netting, while Frazer's mesh netting is not the claimed substantially cylindrical retractable sleeve. The rejection has not identified a teaching or reasoned basis that would lead a person of ordinary skill to convert Frazer's stationary enclosure mesh into Gerken's sliding anaconda sleeve while preserving the claimed container mounted, peel away structure.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that “The rejection therefore depends on extracting the sleeve shape and deployment function from Gerken, extracting mesh material from Frazer, and then using Applicant's claim as a roadmap to assemble a new structure. That is not a teaching or suggestion of the claimed substantially cylindrical mesh netting. The claimed limitation is an integrated structural feature, not a generic material choice”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues “The stated motivation for combining Gerken and Frazer is that Frazer's mesh netting prevents insects, water, and the like from entering an enclosure. That rationale does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would modify Gerken's anaconda sleeve into the claimed substantially cylindrical mesh netting. Gerken's sleeve is not a stationary enclosure wall. It is part of a deployment and storage mechanism. The sleeve surrounds the hammock during storage and then slides along the hammock during deployment as it is peeled away. The Final Office Action relies on Gerken's video at minutes 6:30 to 6:47 for that peel away operation. Frazer's mesh, by contrast, forms portions of a hammock enclosure and is not disclosed as a sliding sleeve, not disclosed as being pulled along the hammock, and not disclosed as retracting into a container. The rejection therefore does not establish a reasonable expectation that Frazer's stationary enclosure mesh would perform Gerken's dynamic sleeve function. A general desire to keep insects or water out of an outdoor enclosure does not supply the missing rationale for converting Gerken's sliding deployment sleeve into a substantially cylindrical mesh sleeve attached to a container interior. The proposed modification changes the role of the component, not merely its material. The Examiner characterizes the modification as a selection of material. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The claimed limitation is not simply "mesh." It is a substantially cylindrical mesh netting attached to the container interior, engulfing the tarpaulin, and configured so that the tarpaulin is peelable from the mesh netting. The Office Action has not explained why Frazer's stationary mesh enclosure walls would have been selected for that moving sleeve application with a reasonable expectation of success.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
More specifically, the Applicant is concerned with the fact that the anaconda sleeve of Gerken is part of a deployment and storage mechanism and that Frazer’s mesh prevents insects, water, and the like from entering an enclosure. That rationale does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would modify Gerken's anaconda sleeve into the claimed substantially cylindrical mesh netting. While Gerken’s sleeve is part of a deployment and storage mechanism Gerken’s sleeve can also be utilized to maintain the hammock in a hanging and stored position while not in use. In a stored/unused position the sleeve of Gerken similarly acts as a protective encasement by enclosing the hammock. Therefore, Gerken’s sleeve and Frazer’s encasement are considered analogous.
The Applicant argues that “Frazer's mesh netting is used as part of an enclosure around a hammock. It is described in relation to sides of the enclosure, including the front side, back side, and vertically situated sides. That disclosure is materially different from a sleeve that surrounds a tarpaulin and is peeled away along the tarpaulin during deployment. Gerken's anaconda sleeve and Frazer's mesh enclosure operate in different mechanical contexts. Gerken's sleeve is a movable covering used during packing and deployment. Frazer's mesh is an enclosure barrier. The Final Office Action does not bridge that gap with evidence or technical reasoning. It simply assumes that because Frazer uses mesh in a hammock environment, the mesh would be suitable for Gerken's sleeve. That assumption is hindsight driven. The relevant question is not whether both references relate generally to hammocks or outdoor equipment. The relevant question is whether the prior art would have led a person of ordinary skill to the claimed substantially cylindrical mesh netting attached to the container interior and used in a peel away relationship with the tarpaulin. The cited references do not provide that teaching. The Examiner's analysis of claim 1 rests on an Examiner Note asserting that a hammock should be treated as equivalent to the claimed tarpaulin. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 specifically recites "a tarpaulin." A tarpaulin is a large flat sheet of flexible, waterproof material used as a cover or shelter. A hammock is a slung sleeping or resting device designed to bear a person's weight. The two serve fundamentally different purposes and have different physical characteristics. While Applicant's specification discusses both hammocks and tarpaulins in certain contexts, the claims stand on their own terms and the Examiner may not rewrite the claim language to encompass a hammock without a proper claim construction analysis. The Examiner's reliance on Gerken, which is directed entirely to a hammock assembly, to teach the "tarpaulin" element of claim 1 is therefore improper. For at least these reasons, the Gerken and Frazer combination does not teach or suggest all limitations of claim 1 and does not provide an articulated rationale for the proposed.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Frazer's mesh netting is used as part of an enclosure around a hammock. It is described in relation to sides of the enclosure, including the front side, back side, and vertically situated sides. That disclosure is materially different from a sleeve that surrounds a tarpaulin and is peeled away along the tarpaulin during deployment. Gerken's anaconda sleeve and Frazer's mesh enclosure operate in different mechanical contexts. Gerken's sleeve is a movable covering used during packing and deployment. Frazer's mesh is an enclosure barrier. The Final Office Action does not bridge that gap with evidence or technical reasoning. It simply assumes that because Frazer uses mesh in a hammock environment, the mesh would be suitable for Gerken's sleeve. That assumption is hindsight driven. The relevant question is not whether both references relate generally to hammocks or outdoor equipment. The relevant question is whether the prior art would have led a person of ordinary skill to the claimed substantially cylindrical mesh netting attached to the container interior and used in a peel away relationship with the tarpaulin. The cited references do not provide that teaching,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gerken teaches all of the structure of the claimed limitation including the substantially cylindrical sleeve attached to the interior and engulfing a tarpaulin, the tarpaulin peelable from the sleeve. While Gerken’s sleeve is a movable covering used during packing and deployment, Gerken clearly teaches a state where the mesh is surrounding the hammock/tarpaulin when the hammock/tarpaulin is hanging. Although the Applicant’s desired use of the mesh is for storing, there is a clear and useful benefit to including a mesh for preventing insects or water from entering the hammock/tarpaulin in the state shown in Gerken at minute 6:27 of the video.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “The Examiner's analysis of claim 1 rests on an Examiner Note asserting that a hammock should be treated as equivalent to the claimed tarpaulin. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 specifically recites "a tarpaulin." A tarpaulin is a large flat sheet of flexible, waterproof material used as a cover or shelter. A hammock is a slung sleeping or resting device designed to bear a person's weight. The two serve fundamentally different purposes and have different physical characteristics. While Applicant's specification discusses both hammocks and tarpaulins in certain contexts, the claims stand on their own terms and the Examiner may not rewrite the claim language to encompass a hammock without a proper claim construction analysis.” The Examiner maintains the analysis and interpretation of the claims in view of the specification. The Applicant’s specification uses tarpaulin and hammock interchangeably throughout the disclosure. The specification dated 27 March 2024 first discusses only the tarpaulin but in paragraph [0042] includes the following teachings “A hammock or tarpaulin 80 is positioned through the mesh opening 66 and into the interior cavity 64. The hammock 80 is additionally coupled to a far end of the mesh netting 62, opposite the mesh opening 66. The mesh netting pull string 68 is then tightened, secure the mesh netting 62 to the hammock 80 and covering the length of the hammock or tarpaulin 80.” Paragraph [0045] of the specification then refers to reference number 80 as only a hammock three times but then once again calls reference number 80 a hammock or tarpaulin. Based on the Applicants disclosure the Examiner maintains the interpretation of a tarpaulin and hammock being equivalents in the current application. In fact, the drawings only appear to show a hammock with an attached cover that looks identical in structure to that of Gerken’s invention hammock and never shows or describes a tarpaulin as described by the Applicant in the arguments above as being a large flat sheet of flexible, waterproof material. There are no other figures showing what the Applicant is now describing as a tarpaulin.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Examiner clearly provides the motivation to select a mesh material as taught by Frazer for the construction of the anaconda sleeve of Gerken for the purpose of preventing insects, water, and the like from entering the enclosure (see page 9 of the Final rejection dated 17 November 2025). Although the Examiner disagrees with all of the Applicant’s arguments regarding the teachings of Frazer, since the time was allotted for a new Non-Final, the Examiner has provided the teachings of Hammock Gear NPL to teach the mesh material of a sleeve and the cinching cord.
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) 1-9 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerken (NPL dated 20 January 2023 – hereinafter Gerken) in view of Hammock Gear (NPL dated 31 October 2019 – hereinafter Hammock Gear).
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.”
Alternatively, the Examiner cites the teachings of Gerken which shows the use of a similar sleeve device used with a tarpaulin shown as the upper most hanging element installed by Gerken in the video. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use the same external bag device for the tarpaulin as for the hammock since the hammock and tarpaulin fold up in the same way and the advantages of the bag of the hammock would reasonably be applicable to that of the tarpaulin.
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, tarpaulin sleeves (see the description of the video of Hammock Gear), Hammock Gear teaches a mesh netting (title of the video of Hammock Gear - “Mesh tarp Sleeve”) enclosure encapsulating a tarpaulin (as shown between 0:04-0:09 of Hammock Gear).
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 Hammock Gear teaches that the mesh netting is “super strong mesh allows damp gear to dry out” (time stamp 0:39 of Hammock Gear).
Regarding Claim 2: Gerken in view of Hammock Gear 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 Hammock Gear 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 Hammock Gear 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 Hammock Gear 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 Hammock Gear 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 Hammock Gear 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 Hammock Gear 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.
Regarding Claim 9: Gerken in view of Hammock Gear 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, Gerken does not discuss or explicitly teach wherein the container pull string intertwines with the opening. However, Hammock Gear teaches a pull string intertwines with the opening (minutes 0:33-0:37 of Hammock Gear showing the cinch cord within a channel surrounding the opening).
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 Hammock Gear (mesh material) by utilizing a container pull string which intertwines with the opening of the container as further taught by Hammock Gear 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 Hammock Gear teaches a cinch cord intertwined with an opening of a container for use opening and closing the container (minutes 6:15-618 of Hammock Gear -“Cinch cord keeps lines neat and clear”).
Regarding Claim 13: Gerken in view of Hammock Gear 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 Hammock Gear make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 13. Gerken does not explicitly disclose wherein the mesh netting pull string intertwines with the mesh opening.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 13, Gerken teaches a container pull string as labeled in Fig. 3 above. However, Gerken does not discuss or explicitly teach wherein the mesh netting pull string intertwines with the opening. However, Hammock Gear teaches wherein the mesh netting pull string intertwines with the opening (minutes 0:33-0:37 of Hammock Gear showing the cinch cord within a channel surrounding the opening).
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 Hammock Gear (mesh material) by utilizing a mesh netting pull string which intertwines with the opening as further taught by Hammock Gear 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 sleeve at minutes 6:15-618 and Hammock Gear teaches a cinch cord intertwined with an opening of a mesh sleeve for use opening and closing the sleeve (minutes 6:15-618 of Hammock Gear -“Cinch cord keeps lines neat and clear”).
Regarding Claim 15: Gerken in view of Hammock Gear 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 Hammock Gear 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 Hammock Gear 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 Hammock Gear 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 Hammock Gear) 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 Hammock Gear make obvious the tarpaulin shroud of claim 18, wherein the mesh netting (anaconda skin of Gerken as modified with the material of Hammock Gear) 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 Patent No. 9,314,090 to Manning et al. is cited for teaching a hammock tent with sleeved enclosure.
US Patent No. 9,072,367 to Kramer is cited for teaching a hammock with attached sack.
US Patent No. 10,925,381 to Lystrup et al. is cited for teaching a hammock with a shell system.
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.
/AMANDA L BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights