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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/3/2025 has been entered.
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 41-43, 45, 49, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101315166 (Kang) in view of Jager in US Patent 5927311 and Stein in US Patent 5080123.
Regarding Claims 41 and 42, Kang teaches a system for providing shade onto a surface, the system comprising: a frame (100/110/320) providing a supporting configuration (see Fig. 1); a canopy (200) extending between a suspension end (toward 210) and an opposing trailing end (toward 240), the suspension end of the canopy extending between a left end and a right end (the left and right edges of the canopy), at least one strap (220) engageable with, or coupled to, the canopy on at least of the left end and the right end of the suspension end of the canopy for securing the canopy into position relative to the frame; at least one frame fastener (3) engageable with, or coupled to, the strap, wherein the at least one strap is coupled or engaged to the canopy on one end (see Fig. 2, inset) and the at least one frame fastener on the other end for engaging the canopy to the frame; and a loop (212) defined on or proximate to the suspension end of the canopy for accepting a portion of the frame therethrough wherein the trailing end of the canopy is spaced apart from the portion of the frame in the supporting configuration such that the canopy is supportable by the frame and at least partially supportable by wind for providing shade to the surface (see Fig. 1).
Kang is silent on the use of a sectional frame. Jager teaches a shading system including a frame (50) defined by a plurality of sections (58/60/62) and comprising an alignment component (71) extending through at least a portion of the plurality of sections, each of the plurality of sections being engageable with at least one adjacent section to define the frame in a supporting configuration (Fig. 1) and thereby disengageable to define the frame in a transport configuration (Fig. 5), wherein the alignment component comprises a cable extending through and affixed to one or more of the plurality of sections of the frame. 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 Kang by using a sectional frame as taught by Jager in order to allow the user to more compactly store and transport the frame when not in use.
Kang as modified, teaches that the trailing end is supported and entirely aerially suspended by wind to provide shade to the surface but is silent on the use of a canopy with parallel sides. Stein teaches a canopy (14) that extends between a suspension end (at 50) and a trailing end (at 43) and is supportable by a frame and at least partially supportable by wind for providing shade to the surface, wherein the canopy defines a pair of parallel sides (20 and 22) extending from the suspension end to the trailing end and providing shade (see shaded area of the ground in Fig. 1) having a shape defined by at least a pair of parallel edges corresponding to the pair of parallel sides of the canopy. 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 canopy of Kang, as modified, by using a canopy with parallel sides as taught by Stein in order to provide more shade to the user. The Kang shade, modified to have the shape of the Stein canopy, would therefore inherently have each intersection between a respective one of the parallel sides and the trailing end supported and entirely aerially suspended by wind to provide shade having a shape defined by at least a pair of parallel edges corresponding to the pair of parallel sides of the canopy
Regarding Claim 43, Kang, as modified, teaches that the at least one strap comprises: a first strap (220 on the left) having the one end and the other end, the one end being engageable with, or coupled to, the canopy on the left end of the suspension end of the canopy, and a second strap (220 on the right) having the one end and the other end, the one end being engageable with, or coupled to, the canopy on the right end of the suspension end of the canopy, and wherein the at least one frame fastener comprises a first frame fastener (3 on the left) coupled or engaged to the other end of the first strap and a second frame fastener (3 on the right) coupled or engaged to the other end of the second strap arranged.
Regarding Claim 45, Kang, as modified, teaches that in the supporting configuration, the canopy is supportable by the frame and the trailing end is totally supported by wind for providing shade to the surface (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 49, Kang, as modified, teaches that the canopy is unitarily constructed and extends between the suspension end of the canopy and the opposing trailing end of the canopy.
Regarding Claim 68, Kang, as modified, teaches that the at least one strap (formed of “fabric paper such as bag string”) and the canopy (formed of “waterproof paint and UV-blocking paint on the windproof fabric”) are formed of different materials.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, as modified, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Sotirkys et al. in US Publication 2010/0212709. Kang, as modified, is silent on the use of a multi-part canopy. Sotirkys teaches a canopy with a suspension end (at 11) and a trailing end (at 12) and wherein the canopy comprises a plurality of coupled sections (10 and 80) extending between the suspension end of the canopy and the opposing trailing end of the canopy. 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 Kang, as modified, by using a multi-part canopy as taught by Sotirkys in order to allow the user to extend the coverage of the shade.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, as modified, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Warth in US Patent 3286962. Kang, as modified, is silent on the use of a corkscrew shape for the ground engaging ends of the frame. Warth teaches a frame with an end (35) having a corkscrew shape for engaging the surface. 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 frame ends of Kang, as modified, by using corkscrew shaped ends as taught by Warth in order to better secure the device in the ground.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, as modified, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Rise in US Patent 5291640. Kang, as modified, is silent on the use of self-engaging straps. Rise teaches a strap (A) that is fastened or engaged with itself after wrapping about a frame (inserted through S). 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 Kang, as modified, by using a self-engaging straps as taught by Rise in order to more easily attach the frame to the canopy.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, as modified, as applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of Swetish in US Patent 5771912. Kang, as modified, is silent on the use of elastic straps. Swetish teaches a shading system with a strap (24) attaching a canopy to a frame, wherein the at least one securing mechanism is elastic. 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 Kang, as modified, by using an elastic strap as taught by Swetish in order to allow the canopy to flex under the force of the wind.
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, as modified, as applied to Claim 41 above, and further in view of Rice in US Patent 5823217. Kang, as modified, is silent on the use of a container. Rice teaches a shading system including a container (50) capable of housing and transporting the components of the system. 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 Kang, as modified, by adding a container as taught by Rice in order to allow the user to easily carry the device when not in use.
Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, as modified, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Shires in US Patent7406977. Kang, as modified, teaches that the at least one strap is formed of “fabric paper” but is silent on the material used for the fastener. Shires teaches a ring-style fastener (32a) formed of “metal or plastic” (see Column 4, line 60). 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 fastener of Kang, as modified, by using a metal or plastic fastener as taught by Shires in order to provide a suitably strong fastener for the use. Such a device, as modified, would have the strap and fastener formed of different materials.
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, as modified, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Wade in US Patent 4404980. Kang, as modified, is silent on the use of a hook-shaped fastener. Wade teaches a frame fastener (72) for attached a canopy to a frame wherein the at least one frame fastener as formed with a hook shape (“hooks 70, 72”). 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 Kang by using a hook-shaped fastener as taught by Wade in order to more easily attached the fastener to the frame member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges that the examiner uses Stein to modify the canopy of Kang as a matter of “aesthetic design choice,” which is incorrect. As explained above, the motivation to modify the device of Kang by using a canopy with parallel sides as taught by Stein is to provide more shade than the canopy taught by Kang. Such a modification is not merely a matter of design choice, but a practical modification to improve the usefulness of the shade by increasing the size of the shadow. There is no suggestion in Kang that a differently-shaped canopy will operate in a manner differently than the one used: a wind force will hold aloft a canopy with parallel sides just as well as it will a canopy with curved sides.
The applicant further suggests that the shadow produced by a canopy with parallel sides will produce a novel shadow: a shadow (or shade having a shape) with parallel edges. It is well-known that the shadow an item produces is dependent on the shape of the item itself. An item, such as a canopy, with parallel sides will provide a shade with a shape having parallel sides. Stein plainly teaches both: a canopy with parallel sides (see Fig. 2), and a shade produced thereunder and thereby having parallel edges (see Fig. 1).
The remainder of the Applicant’s arguments relies on the alleged shortcomings of the rejection of Claim 41 addressed above, presents no further arguments advancing the patentability of the dependent claims and as such, is not deemed persuasive.
Conclusion
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