Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a first office action on the merits for application serail umber 4/01/24. Claims 1-20 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 .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0036] includes a typo “camopy”;
Paragraph [0038] includes typos “perphas” and “teithers”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-8, 10-16 and 20 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.
In claims 4-6, “said first layer” should read “said first canopy layer” for clarity. Elements should be referenced consistently throughout the claims.
In claims 7-8, it is not clear which tether “said tether” refences as a plurality of tethers have been defined.
Each occurrence of “said canopy lawyer” in claim 10 lacks antecedent basis. It appears “lawyer” is a typo for “layer”.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 20, it is not clear what a “breaded material” is? It also appears in paragraph [0038].
Claims 1-3, 9 and 17-19 are allowed.
Claims 4-8, 10-16 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect claim 1, none of the prior art of record teaches or adequately suggests the combination of the canopy trim, air permeable layer, first canopy layer, support rods and tethers.
With respect to claim 10, none of the prior art of record teaches or adequately suggests the combination of the canopy trim, air permeable layer, a canopy section comprising a plurality of overlapping canopy layers, and tethers
With respect to claim 17, none of the prior art of record teaches or adequately suggests the combination of a trim section, a breathable support layer, a plurality of overlapping canopy layers, and tethers.
U.S. 2010/0258151 to Vogt teaches a vented canopy with canopy section 15 attached to the ribs 45 of an umbrella frame. The canopy 15 has cutouts 20 which may be provided with a mesh layer covering the cutouts [0033]. Flaps 25 cover the cutouts and are secured with elastic cords or “tethers” 35. The mesh layer is not disclosed as configured to attach or connect to the umbrella frame at the central support pole as required by each of the independent claims.
In figure 16 of U.S. 2009/0235965 to Kupferman, fasteners 1631-1635 may reasonably be considered tethers but Kupferman fails to provide the support rods of claim 1 or the plurality of overlapping canopy sections of claims 10 and 17.
In U.S. Patent 3,456,661 to Farley mesh layer 35 is not disclosed as configured to attach or connect to the umbrella frame at the central support pole as required by each of the independent claims. Also note, string or thread 37 in Figure 5 which possibly could be considered a tether but it is not disclosed as allowing the vent cover to flip up but rather as for preventing material from falling into the opening.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note in particular:
The load sensitive connectors 109/200 of U.S. Patent 11,766,102 to Garrison et al.
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