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 Amendment
The amendment filed 7/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 85, 87, and 94 have been amended. Claims 85-98 remain pending in the application. Examiner appreciates the thorough explanation of the invention and amendments provided in the applicant’s response. Unfortunately, the claims remain obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 85, applicant asserts, “Neither Watts nor McWhorter teaches or suggests this claimed configuration. Watts contains no canopy assembly whatsoever. McWhorter discloses only an elevated umbrella configured to provide shade to a user and does not disclose lowering the canopy into a protective position relative to a furniture support assembly, much less a position in which an edge of the canopy extends below the perimeter of the furniture support assembly as now explicitly required by claim 85.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For clarification, McWhorter’s apparatus is configured such that the device may slide lower element 114 into 110 and invert (rotate the shade towards the ground) element 118 via joints 130 and 136. This would allow a lower edge of the canopy assembly to be below an upper perimeter of the top of the furniture assembly. Again, the reasoning to do so may include providing shade from the sun on one particular side of an individual located in the furniture assembly. This is a well-known feature in the art. See Figure 3 of Delvilla (US Patent No. 8864221) for extrinsic supporting evidence.
Applicant further asserts, “Furthermore, the Examiner's articulated rationale for combining the references is "to provide shade to an individual using the furniture assembly." (Office Action, p. 4). Such rationale addresses only user shading and does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Watts to arrive at Applicant's claimed weather-protection enclosure system, particularly one in which the canopy is movable to a lowered position extending below the perimeter of the furniture support assembly. Neither reference recognizes Applicant's objective of protecting a furniture assembly within a receiving body through downward movement of a canopy assembly into an enclosing position.
Examiner asserts applicant’s amended claim language did not claim a weather-protection enclosure system comprising a canopy movable to a lowered position extending below the perimeter of the furniture support assembly. Nor did applicant claim a furniture assembly within a receiving body through downward movement of a canopy assembly into an enclosing position.
Applicant merely claimed an edge of a canopy below a perimeter of the furniture assembly, of which McWhorter is configurable as explained above. As claimed, the umbrella canopy only needs an edge of the canopy to be below a perimeter of the top portion of the seating assembly to satisfy the claimed limitation.
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) 85-90, and 93-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts (US 20090224496 A1) in view of McWhorter et al. (US 20060272688 A1).
Regarding claim 85, Watts teaches a furniture assembly system comprising: a furniture support assembly configured to receive a furniture assembly (Figures 1-8), the furniture support assembly comprising a receiving body (element 4) with a cavity (element 5) configured to receive the furniture assembly (Figures 2-8).Watts fails to specifically teach a protection assembly selectively disposed over the cavity of the receiving body, a canopy assembly of the protection assembly being movable towards and away from the furniture support assembly, wherein at a position closest to the furniture support assembly, the protection assembly maintains a canopy assembly dimension transverse to a direction of travel of the canopy assembly toward the furniture support assembly that is greater than a dimension of the furniture support assembly transverse to the direction of travel, wherein in the lowered position an edge of the canopy assembly is disposed below a perimeter of the furniture support assembly. However, use of protection assemblies comprising canopy assemblies capable of rotational, sliding, and pivoting adjustments and movements in three dimensional planes is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 1-4, ¶ [0018-0024], and the abstract of McWhorter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate McWhorter’s protection assembly comprising the maneuverable canopy assembly onto Watts’ furniture assembly system, in order to provide movable and articulating shade and rain protection to an individual using the furniture assembly (as taught by the Abstract of McWhorter). For further clarification, McWhorter’s apparatus is configured such that the device may slide lower element 114 into 110 and invert element 118 via joints 130 and 136. This would allow a lower edge of the canopy assembly to be below an upper perimeter of the top of the furniture assembly. Again, the reasoning to do so may include providing shade from the sun on one particular side of an individual located in the furniture assembly. This is a well known feature in the art. See Figure 3 of Delvilla (US Patent No. 8864221) for extrinsic supporting evidence.Regarding claim 86, Watts in view of McWhorter teaches the invention of claim 85, further comprising an elongate support structure to which the canopy assembly mounts (Figures 1-4 of McWhorter), the elongate support structure being collapsible (Figures 1-4 of McWhorter).
Regarding claim 87, Watts in view of McWhorter teaches the invention of claim 86, wherein the elongate support structure comprises a first support extending from a base of the furniture support assembly and a second support extending from the first support, the first support and the second support slidably cooperate (Figures 1-4, ¶ [0018-0024], and the abstract of McWhorter).
Regarding claim 88, Watts in view of McWhorter teaches the invention of claim 87, wherein the first support and the second support are in telescoping engagement (¶ [0017] of McWhorter).
Regarding claim 89, Watts in view of McWhorter teaches the invention of claim 88, further comprising a locking mechanism that selectively positions the canopy assembly in relation to the furniture support assembly (elements 132, 138, 116, 142, and 144 of McWhorter all satisfy this limitation).
Regarding claim 90, Watts in view of McWhorter teaches the invention of claim 89, wherein the locking mechanism is a friction lock (elements 132, 138, 116, 142, and 144 of McWhorter all satisfy this limitation inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 93, Watts in view of McWhorter teaches the invention of claim 85, further comprising a base (element 2 of Watts) configured to support the receiving body (abstract and ¶ [0041] of Watts).
Regarding claim 94, Watts in view of McWhorter teaches the invention of claim 93, but fails to specifically teach wherein the receiving body further comprises a plurality of holes for water or other liquid to flow from within the receiving body. However, Watts teaches the receiving body comprising a drainage hole (Figure 2, element 27 as explained in ¶ [0051, 0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to duplicate the draining holes in Watts, in order to provide an increase in drainage capability, since it has been held that mere duplication of working parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 95, Watts in view of McWhorter teaches the invention of claim 85, wherein the receiving body comprise at least one point of contact with the furniture assembly (Figures 1-8 of Watts).
Regarding claim 96, Watts in view of McWhorter teaches the invention of claim 95, wherein the least one point of contact comprises one of a perimeter of the receiving body or the bottom of the receiving cavity (Figures 1-8 of Watts).
Regarding claim 97, Watts in view of McWhorter teaches the invention of claim 85, further comprise a locking member extending from the canopy assembly of the protection assembly (elements 132, 138, 116, 142, and 144 of McWhorter all satisfy this limitation).
Regarding claim 98, Watts in view of McWhorter teaches the invention of claim 95, wherein the locking member extends from the canopy assembly to a base configured to support the receiving body (locking member 144 of McWhorter is demonstrated as extending and connecting the canopy assembly to a seat base, and would do so when incorporated with Watts as cited in claim 85).
Claim(s) 91-92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts (US 20090224496 A1) in view of McWhorter et al. (US 20060272688 A1), in further view of Booth (US Patent No. 6666221).
Regarding claim 91, Watts in view of McWhorter teaches the invention of claim 85, but fails to specifically teach the system further comprising a cranks assembly configured to engage with a slide movable hub. However, McWhorter does teach the system comprising a telescoping arrangement (¶ [0017]) with slidable portions. More, use of crank mechanisms to raise and lower telescopic arrangements on seat-based canopies are well known in the art are well known in the art as is evidenced by Figure 7 and Col. 3, line 35- Col. 4 , line 4 of Booth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate Booth’s crank mechanism onto the combination of Watts and McWhorter, in order to provide a mechanical support and advantage to an individual wishing to raise and lower the telescoping canopy arrangement.
Regarding claim 92, Watts in view of McWhorter and Booth teaches the invention of claim 91, further comprising at least one rib connecting a canopy of the canopy assembly to the movable hub (Figure 1 of McWhorter depicts an unlabeled rib system connecting the canopy to a plurality of movable hubs.)
Conclusion
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 JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0500-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only..
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights