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 .
Election/Restrictions
The election filed 2/17/2026 has been entered. Applicant has elected Species G relating to Figure 19, cancelled all previous claims, and provided newly amended claim set 85-98 relating to the elected species. Claims 85-98 remain pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 87 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change the penultimate word of the claim “slidable” to “slidably”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 94 is 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. The term “is configured to rest upon” in claim 94 fails to adequately define the metes and bounds of the invention and renders the claim indefinite. The term “is configured to rest upon” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, Examiner is omitting this phrase in order to treat claim 94 on the merits as best understood.
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. 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 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 shade to an individual using the furniture assembly (as taught by the Abstract of McWhorter).
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 (Figures 1-4 of McWhorter), the first support and the second support slidable cooperation (Figures 1-4 and 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. 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
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