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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/3/2025 has been entered.
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 14 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the top wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 2005/0167343 A1).
Claim 1: Yang teaches temporary structure comprising: a junction assembly comprising: a hub (comprised of 10 and 20), a plurality of hinges (21, located on 20), each of the plurality of hinges disposed on the hub (as seen in FIG. 2); and a plurality of brackets (40), each of the brackets attached to a corresponding hinge from the plurality of hinges (as seen in FIG. 1a), each of the plurality of brackets comprising two or more tines positioned on a distal end of said bracket (as seen in FIG. 2), a gap formed between the two or more tines (in which 50/511 is received); and one or more soft panels (seen outlined in the figures there is at least one panel that comprises the tent cover, as seen specifically in FIG. 6, the panel is soft since it is foldable).
Claim 15: Yang teaches a plurality of posts (50), each of the plurality of posts having a post top end (near 10, 20, 40) and a post bottom end (distal end of member 54).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rain (US 4,029,177).
Rain discloses a temporary structure comprising: a junction assembly comprising: a hub (28), a plurality of hinges (portion of 27 secured to 28), each of the plurality of hinges disposed on the hub (FIG. 5); and a plurality of brackets (portion of 27 secured to 26), wherein each of the plurality of brackets are swivably attached to a corresponding hinge from the plurality of hinges (as evidenced by the change of the angle between the posts 26 and the hub 28 seen in FIG. 11); a plurality of posts (26), each of the plurality of posts having a post top end (near 27) and a post bottom end (near 30), wherein each of the plurality of posts are rigid (col. 2, line 65); a plurality of feet (30,38), wherein each of the plurality of feet are configured to removably secure to one of the plurality of posts (col. 3, lines 32-34, “each rigid column 26 is received in a tubular member 38”), wherein each of the plurality of feet are sized to accept the post bottom end (as seen in the figures and discussed in col. 3, lines 32-34) and each of the plurality of brackets are sized to accept the post top end (each of the brackets are secured to the top end of a post and thus are sized to “accept” the post top end); and a plurality of panels (32p) configured to configured to secure to one or more of the plurality of posts (via 34, 40, 41 and 38).
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2005/0167343 A1) alone.
While Yang does not explicitly state the exact dimensions of the brackets, more specifically the gap between the tines, it would have been obvious to change the size of the bracket to accept dimensional lumber since it has generally been recognized that changes in size involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137. It is noted that dimensional lumber can be as small as 1”x1” or 1”x2”, and having the tines be spaced apart by an inch or two seems reasonable given the size of most standard portable tents.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2005/0167343 A1) in view of Thomason et al. (US 3,244,186).
Yang is silent on the construction of the cover/panel(s); however, does teach the panel(s) transversing all of the posts (50, as seen in the figures). Thomason et al. teaches a temporary structure comprising: a junction assembly (11-13); and a soft panel (1), the soft panel transversing two adjacent posts of a plurality of posts (as seen in FIG. 1), the soft panel is reversibly attachable to the temporary structure (col. 1, lines 10-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang to include a panel that is reversible, such as that taught by Thomason et al., so that the interior of the structure could be keep warm or cool depending on the desires of the user.
Additionally, it is noted that it would have been obvious to make the cover be comprised of two or more soft panels since making objects separable requires only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348. If there were multiple panels each one would have to separately be attachable to the framework.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomason et al. (US 3,244,186) in view if Eriksson (US 2,044,351).
Claim 23: Thomason et al. teaches a temporary structure comprising: a junction assembly (11-13); and a soft panel (1), the soft panel transversing two adjacent posts of a plurality of posts (as seen in FIG. 1), the soft panel is reversibly attachable to the temporary structure (col. 1, lines 10-14).
Thomason et al. describes a junction assembly but the junction assembly lacks a hob, hinges and brackets. Eriksson teaches a temporary structure comprising: a junction assembly (11-13) comprising: a hub (9,10), a plurality of hinges (13), each of the plurality of hinges disposed on the hub (as seen in FIGS. 3 and 4); and a plurality of brackets (7), each of the brackets attached to a corresponding hinge from the plurality of hinges (as seen in the figures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomason et al to include a junction assembling including a hub, hinges and brackets, such as taught by Eriksson, so the frame could be folded and kept together when transported stored, thus saving setup time and streamlining the setup process making it easier for a single user to erect the structure themselves.
While Thomason et al. seemingly only teaches one soft panel, it would have been obvious to make the cover be comprised of two or more soft panels since making objects separable requires only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348. Additionally, if there were multiple panels each one would have to separately be attachable to the framework.
Claim 24: Eriksson teaches the brackets to be sized to accept a plurality of posts (2). While Eriksson does not explicitly state the exact dimensions of the brackets, more specifically the gap between the tines, it would have been obvious to change the size of the bracket to accept dimensional lumber since it has generally been recognized that changes in size involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137. It is noted that dimensional lumber can be as small as 1”x1” or 1”x2”, and having the tines be spaced apart by an inch or two seems reasonable given the size of most standard portable tents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 9-12, 16-18 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and new claim 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2268. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11AM-7PM EST.
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.
/DNJ/Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636