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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the arrangement recited in Claim 6 wherein the “circular or elliptical tarpaulin shape” has multiple extension portions symmetrically arranged and the “fastening assemblies” recited in Claims 8, 9, 12, and 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 4 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 4 recites the “peripheral wall” of the extension portion which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winant in US Patent 4367761 in view of Cooper in US Patent 8650725.
Regarding Claims 1, 7-9, 11, and 12, Winant teaches (see Fig. 1) a low wind-resistance canopy tent, comprising: a tarpaulin (4); a plurality of traction assemblies (21); and a plurality of support rod assemblies (15/16/17), wherein a plurality of extension portions (27) are connected to edges of the tarpaulin, each extension portion has contact areas (at 34), with the traction assemblies being linked to the extension portions (see Fig. 1); when the low wind-resistance canopy tent is stretched, the top ends of the support poles abut against the contact areas, and the tarpaulin edges lack a downwardly bent skirt..
Winant teaches the use of multiple fastening assemblies (at each corner 22/242/5), but is silent on the use of a contact head at the top of the support rods or details of the fastening assemblies. Cooper teaches a support rod (30) with a contact head (100) positioned atop support rod, wherein each contact head comprises a flat contact portion (see the flat portion at the top of 110 in Fig. 1A) for engaging with the extension portions, multiple fastening assemblies (10’) contacting the extension portions, facilitating secure connection between the extension portions and multiple contact heads, wherein each fastening assembly comprises a binding rope (300) to secure a portion of an extension portion to the contact head, with the contact head featuring a slot (130) for binding rope limitation, wherein the binding rope is separately installed from each extension portion, each contact head, being rigid, comprises a first snap structure (132), each fastening assembly comprises a clamping plate (200) with a second snap structure (230), and a portion of the extension portion is clamped between the clamping plate and the contact head. 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 Winant by adding contact head as taught by Cooper in order to more securely attach the tarpaulin to the poles.
Regarding Claim 2, Winant, as modified, teaches that the extension portions are affixed to the tarpaulin via stitches (62), but is silent on the material used therefor. 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 tarpaulin and extension portions of Winant, as modified, by using the same material (such as the fabric used for the tarpaulin) for both in order to provide a unitary style of material for the device as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416..
Regarding Claim 3, Winant, as modified, teaches that each extension portion is cylindrical (at least at 60), and the traction assemblies feature traction ropes passing through hollow regions of the extension portions to pull them.
Regarding Claim 4, Winant, as modified, teaches that each extension portion's peripheral wall (the extension portion 27) comprises at least one layer of cloth (such as the fabric that is the same as that of the tarpaulin).
Regarding Claim 5, Winant, as modified, teaches that in a polygonal tarpaulin shape (such as the triangular shape in Fig. 1), each corner portion (22/24/25) connects to at least one of extension portions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winant, aa modified, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warner in US Patent 6904924. Winant, as modified, is silent on the use of a circular tarpaulin. Warner teaches a canopy (10/32) with a circular shape (see Fig. 5) and multiple extension portions (at each pole 12) that are symmetrically arranged. 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 Winant, as modified, by using a circular tarpaulin as taught by Warner and using symmetrically arranged extension portions as taught by Warner in order to provide a more suitable canopy shape to meet the needs of the individual user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwartz, Lawson, Moss, Kramer, Bjorksten et al., Haas, Flanagan Jr., Vechesloff, Sutliff II, Karakash, Doyle, and Gillis teach canopies and connecting portions therefor.
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