DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment dated 12/16/25.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/16/25. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the particulars of the end connector being a female connector and the rod ends being male connectors.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, in line 10, “a pool cover” should be replaced with --the pool cover--.
In claim 6:
“a pool cover’ should be replaced with --the pool cover--.
“a pool” should be replaced with --the pool--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 12, 17 -20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crook (US 3,534,412).
Regarding claim 12, Crook discloses a pool cover retaining device (fig. 1), comprising a first rod (18) comprising a first rod first end and a first rod second end (See annotated figure below)), the first rod having a first rod length, a second rod (18) comprising a second rod first end and a second rod second end (see annotated figure below), an end connector (17) operably coupling the first rod first end and the second rod second end to form a rod assembly, wherein the end connector is a female connector (See fig. 16) and the first rod first end, first rod second end, second rod first end, and second rod second end are male connectors (see fig. 6, ends are inserted into 17, thus are male connectors; the opposed ends of each pipe section 18 are identical to that illustrated in fig. 6 and are also considered to be male connectors), wherein the first rod is configured for use with a pool cover (26) to be fitted over an above- ground and/or semi-above ground pool having a pool shape (see fig. 2, note also that the frame structure of Crook is fully capable of being used with an above or semi-above ground pool) , wherein the rod assembly has an assembly shape, the pool shape being substantially similar or different from the assembly shape (the arch shape formed by two 18s is different than the pool shape which is rectangular), and wherein the pool comprises a pool perimeter length, and wherein the first rod length is less than the pool perimeter length (see fig. 1, the first rod 18 extends to roughly the midpoint of the short side of the pool and is therefore unambiguously shorter in length than the pool perimeter).
Regarding claim 17, Crook discloses that the first and second rod each comprise a flexible material (col. 4, 66-70).
Regarding claim 18, Crook discloses that the rod assembly, i.e., first and second rods, comprise a substantially circular shape. See fig. 6, round cross section.
Regarding claim 19, Crook discloses that the rod assembly comprises a substantially semi-circular shape. See fig. 1, the arch formed by the first and second rods 18 is considered substantially semi-circular.
Regarding claim 20, Crook discloses that the rod assembly comprises an adjustable length (col. 5, ln. 1-7).
Regarding claim 23, Crook shows a lock (23, 24, 25) configured to maintain a position of the first rod and second rod in the end connector (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 24, as shown in fig. 6, Crook shows that the end connector comprises a tube.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crook.
Regarding claim 14, Crook shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, however it does not show that the first rod is semi-circular. However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed shape presents a novel or unexpected result, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (MPEP 2144.05(III)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the rod of Crook to perform equally well as applicant' S. It would have been obvious to have modified the device of Crook to be shaped as claimed since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkholz et al. (US 3,683,427 hereinafter Burkholz ) in view of Jost (FR 2877374).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Burkholz discloses a pool cover retaining system for above ground or semi-above ground pools (fig. 1), the system comprising a pool cover (40), a retaining band (52) which is configured to be fitted around a pool wall (16)(fig. 3), the band integrated into the pool cover (through 51) and is not adjustable movably relative to the pool cover (col. 4, ln. 65, “continuous line”; note that to the extent that “not adjustably movable” refers to the retaining band not being cinchable or adjustable in size, so too is the continuous band of Burkholz); and a first rod (29) with a first rod length configured for use the pool cover to be fitted over the pool, the pool comprising a length and the first rod length is less than the pool perimeter length (see fig. 2, 29 is unambiguously shorter in length than the total circumference of the pool structure 16).
Burkholz does not show that the retaining band is self-contracting. Attention is turned to Jost which teaches a similar pool cover having a self-contracting retaining band (4) to fit a cover (12) around the perimeter of a pool, the band being an elastic material (see machine translation, p. 3, 5th full paragraph from the bottom)(as per claim 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the band of Burkholz in an elastic material such as that taught by Jost in order to provide additional tension to the cover when it is attached over the pool.
Regarding claim 4, Burkholz shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows a second rod (28) comprising a second rod first end and a second rod second end, and wherein the first rod comprises a first rod first end and a first rod second end, and wherein the first rod first end is connectable to the second rod second end to form a rod assembly (22). See annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
377
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Burkholz also shows an end connector (35) disposed between the first rod first end and second rod second end (col. 3, ln. 36-40).
Regarding claim 6, Burkholz shows that the rod assembly can be used with a pool cover (40) disposed on a pool; and the pool having a shape (vertical support 13 is a generally rectilinear shape), wherein the rod assembly has a rod assembly shape (27 of rod assembly 22 is substantially upright and generally rectilinear) and is substantially the same shape as the pool shape.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Burkholz discloses a pool cover retaining device (fig. 1) comprising a poo cover (40) and a retaining band (52) which is configured to be fitted around a wall (16)(fig. 3) of an above or semi-above ground pool, the band integrated into the pool cover (through 51) and is not adjustable movably relative to the pool cover (col. 4, ln. 65, “continuous line”; note that to the extent that “not adjustably movable” refers to the retaining band not being cinchable or adjustable in size, so too is the continuous band of Burkholz).
Burkholz does not show that the retaining band is self-contracting. Attention is turned to Jost which teaches a similar pool cover having a self-contracting retaining band (4) to fit a cover (12) around the perimeter of a pool, the band being an elastic material (see machine translation, p. 3, 5th full paragraph from the bottom)(as per claim 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided the band of Burkholz in an elastic material such as that taught by Jost in order to provide additional tension to the cover when it is attached over the pool.
Regarding claim 11, Burkholz as modified shows that the pool cover comprises a tarp (plastic sheet 40) and a net (61).
PNG
media_image3.png
421
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkholz and Jost, as applied to claims 1 and 7, in view of Degarie (CA 2320023).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Burkholz as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show that the band is sewn into the cover. Attention is turned to Degarie which teaches that it is known to sew a cable into a fabric channel (p. 16, ln. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have created a channel by sewing in order to incorporate the band of Burkholz into the cover in order to ensure that the band and cover are less likely to be separated or disconnected inadvertently.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkholz and Jost, as applied to claim 1, in view of Keyes (US 5,095,557).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Burkholz as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the band has a length and the pool has a perimeter length, but does not show that the band length is less than that of the perimeter. Attention is turned to Keyes which teaches a similar retaining band (22) fitted around a pool cover and pool having a perimeter, where the band length is less than the perimeter length. See fig. 2, the band has a length which puts it in close conformance with the sidewall 18, the pool has a perimeter defined by the rim, the rim has a greater diameter than a diameter of the wall and thus has a greater perimeter length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have provided the band with a length which is less than pool perimeter in order to provide good tension against the hooks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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
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 ERIN L DEERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur, 7:30am - 4:30pm; Fri 8:00am-12:00pm.
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 Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/ERIN DEERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754