Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/738,426

INFLATABLE FLOATABLE SUNSHADE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 10, 2024
Examiner
HAWK, NOAH CHANDLER
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
950 granted / 1545 resolved
+9.5% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
1607
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§102
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1545 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 because the lines in Fig. 3 are dim and segmented. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. See 37 CFR 1.84(l). 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. Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification: The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee. Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2). Claim Objections Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogue et al. in US Publication 2023/0295950 in view of Scherba in US Patent 5555679. Regarding Claim 1, Bogue teaches an inflatable floatable sunshade comprising: a pentagon shaped (see Paragraph 0049 – a “pentagonal base”) inflatable frame comprising six independently inflatable regions (such as any six of the inflatable members 12 – each can be sealed and independent from each other – see paragraph 0073 – the connectors can occlude fluid flow between members), each inflatable region having an airport (80). Bogue teaches that the device is a tent (see Paragraph 0008), but is silent on the use of a canopy. Scherba teaches an inflatable frame with a central canopy member (the upper apex of tubes 24) and canopy support portions (24) and a canopy (30) coupled to the frame to provide shade. Scherba further teaches that the canopy is not inflatable and is removably coupled to the frame to cover the central canopy member and the canopy support portions of the vertical tubes. 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 Bogue by adding a canopy as taught by Scherba in order to fulfill the intended purpose of the device as a tent. Regarding Claim 2, Bogue, as modified, teaches that the frame comprises a pentagon shaped base with five vertices (14 at each corner C of the base, see below); five vertical tubes (such as A/B extending upward from each vertices, see below); and five horizontal tubes (the five tubes D midway up the structure, see Fig. 2). PNG media_image1.png 487 571 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 3, Bogue, as modified, teaches that each vertical tube extends vertically from one vertex of the pentagon shaped base (the tubes A are disposed in a vertical plane). Regarding Claim 4, Bogue, as modified, teaches that each vertical tube comprises a bend (at the juncture 14 midway up the structure between A and B) to form a canopy support portion that terminates at an inflatable central canopy member (E). Regarding Claim 5, Bogue, as modified, teaches that each horizontal tube extends between two adjacent vertical tubes adjacent the bends of the vertical tubes, wherein the horizontal tube is substantially parallel to the base. Regarding Claim 6, Bogue, as modified, teaches (see Scherba above) that the canopy is not inflatable and is removably coupled to the frame to cover the central canopy member and the canopy support portions of the vertical tubes. Regarding Claims 7 and 10, the device of Bogue, as modified, can inherently be arranged such that the six independently inflatable zones comprise a first zone that includes the base, and a second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth zones that each include one vertical tube and one horizontal tube. Regarding Claim 8, Bogue teaches an inflatable floatable sunshade comprising: a pentagon shaped (see Paragraph 0049 – a “pentagonal base”) inflatable frame, the frame comprising: pentagon shaped base with five vertices (14 at each corner C of the base); five vertical tubes (such as A/B extending upward from each vertices); and five horizontal tubes (the five tubes D midway up the structure, see Fig. 2), wherein: each vertical tube extends vertically from one vertex of the pentagon shaped base (the tubes A are disposed in a vertical plane); each vertical tube comprises a bend (at the juncture 14 midway up the structure between A and B) to form a canopy support portion (B) that terminates at an inflatable central canopy member (E); and each horizontal tube extends between two adjacent vertical tubes adjacent the bends of the vertical tubes, wherein the horizontal tube is substantially parallel to the base (see Fig. 2). Bogue teaches that the device is a tent (see Paragraph 0008), but is silent on the use of a canopy. Scherba teaches an inflatable frame with a central canopy member (the upper apex of tubes 24) and canopy support portions (24) and a canopy (30) coupled to the frame to provide shade. Scherba further teaches that the canopy is not inflatable and is removably coupled to the frame to cover the central canopy member and the canopy support portions of the vertical tubes. 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 Bogue by adding a canopy as taught by Scherba in order to fulfill the intended purpose of the device as a tent. Regarding Claim 9, the device of Bogue, as modified, can inherently be arranged such that the six independently inflatable zones comprise a first zone that includes the base, and a second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth zones that each include one vertical tube and one horizontal tube. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fischer, Visser, Bosen, McNiff, Wright, Schulze, Ryon, Ozsuer, Harris, Fritts, and Hsu teach inflatable canopies. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 10, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599206
Umbrella Pole Brace Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599207
A Sliding Seat Assembly for an Umbrella
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582571
MOBILITY SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575998
CRUTCH WITH A CONTOURED GRIP AND A FOREARM SUPPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575651
Umbrella
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+22.0%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1545 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month