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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/28/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Please note: the Non Patent Literature referred to has not been considered as it does not appear to be relevant to the claimed subject matter.
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 11 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 11 recites “the upper hub assembly” which renders the claim indefinite. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glatz et al. in US Patent 4586525. Glatz teaches (see Column 4, lines 43-68), through the normal and customary use of the device, a method of operating an umbrella, the method comprising: drawing a free end (the lower end of 108) of a rope (108) such that a lower hub assembly (96) translates upwards along a pole (80) of the umbrella to transition the umbrella from a closed configuration (Fig. 6) to an open configuration (Fig. 7), the rope extending through the pole adjacent a top end of the pole; and releasing the free end of the rope such that the lower hub assembly translates downwards along the pole as the umbrella transitions towards the closed configuration.
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 1-3, 7-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glatz et al. in US Patent 4586525 in view of Small in US Patent 2782795.
Regarding Claim 1, Glatz teaches an umbrella comprising: a pole (80) having a base portion (toward the lower end thereof) and a top end portion (24) opposite the base portion, a lower hub assembly (96) disposed about the pole and translatable along the pole to transition the umbrella between a closed configuration (Fig. 6) and an open configuration (Fig. 7), the lower hub assembly including a first lower pulley (100) and a second lower pulley (102); a first upper pulley (104); a second upper pulley (106); and a rope (108) extending through the first lower pulley, the first upper pulley, the second lower pulley, and the second upper pulley, the rope configured to be drawn to transition the umbrella towards the open configuration and released to transition the umbrella towards the closed configuration.
Glatz is silent on the use of a through passage. Small teaches an umbrella including a pole (20) having a base portion (toward the lower end thereof) and a top end portion (51) opposite the base portion, the top end portion defining a through passage (29) that extends entirely through the top end portion; a first upper pulley (48 on the left) disposed substantially within the through passage of the pole; a second upper pulley (48 on the right) disposed substantially within the through passage of the pole. 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 Glatz by using pulleys mounted within a through passage as taught by Small in order to better protect the pulleys.
Regarding Claim 2, Glatz, as modified, teaches a rope mount end (109) secured to the pole, the rope mount end securing a first end of the rope.
Regarding Claim 3, Glatz, as modified, teaches that the rope mount end is secured to the pole below the through passage (the end is below the top of the pulleys, which would also be below the through passage in which they are located).
Regarding Claim 7, Glatz, as modified, teaches an upper hub assembly (82) fixed to the top end portion of the pole.
Regarding Claim 8, Glatz, as modified, teaches that the upper hub assembly is positioned above the through passage.
Regarding Claim 9, Glatz teaches an umbrella comprising: a pole (80) having a base portion (toward the lower end thereof) and a top end portion (24) opposite the base portion, an upper pulley assembly (104/106), a lower hub assembly (96) slidingly disposed about the pole such that the lower hub assembly has a first position (Fig. 6) along the pole in which the umbrella is in a closed configuration and a second position (Fig. 7) along the pole in which the umbrella is in an open configuration, the second position above the first position, the lower hub assembly including a lower pulley assembly (100/102); and a rope (108) extending through the lower pulley assembly and the upper pulley assembly, the rope configured to translate the lower hub assembly from the first position to the second position and to maintain the lower hub assembly in the second position.
Glatz is silent on the use of a through passage. Small teaches an umbrella including a pole (20) having a base portion (toward the lower end thereof) and a top end portion (51) opposite the base portion, the top end portion defining a through passage (29) that extends entirely through the top end portion; an upper pulley assembly (48/48) disposed substantially within the through passage of the pole. 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 Glatz by using pulleys mounted within a through passage as taught by Small in order to better protect the pulleys.
Regarding Claim 10, Glatz, as modified, teaches a rope mount end (109) secured to the pole, the rope mount end receiving and fixing a first end of the rope relative to the pole.
Regarding Claim 11, Glatz, as modified, teaches that the rope mount end is secured to the pole between the upper hub assembly and the lower hub assembly.
Regarding Claim 15, Glatz, as modified, teaches an upper hub assembly (82) fixed to the top end portion of the pole.
Regarding Claim 16, Glatz, as modified, teaches that the upper hub assembly is positioned above the through passage (the upper hub is above the pulleys and therefore would inherently be above the passage in which the pulleys are positioned).
Regarding Claim 17, Glatz, as modified, teaches ribs (90), stretchers (94), and a canopy (8), the canopy supported on the ribs, each rib pivotally received in the upper hub assembly, each stretcher pivotally received in the lower hub assembly and pivotally secured to a respective rib, each stretcher lifting a respective rib such that the canopy is opened as the lower hub assembly is translated towards the second position (See Figs. 6-7).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glatz, as modified, as applied to Claim 2 above in view of Letendre in US Publication 2019/0150577. Glatz, as modified, teaches that the rope has a first length between the lower hub assembly and the first end of the rope in the closed configuration and a second length between the lower hub assembly and the first end of the rope in the open configuration, the second length being less than the first length (see figs. 6 and 7), but is silent on the use of a cleat. Letendre teaches an umbrella including a cleat (31) fixed to a lower hub assembly (36) and configured to fix a length of the rope between the cleat and the first end of the rope. 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 Glatz by adding a cleat to the lower hub assembly as taught by Letendre in order to provide a securement location for the rope and prevent collapse of the umbrella.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glatz, as modified, as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Dubinsky in US Patent 4567907. Glatz, as modified, is silent on the use of an insert. Dubinsky teaches a pole (20) with an insert (30) disposed within the pole, the insert defining an opening in communication with the through passage (see Fig 22) and a pulley (26) disposed substantially within the insert. 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 Glatz, as modified, by adding an insert as taught by Dubinsky in order to reinforce the pole at the pulley and to dispose both of the upper pulleys therein in order to provide the pulleys at the correct location.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glatz, as modified, as applied to Claim 10 above in view of Letendre in US Publication 2019/0150577. Glatz, as modified, teaches the rope having a first active length defined along the rope from the first end of the rope to the lower pulley assembly when the lower hub assembly is in the first position and a second active length defined along the rope from the first end of the rope and the lower pulley assembly when the lower hub assembly is in the second position, the first active length longer than the second active length but is silent on the use of a cleat. Letendre teaches an umbrella including a cleat (31) fixed (via 36) to a lower pulley assembly (62P1/62P2) and configured to receive a portion of the rope therethrough. 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 Glatz by adding a cleat to the lower hub assembly as taught by Letendre in order to provide a securement location for the rope and prevent collapse of the umbrella.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glatz, as modified, as applied to Claim 9 above in view of Dubinsky in US Patent 4567907. Glatz, as modified, is silent on the use of an insert. Dubinsky teaches a pole (20) with an insert (30) disposed within the pole, the insert defining an opening in communication with the through passage (see Fig 22) and an upper pulley assembly (26) disposed substantially within the insert. 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 Glatz, as modified, by adding an insert as taught by Dubinsky in order to reinforce the pole at the upper pulley assembly.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glatz as applied to Claim 18 above in view of Small in US Patent 2782795. Glatz teaches that drawing the free end of the rope includes the rope passing over an upper pulley assembly (104/106). Glatz is silent on the use of a through passage in the pole. Glatz is silent on the use of a through passage. Small teaches drawing the free end of a rope (60) includes the rope passing over an upper pulley assembly (104/106) that is disposed substantially within a through passage (29) defined entirely through the pole adjacent a top end of the pole. 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 Glatz by using pulleys mounted within a through passage as taught by Small in order to better protect the pulleys.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glatz as applied to Claim 18 above in view of Letendre in US Publication 2019/0150577. Glatz is silent on the use of a cleat. Letendre teaches a method including releasing the free end a rope (33) including releasing the free end of the rope from a cleat (31) fixed to a lower hub assembly (36). 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 Glatz by adding a cleat to the lower hub assembly as taught by Letendre in order to provide a securement location for the rope and prevent collapse of the umbrella.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dubinsky, Ma, and Volin teach rope-pulley umbrellas.
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