DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. The Restriction election received on 06/09/2026 has been acknowledged. Claim(s) 5, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29, 32, 34, 38, 40, 56, 59, and 74 have been previously amended and claim(s) 4, 6, 7, 9, 13-15, 18, 24-27, 30, 31, 33, 35-37, 39, 41-55, 60-73, and 75-99 have been previously cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-12, 16, 17, 19-23, 28, 29, 32, 34, 38, 40, 56-59, and 74 are now pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-12, 16, 17, 19-23, 28, 29, 32, 34, 38, 40, and 56) and Species 4A, 3B, 2C, 2D, and 3E in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 57-59 and 74 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention Group II. In addition, claims 12, 16, 22, and 23 are drawn to non-elected Species embodiments 3A, 1B, and 5A-7A, respectively, and are therefore hereby withdrawn. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/09/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, at line 2, the recitation “panels” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis or creates ambiguity as to whether it is referring to the same previously recited limitation “two or more panels” of claim 1.
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, 8, 10, 17, 20, 21, 28, 29, 34, 40, and 56, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinn (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0392722).
Regarding claim 1, Chinn teaches a physical structure having kinematic compatibility (expandable shelter; abstract), the structure comprising walls connected together (figure 2) such that the walls are moveable between a flat-folded state (figure 3) and an expanded state (figure 2), wherein (i) each of at least two of the walls comprises two or more panels (120, 130, side panels [not labeled]) and (ii) the walls at least partially enclose a volume when in the expanded state (figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Chinn teaches at least one of the walls comprises panels that are disposed and connected so that the wall folds with both one or more mountain folds and one or more valley folds (figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Chinn teaches the walls comprise a first wall (120) and an opposing and identically foldable second wall (130) and the first wall has a top edge (at intersection of 120 and 130) and comprises a hinge line (at intersection of 120 and 130) along which the first wall folds that intersects the top edge at a non-corner location (figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Chinn teaches the two or more panels comprises a panel having a non-uniform thickness that corresponds to a different one of the two or more panels (as illustrated, the triangular side panels have a non-uniform thickness that corresponds to a different one of the two or more panels; figure 2).
Regarding claim 20, Chinn teaches a roof (110).
Regarding claim 21, Chinn teaches the roof is one of the walls (figure 2).
Regarding claim 28, Chinn teaches the walls are connected together by hinges each of which connects adjacent ones of the walls (abstract).
Regarding claim 29, Chinn teaches at least one adjacent pair of the two or more panels is connected by one or more hinges (figure 2).
Regarding claim 34, Chinn teaches the panels do not deform between the flat-folded state and the expanded state (figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 40, Chinn teaches the walls comprise a rigid frame and soft shell, hard shell, or sandwich composite (para 30).
Regarding claim 56, Chinn teaches the physical structure has a lateral extent in the flat-folded state that is no more than an area of a largest wall of the physical structure in the expanded state (figure 2).
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 of this title, 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) 11, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinn (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0392722).
Regarding claim 11, Chinn teaches the first wall has a bottom edge (at 110) and a front edge (at 122) adjacent to the bottom edge (figure 2) and the hinge line also intersects a corner of the bottom edge away from the front edge (figure 2) but does not specifically disclose the non-corner location is at least 0.2*H away from the front edge, where H is a height of the first wall.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the non-corner location at least 0.2*H away from the front edge, where H is a height of the first wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a mere change in size involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the non-corner location at least 0.2*H away from the front edge, where H is a height of the first wall, in order to provide the desired shape and size of the structure to optimize handling and maneuverability during installation, to facilitate assembly.
Claim(s) 2 and 3, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinn (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0392722) in view of Sundell (U.S. Patent No. 2,207,836).
Regarding claim 2, Chinn does not specifically disclose one or more actuators, wherein the walls are moveable between the folded state and the expanded state by the one or more actuators.
Sundell discloses one or more actuators (spring hinge; title), wherein the walls are moveable between the folded state and the expanded state by the one or more actuators (in the combination, it is understood that the spring hinge of Sundell would make the walls of Chinn moveable between the folded state and the expanded state by the one or more actuators).
Therefore, from the teaching of Sundell, 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 expandable shelter of Chinn to include one or more actuators, wherein the walls are moveable between the folded state and the expanded state by the one or more actuators, as taught by Sundell, in order to facilitate the deployment of the structure for a quicker and easier assembly, to save time and enhance usability.
Regarding claim 3, Sundell in the combination discloses the one or more actuators is a single actuator (figure 4).
Claim(s) 5, 19, 32, and 38, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinn (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0392722) in view of Smith (U.S. Patent No. 8,613,166).
Regarding claim 5, Chinn does not specifically disclose the structure is moveable between the folded state and the expanded state by moving with a single degree of freedom.
Smith discloses a collapsible structure (abstract) wherein the structure is moveable between the folded state and the expanded state by moving with a single degree of freedom (col. 7, lines 30-35).
Therefore, from the teaching of Smith, 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 expandable shelter of Chinn such that the structure is moveable between the folded state and the expanded state by moving with a single degree of freedom, as taught by Smith, in order to facilitate the deployment of the structure for a quicker and easier assembly, to save time and enhance usability.
Regarding claim 19, Chinn does not specifically disclose at least one of the two or more panels comprises a tab extending along a hinge line and another panel is connected to the at least one of the two or more panels at the tab.
Smith discloses a collapsible structure (abstract) wherein at least one of the two or more panels comprises a tab (52) extending along a hinge line (figure 1) and another panel (13) is connected to the at least one of the two or more panels at the tab (figures 1-2).
Therefore, from the teaching of Smith, 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 expandable shelter of Chinn such that at least one of the two or more panels comprises a tab extending along a hinge line and another panel is connected to the at least one of the two or more panels at the tab, as taught by Smith, in order to provide an elevated edge so that when collapsed, the tab would provide securement to the adjacent folding panels for a compact and secure assembly.
Regarding claim 32, Chinn does not specifically disclose one or more locking mechanisms disposed to lock the walls in the expanded state.
Smith discloses a collapsible structure (abstract) including one or more locking mechanisms disposed to lock the walls in the expanded state (col. 7, lines 30-35).
Therefore, from the teaching of Smith, 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 expandable shelter of Chinn to include one or more locking mechanisms disposed to lock the walls in the expanded state, as taught by Smith, in order to provide a means of securement for the expanded panels in order to prevent unintended collapse of the structure for a more stable expanded state.
Regarding claim 38, Chinn does not specifically disclose the walls comprise at least one window, at least one door, or at least one window and at least one door.
Smith discloses a collapsible structure (abstract) wherein the walls comprise at least one window, at least one door, or at least one window and at least one door (61, 63).
Therefore, from the teaching of Smith, 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 expandable shelter of Chinn such that the walls comprise at least one window, at least one door, or at least one window and at least one door, as taught by Smith, in order to provide a means of ingress or egress to the structure and to provide a more pleasing aesthetic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to foldable structures in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights