DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 07/15/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 7 have been amended, claim(s) 3 has been cancelled, and claim(s) 8-20 have been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1, 2, and 4-20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous specification objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
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) 1, 2, and 4-7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,570,544) in view of Shires (U.S. Patent No. 7,146,996).
Regarding claim 1, Hale et al. teaches a shelter (figure 1) comprising: a support frame (16); a flexible exterior shelter layer (38) for covering the support frame (figure 1), the exterior shelter layer for forming exterior shelter layer roof and sidewall portions of the shelter (figure 1); and a flexible waterproof floor (40) having a floor bottom portion (at 40-bottom) and a floor sidewall portion (at 40-edges), the floor sidewall portion for extending upwardly above the floor bottom portion (figure 1), the floor sidewall portion being removably securable to the exterior shelter sidewall portion above the floor bottom portion (col. 5, lines 45-50).
Hale et al. does not specifically disclose a flexible inner shelter layer for extending downwardly adjacent to the exterior shelter layer roof and sidewall portions, and the floor sidewall portion, and then laterally extending inwardly relative to the floor sidewall portion over and covering the floor bottom portion at perimeter regions of the floor bottom portion in a generally ring-shaped lateral flat layer.
Shires discloses a lightweight shelter (title) including a flexible inner shelter layer (at 34/36/38) for extending downwardly adjacent to the exterior shelter layer roof and sidewall portions, and the floor sidewall portion (figure 6), and then laterally extending inwardly relative to the floor sidewall portion over and covering the floor bottom portion at perimeter regions of the floor bottom portion in a generally ring-shaped lateral flat layer (figures 5 and 6).
Therefore, from the teaching of Shires, 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 inflatable structure of Hale et al. to include a flexible inner shelter layer for extending downwardly adjacent to the exterior shelter layer roof and sidewall portions, and the floor sidewall portion, and then laterally extending inwardly relative to the floor sidewall portion over and covering the floor bottom portion at perimeter regions of the floor bottom portion in a generally ring-shaped lateral flat layer, as taught by Shires, in order to provide an additional layer of protection against insect infiltration, to prevent bugs from entering the shelter.
Regarding claim 2, Hale et al. teaches the floor sidewall portion is removably securable to the exterior shelter layer sidewall portion with a zipper joint (at 43) that is about 6 inches above the floor bottom portion (as illustrated, the joint is about 6 inches above the floor bottom portion; figure 3; the examiner notes that the limitation “about” is a relative term).
Regarding claim 4, Hale et al. as modified does not specifically disclose the inner shelter layer covers the floor bottom portion about 18 inches from outer edges of the floor bottom portion.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the inner shelter layer cover the floor bottom portion about 18 inches from outer edges of the floor bottom portion, 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 inner shelter layer cover the floor bottom portion about 18 inches from outer edges of the floor bottom portion, in order to provide ample excess material to maintain an overlap between the inner layer and the floor for maintaining an optimal level of insulation.
Regarding claim 5, Hale et al. as modified does not specifically disclose the inner shelter layer is secured to the floor bottom portion with hook and loop fastener. However, Hale et al. does disclose the use of hook and loop fastening (col. 4, lines 18-20). Therefore, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the inner shelter layer secured to the floor bottom portion with hook and loop fastener in order to fulfill the design requirements of the final structure, to secure the inner layer to the floor to prevent slippage, since such selection involves routine skill.
Regarding claim 6, Shires in the combination discloses the inner shelter layer further includes at least one of light reflecting properties (it is understood that the inner layer is capable of reflecting light), and includes at least one layer (figure 17).
Regarding claim 7, Hale et al. teaches the support frame comprises at least two inflatable arch beams (24a) connected together by an inflatable ridge beam (18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
New reference(s) Shires (U.S. Patent No. 7,146,996) has been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s amendment regarding a flexible inner shelter layer for extending downwardly adjacent to the exterior shelter layer roof and sidewall portions, and the floor sidewall portion, and then laterally extending inwardly relative to the floor sidewall portion over and covering the floor bottom portion at perimeter regions of the floor bottom portion in a generally ring-shaped lateral flat layer, overcomes the previous rejection in view of Schaefer et al. and the reference has been withdrawn. The new limitation is overcome in view of new reference Shires.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F 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