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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a ladder” claim 6 and “the lower opening portion having a plurality of side sections” claim 7, (where the only side sections disclosed i.e., 734 and 736 are at the top as shown in fig. 3); must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 7 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “the floor” and claim 16 recites “the ground”; since those could be referring to the bottom surfaces of one of the canopies, these limitations lack antecedent basis in the claims, and if applicant is referring on both cases to the ground on which the vehicle travels, consistent nomenclature is requested.
Claim 17 recites “an upper coupling member disposed on an upper edge of the first extendable section, and a first lower coupling member disposed on a lower edge of the first extendable section, wherein the annex canopy is configured to be disposed in a first shortened configuration such that the first lower coupling member is coupled to the upper coupling member and the height of the annex canopy is reduced by the first section height”; applicant is claiming that both coupling members belongs to the upper and lower edges of the first extendable section respectively, however, then the claim states that when in the “shortened configuration” the “first lower coupling member is coupled to the upper coupling member”; did applicant mean to claim the upper coupling member as belonging to the canopy?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IKamper, WO (2021172750).
In regards to claim 1 IKamper discloses:
A tent system (system shown in figs. 5, 6 & 7), comprising:
a base (12 and including bottom surface of 10 extending beyond both sides of 12) configured to mount to a vehicle (V);
a base canopy (10);
a frame system (structure making up 10 including 510) coupled to the base (as shown in figs. 6, 7) and configured to support the base canopy (figs. 6, 7); and
an annex (30, 50) comprising an annex canopy (including 310, 320, 330, 340) and an annex frame assembly (frame making up 30 and 50 including unnumbered base shown in fig. 5 and including 350, 360, 520) configured to support the annex canopy (figs. 5-7),
wherein the annex (30, 50) is removably coupled to the base and the base canopy (via fastening member 510 and as shown in decoupled configuration in fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2 IKamper discloses the annex canopy is removably coupled to the base canopy and the annex frame assembly is removably coupled to the base (via fastening member 510 and as shown in decoupled configuration in fig. 7).
In regards to claim 3 IKamper discloses the annex canopy is removably coupled to the base canopy with at least one zipper (as described in excerpt below; English translation provided with the office action).
PNG
media_image2.png
92
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4 IKamper discloses the annex frame assembly is coupled to a bottom side of the base (as shown in annotated drawings below or as an alternate interpretation indirectly via 10 and 12).
PNG
media_image3.png
620
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5 IKamper discloses the base canopy comprises a door disposed on a first surface (surface of 10 facing 50, where the opening to 50), and the annex canopy surrounds the door (in the assembled configuration) (also please see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection regarding claim 5 below).
In regards to claim 7 IKamper discloses wherein the annex canopy includes a lower opening portion (where opening 372 shown in fig. 9 is open to both upper and lower portions), the lower opening portion having a plurality of side sections (door parts / flaps 370) and at least two of the plurality of side sections are configured to be in one of an opened configuration (as shown in fig. 9) and a closed configuration (as shown in fig. 8).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IKamper, WO (2021172750).
In regards to claim 8 IKamper discloses:
A tent system (system shown in figs. 5, 6 & 7), comprising:
a base (12 and including bottom surface of 10 extending beyond both sides of 12) configured to mount to a vehicle (V);
a base canopy (10);
a frame system (structure making up 10 including 510) coupled to the base (as shown in figs. 6, 7) and configured to support the base canopy (figs. 6, 7); and
an annex (30, 50) comprising an annex canopy (including 310, 320, 330, 340) and an annex frame assembly (frame making up 30 and 50 including unnumbered base shown in fig. 5 and including 350, 360, 520) configured to support the annex canopy (figs. 5-7),
wherein the annex frame assembly is removably coupled (via fastening member 510 and as shown in decoupled configuration in fig. 7) to a bottom side of the base (as shown in annotated drawings below or as an alternate interpretation indirectly via 10 and 12).
PNG
media_image3.png
620
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 15 IKamper discloses the annex frame assembly does not extend through the base canopy (as shown in disassembled versus assembled configuration as shown in fig. 6 vs fig. 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IKamper as applied to claim 1 above.
If it was found that the opening of 10 open to 50 and/or 30 does not meet the definition of “door”; examiner provides that: It has been held that a mere duplication of parts, such as the duplication of the door 370, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. A duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1955). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to duplicate the door 370 on annex tent 30 onto the tent 10 for the predicable result with reasonable expectation of success of providing the tent 10 with a closure/shield at least from eyesight, rain and debris when not connected to tents 30/50.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IKamper as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Corbin, US (4099534).
In regards to claim 6 IKamper does not disclose a ladder.
Corbin teaches a ladder (unnumbered ladder shown in fig. 1; Corbin) coupled to the base (equivalent to top of the van) and extending between the floor and the base (fig. 1), wherein the annex completely surrounds the ladder (area under 14 as shown in fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the ladder taught by Corbin onto the system of IKamper for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for an easy access by the users to the top section of the space i.e., space within base canopy from the annex.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IKamper as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sautter, US (10543771).
In regards to claims 9-14 IKamper does not disclose a base bracket, a fastening member configured to slideably engage with an interior space formed in the base bracket, a T-bolt slideably disposed in the interior space and an actuator threadably coupled with the T-bolt and configured to secure the annex frame assembly to the base bracket and the connection portion of the annex frame assembly is cylindrical and the engagement surfaces of the first and second flanges are concave.
Sautter teaches frame assembly (26, 28; fig. 2; being equated to the annex frame assembly) is removably coupled to a base bracket (bracket 34; fig. 3) disposed on the bottom side of the base (on the bottom of 14 equivalent to the base of IKamper) (claim 9).
the annex frame assembly comprises a fastening member (anchor bolt 116; fig. 8) configured to slideably engage with an interior space (space within both bodies 50 and 52 forming 34) formed in the base bracket (claim 10).
the fastening member comprises a T-bolt (116 when considered with 118; fig. 8) slideably disposed in the interior space (fig. 8) and an actuator (60; fig. 8) threadably coupled with the T-bolt and configured to secure the annex frame assembly to the base bracket (when tightened and drawing jaws 54 and 56 close) (claim 11).
the base bracket includes a first flange (54) and a second flange (56) spaced apart from the first flange (fig. 8) to form a slot (slot between 54 and 56) therebetween, the first and second flanges comprise engagement surfaces (inner surfaces facing each other of 54 and 56) that have a shape corresponding to a connection portion of the annex frame assembly (corresponding to 26, 28; fig. 2) and are configured to engage the connection portion of the annex frame assembly (as shown in fig. 2) (claim 12).
the connection portion of the annex frame assembly is cylindrical (26, 28) and the engagement surfaces of the first and second flanges are concave (figs. 3, 4, 8, 10) (claim 13).
the base bracket includes a stopper disposed in the interior space and configured to block movement of the fastening member (80, where at least when clamped stops sliding of 34 hence in return stopping the sliding of 26, 28) (claim 14).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the clamp bracket and connection rod assembly/mechanism taught by Sautter onto the connection between the annex and the base of IKamper for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a sturdy attachment between the annex and the base, where IKamper does not disclose further attachment beyond the zipper hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find that a positive clamped attachment would ensure maintained coupling, and prevent unintentional disengagement and an unsafe condition for user’s moving between the two canopies.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IKamper, WO (2021172750) in view of Kalvani, US (10676956).
In regards to claim 16 IKamper discloses:
A tent system (system shown in figs. 5, 6 & 7), comprising:
a base (12 and including bottom surface of 10 extending beyond both sides of 12) configured to mount to a vehicle (V);
a base canopy (10);
a frame system (structure making up 10 including 510) coupled to the base (as shown in figs. 6, 7) and configured to support the base canopy (figs. 6, 7); and
an annex (30, 50) configured to extend an interior space of the tent system (as shown in figs. 5-7) in a lateral direction (direction perpendicular to 510; fig. 6) away from the base canopy (figs. 5-7) and in a vertical direction toward the ground (from ceilings of 30/50 to the ground level also as shown in figs. 5-7), the annex comprising an annex canopy (including 310, 320, 330, 340) and an annex frame assembly (frame making up 30 and 50 including unnumbered base shown in fig. 5 and including 350, 360, 520) configured to support the annex canopy (figs. 5-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 16 IKamper does not disclose height extendable portion configured to adjust a height of the annex canopy.
Kalvani teaches canopy (100; fig. 1) includes a height extendable portion (110) configured to adjust a height of the canopy relative to the ground (as shown between fig. 1 versus fig. 3 where the canopy is placed directly on the ground level sans extension portion 110).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the height extendable portion taught by Kalvani onto the annex canopy of IKamper for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for adjustment to accommodate different height vehicles upon which the system can be installed, e.g., a sedan vs small size SUV vs large size SUV vs a large camping bus; hence requiring different height annex in order to reach from the base to the ground.
In regards to claim 17 IKamper as modified by Kalvani teaches the height extendable portion comprises a first extendable section (110) having a first section height (height of 110 as shown in fig. 1), an upper coupling member (bottom portion or respective half 135b of the zip fastener 135 attached to extension 110 as shown in fig. 4) disposed on an upper edge of the first extendable section (upper edge of 110; as shown in fig. 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
430
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to the rest of claim 17 i.e., a first lower coupling member disposed on a lower edge of the first extendable section, wherein the annex canopy is configured to be disposed in a first shortened configuration such that the first lower coupling member is coupled to the upper coupling member and the height of the annex canopy is reduced by the first section height; Kalvani further teaches that “a modular tent with variable dimensions could also be achieved by securing multiple extensions to one another, and securing those multiple extensions to the upper tent portion” as described in Col 8 LL 1-12; see excerpt below. Hence, following the further teachings of Kalvani, adding more base extensions to the canopy subsequently teaches having first lower coupling member (similar to 135 onto the bottom of one of now multiple base extensions 110) disposed on a lower edge of the first extendable section (bottom of one of the top 110s), wherein the annex canopy is configured to be disposed in a first shortened configuration (when one of the extensions 110 is removed) such that the first lower coupling member is coupled to the upper coupling member (one coupling member of one extension coupled to either the coupling member of another extension to directly to the canopy) and the height of the annex canopy is reduced by the first section height.
PNG
media_image5.png
304
600
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 18 IKamper as modified by Kalvani teaches the upper coupling member and the lower coupling member comprises a zipper (135 described as a zip fastener; Kalvani).
In regards to claim 19 IKamper as modified by Kalvani teaches the upper coupling member extends along a majority of the upper edge of the first extendable section (135 extending along a majority of the upper edge of 110 as shown in fig. 4; Kalvani), and the first lower coupling member extends along a majority of the lower edge of the first extendable section (in case of multiple extension sections as motivated by Kalvani and in the same manner as for the upper coupling member).
In regards to claim 20 IKamper as modified by Kalvani teaches the height extendable portion further comprises a second extendable section (one extra extension section as taught by Kalvani Col 8 LL 1-12; excerpt above) having a second section height (similar to the first section or different as explained in Col 8 LL 1-12; excerpt above) and extending from the lower edge of the first extendable section (when considering the upper section being the first and the lower being the second), the first lower coupling member disposed on an upper edge of the second extendable section (in the same manner 135 on section 110; fig. 4), and a second lower coupling member disposed on a lower edge of the second extendable section (when more than one extension sections are utilized).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to PTO-892 form for list of cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights