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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-15, as originally filed 06 MAR. 2026, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of “without traverse… Species A, including Claims 1-15, drawn to a cabana shed with an upward opening door, for prosecution on the merits… door group… Species A and Figures 1-7, 8-11” in the reply filed on 06 MAR. 26 is acknowledged.
However, the Examiner disagrees with this listing of claims which read upon the elected species. Specifically, the Examiner finds claims 12-13 do not read upon the elected species: Species A. In claims 12-13 reference is drawn to a feature(s) that is only disclosed with reference to the non-elected species, namely a cover panel manufactured to include two panels integrally connected around the perimeter thereof .
Therefore, claims 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06 MAR. 26 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 JAN. 25 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 3 ln. 4: after “allow the bar surface” delete “12” or enclose by parenthesis, such as --(12)-- because these characters do not form part of the claim language
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 1 ln. 4: the recitation(s) of ”the side edges of the panels” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear because no “side edges” have been introduced and further because it is unclear as to which of the “panels” this phrase is referring. It is suggested to delete “’the” before side edges and to insert --wall-- before “panels” and the claims have been interpreted as such.
Cl. 4 ln. 1-4: the recitation(s) of ”the support assembly” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear because no “support assembly” has been positively introduced. It is suggested to replace “’the” with --a-- and this claims have been interpreted as such.
Claims 2-3 and 5-15 not particularly referenced in this section are rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-6, 10-11, and 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU, Qing-huai CN 103821387 B (Wu) in view of Anderson et al. US 20040187400 A1 (Anderson) and Kimura et al. US 6060144 A (Kimura).
As per claim 1 the primary reference of Wu teaches:
a cabana shed (“booth” title, resting on bottom plate 4, and ground 1, FIG. 1) comprising:
at least one floor panel (bottom plate 4, FIG. 1) for providing a base surface for supporting a plurality of wall panels (wall panels 13, plate 1302 and channel 501, FIG. 1-2) in a vertical orientation,
a plurality of roof panels (roof plate 25, FIG. 1 connected to a top edge (see “top edge” of wall panels plate 1302 and channel 501, FIG. 1 ) surface of the wall panels (wall panels 13, plate 1302 and channel 501, FIG. 1-2),
at least one wall of the cabana shed (“booth” title, resting on bottom plate 4, and ground 1, FIG. 1) includes a cabana opening (see opening defined by frame 14, FIG. 3) wherein the wall panels (wall panels 13, plate 1302 and channel 501, FIG. 1-2) are shorter to provide the cabana opening (opening at frame 14, FIG. 3; compare to window 17 and plate 1301 in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3) between a top portion of the shorter wall panels (wall panels 13, plate 1302 and channel 501, FIG. 1-2) and the roof panel (roof plate 25, FIG. 1,
at least one upwardly opening cover panel (window 17 opening from frame 14, FIG. 3) is provided to cover the cabana opening (opening at frame 14, FIG. 3; compare to window 17 and plate 1301 in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3) when in a closed position,
the cover panel (window 17 opening from frame 14, FIG. 3) opening in an upward manner to provide access through the cabana opening,
a bar surface (top of counter plate 702, FIG. 8) positioned at a lowermost portion of the cabana opening,
the bar surface (top of counter plate 702, FIG. 8) being positioned perpendicular with respect to the wall panels (wall panels 13, plate 1302 and channel 501, FIG. 1-2),
the cover panel (window 17 opening from frame 14, FIG. 3) being hollow having an outer wall,
the outer wall having an outer surface visible from the outside of the cabana shed (“booth” title, resting on bottom plate 4, and ground 1, FIG. 1).
Wu fails to explicitly disclose:
[[the]] side edges of the --wall-- panels overlapping adjacently positioned wall panels and secured together,
an inner surface having integrally formed reinforcements thereon, the integral reinforcements providing structural rigidity to the cover panel such that the panel may be lifted from a bottom surface thereof to a position above the bar surface providing access to the cabana opening.
Anderson teaches such overlapping adjacent panel edges, specifically:
[[the]] side edges (edge 214, FIG. 8) of the --wall-- panels (panel 202, FIG. 8) overlapping adjacently positioned wall panels and secured together (see “groove 226 is arranged to cooperate with a corner pillar member 302 or a side-panel member 202 having a complimentary ridge in an interlocking coplanar relationship” [0052]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the panels of Wu including the groove and complimentary ridge between panels as taught by Anderson in order to enable damaged panels to be replaced in a more precise fashion, without requiring an entire wall panel to be replaced.
Kimura teaches rigidified panels, specifically:
an inner surface (see upper surface of wall 2, as shown, FIG. 1) having integrally formed reinforcements thereon, the integral reinforcements (“The integral joining of first wall 2 and second wall 6 by means of ribs 7 increases the strength and rigidity of panel 1”) providing structural rigidity to the cover panel such that the panel may be lifted from a bottom surface thereof to a position above the bar surface providing access to the cabana opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Wu in view of Anderson by substituting the reinforced plastic as taught by Kimura in order to provide a stronger and lighter weight panel because doing so would resist breakage.
As per claim 2-3 Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Wu further discloses
(Cl. 2) wherein the bar surface (top of counter plate 702, FIG. 8) is constructed and arranged to tilt between a use position wherein the bar surface (top of counter plate 702, FIG. 8) is oriented horizontally (see “horizontally”, FIG. 8) to a vertical position (see “vertical position” FIG. 9)that is inside of the cabana opening (opening at frame 14, FIG. 3; compare to window 17 and plate 1301 in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3) so that the cover panel (window 17 opening from frame 14, FIG. 3) can be lowered to a position that covers the cabana opening (see “covers” FIG. 2); and
(Cl. 3) wherein the bar surface (top of counter plate 702, FIG. 8) includes a bar surface support assembly (beam 703, FIG. 8), the bar surface and bar surface support assembly (beam 703, FIG. 8) cooperate to allow the bar surface (top of counter plate 702, FIG. 8) [[12]] to be tilted upward and inward to be stored behind the cover panel (window 17 opening from frame 14, FIG. 3) while the cover panel (window 17 opening from frame 14, FIG. 3) is in a closed position.
As per claim 4 Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura teaches the limitations according to claim 2 and Wu further discloses [[the]] --a-- support assembly includes a fixed position hinge pin (see pin connecting 704 and 701, FIG. 8) and a gusset rod (beam 703, FIG. 8), the gusset rod (beam 703, FIG. 8) includes a second fixed hinge pin (see pin between 703 and 709, FIG. 8) at a first end thereof and a sliding hinge pin (see pin between 703 and 704, FIG. 8) at a second end thereof.
As per claim 5 Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura teaches the limitations according to claim 4 and Wu further discloses the sliding hinge pin (see pin between 703 and 704, FIG. 8) is positioned to slide in an elongated slot (see slot in 704, FIG. 8) which limits the travel of the sliding hinge pin (see pin between 703 and 704, FIG. 8) such that a first end of the elongated slot determines the angle through which a support arm is allowed to travel when the support arm is rotated to a stored position, while a second end of the elongated slot determines the resting angle (see resting angle, FIG. 8) of the support arm with respect to a torque arm (bracket 704, FIG. 8) of the support assembly.
As per claim 6 Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura teaches the limitations according to claim 5 and Wu further discloses wherein the torque arm (bracket 704, FIG. 8) is generally an elongated arm that is constructed and arranged for securement to the wall panels (wall panels 13, plate 1302 and channel 501, FIG. 1-2) on an inner surface thereof for accepting loads applied to the bar surface and transferring them to the wall panels (wall panels 13, plate 1302 and channel 501, FIG. 1-2).
As per claim 10 Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Wu further discloses wherein the cover panel (window 17 opening from frame 14, FIG. 3) is secured to a front portion of the cabana shed (“booth” title, resting on bottom plate 4, and ground 1, FIG. 1) to rotate upwards about a top edge (see “top edge” of wall panels plate 1302 and channel 501, FIG. 1 ) of the cover panel (window 17 opening from frame 14, FIG. 3) so that the cover panel (window 17 opening from frame 14, FIG. 3) extends outwardly over the bar surface (top of counter plate 702, FIG. 8; note “amplified drawing I” —left side—, extendable “above” folding counter 7 —middle— FIG. 1).
As per claim 11, Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Kimura further discloses the cover panel is formed from resin (“polyester”, Cl. 5) to be a single layer hollow structure having integrally formed strengthening ribs (ribs 7, FIG. 1) to provide rigidity to the cover panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura by substituting the reinforced plastic as taught by Kimura in order to provide a stronger cover which might be subject to greater wear and tear.
As per claim 14, Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura teaches the limitations according to claim 11, and Anderson further discloses the cover panel is formed by the process of injection molding (“injection molded” abstract ln. 1) to include integrally formed ribs and gussets for providing structural rigidity to the cover panel (window 17 opening from frame 14, FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura by substituting injection molded plastic as taught by Anderson in order to provide an assembly which is resistant to moisture and pests (regarding the limitation of “process of injection molding” see MPEP §2113 for details concerning Product-by-Process Claims, which states “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted)).
As per claim 15, Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura teaches the limitations according to claim 11 and Kimura further discloses wherein the resin is plastic (“thermoplastic resin”, Cl. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura by substituting the plastic as taught by Kimura in order to provide a cover from a known strong material which can be recycled multiple times, which is beneficial for environmentally conscious manufacturing practices.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of EL-WAKEEL US 20180274256 A1 (El-Wakeel ‘256).
As per claim 7 Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura teaches the limitations according to claim 5 but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the torque arm rests on the floor panels to distribute the weight load applied to the bar surface over an expanded surface area.
El-Wakeel ‘256 teaches a typical apparatus for supporting a shelf —or “bar surface”, specifically:
wherein the torque arm (vertical members supporting surface 11, FIG. 2) rests on the floor panels (see “surface 11… may be deployed or expanded in a downward position when needed” [0063]) to distribute the weight load applied to the bar surface over an expanded surface area (see FIG. 2, below; the downwardly extending vertical members supporting surface 11 would distribute the weight at least somewhat).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura by including the vertical members supporting a deployable support surface as taught by El-Wakeel ‘256 in order to allow selective use by the occupants of the booth.
PNG
media_image1.png
431
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of El-Wakeel et al. US 10124710 B2 (El-Wakeel ‘710).
As per claim 8 Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura teaches the limitations according to claim 5 but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein a bar surface lock is provided to latch the bar surface in the horizontal position.
In a collapsible display kiosk El-Wakeel ‘710 teaches an anchoring apparatus for maintaining a horizontally rotated surface (front shelf unit 3, FIG. 2) level, specifically:
wherein a bar surface lock (see extension 8a and shelf unit 3, FIG. 2; also “In a preferred embodiment of the invention the bottom surface of the front shelf unit 3 and/or rear shelf unit 4 have an extension that protrudes perpendicularly from the flat plane representing the bottom surface of the shelf unit. The extension provides a support and anchor for the portion 8a of the front/rear face 8/22 that is used to support the front and/or rear shelf unit (3 or 4)” 5:47) is provided to latch the bar surface (front shelf unit 3, FIG. 10) in the horizontal position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Wu in view of Anderson and Kimura by including the shelf unit and anchoring extension as taught by El-Wakeel ‘710 in order to provide selective securing of and support for the counter plate, thereby preventing accidental collapsing of items stored on the shelf unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the Examiner notes that a thorough search was performed and the prior art of record has been cited; the Examiner did not find a reference or combination of references that distinctly disclosed or fairly suggested a modification to arrive at the cabana as claimed with wall panels effectively supporting an array of roof panels and further the wall panels supporting a rotatably mounted bar surface which is provided with a locking hinge mechanism as particularly claimed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, BRIAN D MATTEI can be reached at (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 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.
/JJS/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635