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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 10, paragraph 32, “spline grooves 18’” should be changed to --spline grooves 18-- for consistency purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 171, 216 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite a camouflage structure comprising: a frame having at least two spaced apart frame members along both a roof frame and along a side frame; one or more mesh panels including a first side with a camouflage pattern and a second side with a color coating, wherein the mesh material is partially transmissive so that the exterior of the structure is visible from the interior of the structure, but the interior is not visible from the exterior; and one or more panels of non-transmissive material attached to the roof frame, wherein the non-transmissive material does not allow incident light to be transmitted through to the interior of the structure.
Claim 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent No. 11,930,805 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite a camouflage structure comprising: a frame having at least two spaced apart frame members along both a roof frame and along a side frame; one or more mesh panels including a first side with a camouflage pattern and a second side with a color coating, wherein the mesh material is partially transmissive so that the exterior of the structure is visible from the interior of the structure, but the interior is not visible from the exterior; and one or more panels of non-transmissive material attached to the roof frame, wherein the non-transmissive material does not allow incident light to be transmitted through to the interior of the structure.
Claim 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite a camouflage structure comprising: a frame having at least two spaced apart frame members along both a roof frame and along a side frame; one or more mesh panels including a first side with a camouflage pattern and a second side with a color coating, wherein the mesh material is partially transmissive so that the exterior of the structure is visible from the interior of the structure, but the interior is not visible from the exterior; and one or more panels of non-transmissive material attached to the roof frame, wherein the non-transmissive material does not allow incident light to be transmitted through to the interior of the structure.
Claim 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,765,108 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite a camouflage structure comprising: a frame having at least two spaced apart frame members along both a roof frame and along a side frame; one or more mesh panels including a first side with a camouflage pattern and a second side with a color coating, wherein the mesh material is partially transmissive so that the exterior of the structure is visible from the interior of the structure, but the interior is not visible from the exterior; and one or more panels of non-transmissive material attached to the roof frame, wherein the non-transmissive material does not allow incident light to be transmitted through to the interior of the structure.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, line 6, “the at least two frame members extend” should be changed to –the at least two frame members of the side frame extend-- in order to distinguish which “two frame members” are being referred to in this instance as two were previously recited.
Claim 21, line 18, “the one or more of the sides” should be changed to --the one or more sides-- for consistency purposes.
Claim 32, line 6, “the at least two frame members extend” should be changed to –the at least two frame members of the side frame extend-- in order to distinguish which “two frame members” are being referred to in this instance as two were previously recited.
Claim 32, line 18, “the one or more of the sides” should be changed to --the one or more sides-- for consistency purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastman, II (US 2008/0083443) in view of Nagata (US 6,044,649).
Claims 21, 24-26, 32-35 and 40: Eastman, II discloses a structure comprising: one or more sides (22); a roof (24); a roof frame (frame 72 seen in a mostly horizontal orientation in FIG. 2, used to support roof 24); with at least two flexible frame members (76; paragraph 54) along the roof; and a side frame (any of frames 72 seen in a mostly vertical orientation in FIG. 2, used to support any of the sides 22) with at least two flexible frame members (76; paragraph 54) along the one or more sides, wherein the at least two frame members of the side frame extend towards one another along the one or more sides in a direction away from the roof frame (as seen in FIGS. 1A and 2, two of the frame members 76 extend downward and converge at member 74, which is located away from the roof frame); wherein mesh material (covering 30, which covers opening 28 in side 22, can be a “permeable screen material”; paragraph 42) is supported along at least two of the one or more sides (as seen in FIGS. 1B and 1C, at least two sides 22 each has multiple windows openings) and the mesh material at least partially covers an area between the at least two frame members along the at least two of the one or more sides (as seen in FIG. 1A, the opening 28 and covering 30 is located in between the two frame members 76 that converge at 74 on at least one of the sides 22); wherein non-transmissive material is provided along the roof such that light from the exterior of the camouflage structure does not pass through the non-transmissive material (roof 24 inherently has to be made of a non-transmissive, non-mesh material in order to protect the user from inclement weather; additionally, vent 42 is shown in roof 24, which includes a screen material 43, which would not be necessary if the material of roof 24 was transmissive/mesh); wherein the mesh material defines one or more outer surfaces of the camouflage structure along the at least two of the one or more of the sides of the camouflage structure (as seen in FIGS. 1A and 1B).
Eastman, II does not teach the mesh material as having a camouflage pattern on the front side and a dark color on the back side so that the mesh material is partially transmissive such that during daylight conditions the exterior of the camouflage structure is visible from the interior of the camouflage structure and the interior of the camouflage structure is not visible from the exterior of the camouflage structure. However, Nagata teaches a mesh material (1) of interwoven fabric (synthetic fiber yarn 2) for a structure (FIG. 3e, tent which could be used as a blind; col. 4, lines 51-54) comprising a pattern (5) printed on a first side (col. 3, lines 59-60) and a second side with a dark color coating (4; col. 3, lines 18-28; “black, dark blue, or dark gray”), said second side opposite to the first side (as seen in FIG. 1), wherein the mesh material is partially transmissive (due to net holes 6) such that during daylight conditions an exterior of the structure is visible from an interior of the structure yet the interior of the structure is not visible from an exterior of the structure (col. 2, lines 18-25; col. 4, lines 51-54). Since Eastman, II teaches the covering 30, when made of plastic, to be partially transmissive during daylight (paragraph 40), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eastman, II to include partially transmissive mesh material that is formed with a camouflage pattern on one side and a dark color of the opposing side, as taught by Nagata, so that user would still be hidden from prey during daylight hours even when using a mesh material for the window openings. Additionally, it is noted that it would have been obvious to have the pattern on the front facing side of the mesh material be a camouflage pattern, specifically one based on the exterior environment where the structure will be placed so the structure blends in the with surrounding environment, thus further providing additional means to conceal the user from the outside of the structure.
Claim 22: Eastman, II teaches the mesh material as being configured to be attached between the at least two frame members of the side frame to cover the area between the at least two frame members of the side frame (as seen in FIGS. 1A-1B, the openings 28 and coverings are is located in between the two frame members 76 that converge at 74 on multiple sides 22 and cover the area in between these two frame members).
Claim 23: Eastman, II teaches the non- transmissive material as being configured to be attached between the at least two frame members of the roof frame to cover an area between the at least two frame members of the roof frame (as seen in FIG. 1A, the roof 24 extends between all immediately adjacent frame members 76 and covers the areas between them).
Claims 27 and 36: Nagata teaches the pattern as comprising one or more ink substance printed on the first side (col. 3, lines 59-60), but doesn’t teach the single color coating as being printed on the second side (teaches the single color coating as being sprayed onto the second side; col. 3, lines 58-59). However, it would have been obvious to one to ordinary skill in the art to have both sides be printed with ink since the first side is already printed with ink and it would make manufacturing the mesh material efficient if both sides used the same machine to produce the colors for both sides (possibly simultaneously). It would also ensure that both sides could withstand the same kinds of conditions and one would not degrade faster than the other.
Claims 28 and 37: Nagata teaches the mesh material (1) as being interwoven fabric (synthetic fiber yarn 2). It is noted that claims 68 and 93 are product by process claims, and the apparatus (mesh material) is not limited by the process of making it.
Claims 29 and 38: Nagata teaches the mesh material is partially transmissive (due to net holes 6) such that a portion of incident radiation from an exterior of the camouflage structure is reflected off the pattern back into the exterior, a portion of incident radiation from an interior of the camouflage structure is transmitted through the mesh material to the exterior and wherein a ratio of an intensity of the reflected portion to an intensity of the transmitted portion is above a threshold value such that an exterior of the structure is visible through the mesh material from the interior of the structure and the interior of the structure is not visible through the mesh material from the exterior of the structure (col. 2, lines 18-25; col. 4, lines 51-54); and wherein the threshold ratio value is 1 (the threshold value inherently must exceed 1 since the mesh material of Nagata is one-way, which means that the intensity of the light reflected to the exterior over the intensity of the light transmitted through the mesh material is great than 1 as more light is reflected back out into the exterior of the structure so the interior of the structure cannot be seen, thus making it one-way). Additionally, it would be obvious to make the threshold value at least 2, if desired, as this would increase the one-way visibility properties and make it harder to see into the structure from the exterior.
Claims 30, 31 and 39: Eastman, II teaches the mesh material as being supported along each of the one or more sides such that the mesh material covers the area between the at least two frame members along each of the one or more sides of the camouflage structure (as evidenced by FIGS. 1B and 1C, each side 22 has a plurality of openings 28 and covers 30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2268. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11AM-7PM EST.
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 (571)272-6670. 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.
/DNJ/Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights