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 “the roof comprises an outer frame and a plurality of spaced apart boards coupled to the outer frame” recited in Claim 15 and the “food preparation device” recited in Claim 19 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While retractable panels 210 are discussed in the disclosure, there is no mention of these elements being “rigid,” nor are they described in such a way as to infer their rigidity. The requirement that the retractable panels be rigid is thus considered new matter in the application. For the purposes of examination, any retractable panel will be considered sufficient to meet the limitations in these claims.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman et al. in US Patent 9670033 in view of Rosedale in US Publication 2019/0069652 and Gharabegian in US Publication 2017/0324372.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 6, Lieberman teaches a movable shade apparatus, comprising: a roof (40/42) configured to provide shade when standing below the roof, wherein the roof includes an outer frame (50) that defines a perimeter of the roof; one or more support posts (12) coupled to the roof, wherein the roof is disposed atop the one or more support posts, an actuator (the “actuation assembly” – see Figs. 22 and 23) coupled to at least one of the one or more support posts and configured to adjust a pitch of the roof with respect to the one or more support posts; and a base assembly (16/18) coupled to a lower end of each of the one or more support posts, wherein the base assembly includes a support member (16). Lieberman further teaches that the one or more support posts include two support posts coupled to opposing ends of the roof, wherein a support rod (14) coupled to the two support posts at a location vertically below the roof.
Lieberman is silent on the use of a power outlet or weights that are removably attached to the support member. Rosedale teaches a movable shade apparatus including a roof (A, see below) with a solar panel (100) coupled to an upper surface of the roof and a support post (B) with a base having a support member (C) and one or more weights in the form of batteries (103) that are removably attached to the support member and wherein the base assembly includes wheels (102). 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 device of Lieberman by adding an outlet to the support post and weights and wheels as taught by Rosedale in order to allow the user to charge their devices and to securely mount the shade in place.
PNG
media_image1.png
633
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lieberman, as modified, is silent on the use of an outlet in the support post. Gharabegian teaches a movable shade apparatus including a roof (110) and a support post (106) wherein the support post includes a power outlet (332). 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 device of Lieberman, as modified, by adding an outlet to the support post as taught by Gharabegian in order to allow the user to charge their devices.
Regarding Claim 3, Lieberman, as modified, is silent on the use of a control panel. Gharabegian further teaches a control panel configured to display at least one of: an ambient temperature, a wind speed (“a display device to warn a user of unsafe wind conditions” – Paragraph 0111), or a barometric pressure. 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 device of Lieberman, as modified, by adding a control panel as taught by Gharabegian in order to provide safety data to the user.
Regarding Claim 4, Lieberman, as modified, is silent on the use of a controller. Gharabegian teaches a controller (see paragraph 0099) configured to control and actuator (880) to selectively tilt the roof based on at least one of a solar position with respect to the movable shade apparatus or wind conditions. 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 device of Lieberman by adding a controller as taught by Gharabegian in order to allow the user to be automatically shaded from the sun.
Regarding Claim 5, Lieberman, as modified, teaches that for each of the one or more support posts, the actuator comprises a motor (“an electric motor” – see Column 8, line 34) and a cable (160) extending from a first location of the roof (one side of the support post) to each support post to define a first length of cable and from each support post to a second location of the roof (the opposite side of the support post) to define a second length of cable, wherein the motor is configured to tilt the roof by changing the first length of cable and the second length of cable.
Regarding Claim 9, Lieberman, as modified, teaches the base assembly is configured to move on a rail system (the wheeled base of Lieberman, as modified, is inherently usable on a rail system).
Regarding Claim 10, Lieberman, as modified, teaches that the roof comprises a plurality of flat plates (40 and 42) that define a continuous support surface across the outer frame along a common height.
Regarding Claim 11, Lieberman, as modified, teaches that one or more support posts include one or more slots (238/244) for attaching accessories (230).
Regarding Claim 12, Lieberman, as modified, is silent on the use of lights. Gharabegian teaches one or more lights (870) mounted to the roof or the one or more support posts, wherein the one or more support posts include a switch (the “motion sensor and/or a processor” – see paragraph 0202) to control the one or more lights. 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 device of Lieberman, as modified, by adding lights and a switch as taught by Gharabegian in order to provide safety illumination for the user.
Regarding Claim 14, Lieberman, as modified, is silent on the use of multiple shades. Gharabegian teaches (see paragraph 0232) the use of a plurality of the movable shade apparatus of claim 1 coupled together to create an array of the plurality of the movable shade apparatus, wherein a pitch of the roof of each of the movable shade apparatus is controlled based on a solar position with respect to each of the movable shade apparatus (all of the shades are controlled together). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple shade devices as taught by Gharabegian in order to provide more shade or a modular shade system for the user.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman, as modified, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collins in US Patent 2835262. Lieberman, as modified, is silent on the use of panels. Colins teaches a shade apparatus including a roof (11) and further comprising a plurality of retractable shade panels (34) that are rotatably coupled (about their top ends) to an outer region of the roof and configured to extend a shade area of the movable shade apparatus or a plurality of retractable side panels (34) coupled to the roof and configured to provide protection from rain or privacy. 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 device of Lieberman, as modified, by adding retractable side panels as taught by Collins in order to better protect the occupants of the shade.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman, as modified, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang in US Patent 4724882. Lieberman, as modified, is silent on the collapsibility of the device. Wang teaches a movable shade apparatus that is collapsible into a portable box (when the device is “disassembled for shipping and storage”). 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 device of Lieberman, as modified, by using a collapsible device that can be placed into a box as taught by Wang in order to allow the user to transport the device.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005083193 (Snyders) in view of Gharabegian in US Publication 2017/0324372.
Regarding Claim 15, Snyders teaches a movable shade apparatus, comprising: a roof (14 and 15) configured to provide shade when standing below the roof, wherein the roof comprises an outer frame (16) and a plurality of spaced apart boards (20) coupled to the outer frame; a plurality of support posts (2/3) coupled to the roof at opposing ends of the roof, an actuator (22/60) coupled to at least one of the plurality of support posts and configured to adjust a pitch of the roof with respect to the plurality of support posts; and a base assembly (see the lowermost ends of 2 and 3) coupled to a lower end of each of the plurality of support posts.
Snyders is silent on the use of an outlet in the support post. Gharabegian teaches a movable shade apparatus including a roof (110) and a support post (106) wherein the support post includes a power outlet (332), a solar panel (285) is disposed on the roof; a battery (184) is coupled to the solar panel; and a base assembly coupled to a lower end of the support post, wherein the base assembly includes a support member (306) and one or more weights (316) that are removably attached to the support member. Gharabegian further teaches
an electronic device (a “computing device” – see paragraph 0199) electrically coupled to the power outlet, wherein the controller is configured to control power to the electronic device based on a wireless input from the user and that input from the user is provided via a smart phone (see Paragraph 0158). 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 device of Snyders by adding an outlet, solar panel and battery to the device as taught by Gharabegian in order to allow the user to charge their devices and to add weights to the base member as taught by Gharabegian in order to stabilize the device.
Regarding Claim 16, Snyders, as modified, is silent on the use of a controller. Gharabegian further teaches the use of a controller having a network interface (895) configured to receive wireless input from a user (see Paragraph 0158) and configured to control the pitch of the roof via the actuator based on input from the user, wherein the controller is configured to independently control the pitch of each roof of an array of multiple ones of the movable shade apparatus that are linked together (see paragraph 0232). 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 device of Snyders by adding a controller as taught by Gharabegian and using multiple shade devices as taught by Gharabegian in order to provide more shade for the user.
Regarding Claim 17, Snyders, as modified, teaches (see Fig. 3) that the plurality of spaced apart boards are coupled to the outer frame at staggered heights.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyders, as modified, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Brown in US Patent 5868152. Snyders, as modified, teaches (see Gharabegian) an electronic device electrically coupled to the power outlet, wherein the controller is configured to control power to the electronic device based on a wireless input from the user but fails to teach the use of a food preparation device. Brown teaches a shade device including an outlet (21) on a support post, and an electronic device electrically coupled to the power outlet, wherein the electronic device is a food preparation device (such as a “blender” – see Column 2, line 46). 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 device of Snyders, as modified, by using the outlet to power a food preparation device as taught by Brown in order to allow the user to prepare a tasty beverage while in the protection of the shade.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah Chandler Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636