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 loops and the straps inserted into the loops as recited in claim 1 and the pentagonal shaped tarp as recited in claims 4, 8, 13 and 17 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 § 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 1-3, 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (2,493,749) hereinafter Brown.
Brown discloses:
Claim 1: A weather protection system comprising:
one or more long side wall tarps (Fig. 12; 37), wherein the one or more long side wall tarps are configured to cover a long side wall of a building (Fig. 1), and wherein the one or more long side wall tarps are rectangular shaped tarps (Fig. 1; the side wall tarps are depicted as rectangular);
one or more roof tarps (Fig. 1; 10), wherein one or more roof tarps are configured to cover a top of a building (Fig. 1), and wherein the one or more roof tarps are rectangular shaped tarps (Fig. 1; 10 are depicted as rectangular);
one or more short side wall tarps (Fig. 3; 95), wherein the one or more short side wall tarps are configured to cover a short side wall of a building (Fig. 1);
one or more extension tarps (Fig. 26; 100), wherein the one or more extension tarps are attached to at least one of the one or more short side wall tarps along a length of the short side wall tarps (Fig. 26; 100, Col. 6, Lines 13-18);
one or more straps (Fig. 2; 134/135);
one or more strap attachment members (Fig. 9; 133), wherein the one or more strap attachment members comprise one or more loops, and wherein the one or more loops are disposed upon the long side wall tarps, roof tarps, short side wall tarps, and extension tarps (Fig. 9; 133, Col. 7, Lines 17-24); and
one or more straps, wherein the at least one strap is inserted into at least one loop (Fig. 9; 134/135 are inserted into 133).
Claim 2: The weather protection system of claim 1, wherein the weather protection system comprises four long side wall tarps (Fig. 12; 37, Col. 3, Lines 1-5 describe 2 side walls on each side).
Claim 3: The weather protection system of claim 1, wherein the weather protection system comprises four roof tarps (Fig. 1; 10, Col. 3, Lines 1-5 describes any desired number of roof tarps).
Claim 5: The weather protection system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more short side wall tarps comprises a triangular shaped tarp (Fig. 26; the top segment of 95 has a triangular shape).
Claim 6: The weather protection system of claim 1, wherein the tarps comprise at least two layers of material (Fig. 12; 37 and 39).
Claim 9: The weather protection system of claim 5, wherein weather protection system comprises four triangular shaped tarps (Fig. 26; the top segment of 95 has a triangular shape, where there are 2 segments of 95 at each end of the structure).
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.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (2,493,749) hereinafter Brown.
Claim 4: Brown discloses the weather protection system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more short side wall tarps comprises an irregular shaped tarp (Fig. 26; 95 is depicted as an irregular shape), but fails to disclose a pentagonal shape.
While Brown fails to disclose a pentagonal shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to change the shape of the to use a pentagonal shaped tarp in order to maximize coverage without using excessive material, since it has been held that changes in shape have no patentable significance absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV) (B) – Changes in Shape.
Therefore, 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 side wall tarps of Brown to be a pentagonal shape, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would maximize coverage without using excessive material.
Claim 8: Brown discloses the weather protection system of claim 4, wherein weather protection system comprises four irregular pentagonal shaped tarps (Fig. 26; there are 2 segments of 95 at each end of the structure).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (2,493,749) hereinafter Brown, in view of Erbetta et al. (2003/0005953) hereinafter Erbetta.
Claim 7: Brown discloses a weather protection system of claim 1, but fails to disclose one or more bladders, wherein the bladders comprise one or more tubes and one or more cap members, and wherein the bladders are configured to be positioned around the perimeter of the building.
However, Erbetta discloses one or more bladders (Fig. 1; 22), wherein the bladders comprise one or more tubes (Fig. 1; 22) and one or more cap members (Fig. 1; 24), and wherein the bladders are configured to be positioned around the perimeter of the building (Fig. 1; 22 are depicted around the perimeter of the structure).
Therefore, 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 structure of Brown to include the bladders, as taught by Erbetta, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the attachment of flooring to the structure.
Claims 10-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (2,493,749) hereinafter Brown, in view of Marsh (2023/0258009).
Claim 10: Brown discloses a method of using a weather protection system comprising:
one or more long side wall tarps (Fig. 12; 37), and wherein the one or more long side wall tarps are rectangular shaped tarps (Fig. 1; the side wall tarps are depicted as rectangular);
one or more roof tarps (Fig. 1; 10), wherein the one or more roof tarps are rectangular shaped tarps (Fig. 1; 10 are depicted as rectangular);
one or more short side wall tarps (Fig. 3; 95);
one or more extension tarps (Fig. 26; 100), wherein the one or more extension tarps are attached to at least one of the one or more short side wall tarps along a length of the short side wall tarps (Fig. 26; 100, Col. 6, Lines 13-18);
one or more straps (Fig. 2; 134/135);
one or more strap attachment members (Fig. 9; 133), wherein the one or more strap attachment members comprise one or more loops, and wherein the one or more loops are disposed upon the long side wall tarps, roof tarps, short side wall tarps, and extension tarps (Fig. 9; 133, Col. 7, Lines 17-24); and
one or more straps, wherein the at least one strap is inserted into at least one loop (Fig. 9; 134/135 are inserted into 133).
Brown fails to disclose covering a building with the structure.
However, Marsh discloses covering a building (Fig. 1; 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the structure of Brown to cover a building, as taught by Marsh, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide protection from inclement weather when under construction or renovation (abstract).
Claim 11: Brown discloses the method of using a weather protection system of claim 10, wherein the weather protection system comprises four long side wall tarps (Fig. 12; 37, Col. 3, Lines 1-5 describe 2 side walls on each side).
Claim 12: Brown discloses the method of using a weather protection system of claim 10, wherein the weather protection system comprises four roof tarps (Fig. 1; 10, Col. 3, Lines 1-5 describes any desired number of roof tarps).
Claim 13: Brown discloses the method of using a weather protection system of claim 10, wherein at least one of the one or more short side wall tarps comprises an irregular shaped tarp (Fig. 26; 95 is depicted as an irregular shape), but fails to disclose a pentagonal shape.
While Brown fails to disclose a pentagonal shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to change the shape of the to use a pentagonal shaped tarp in order to maximize coverage without using excessive material, since it has been held that changes in shape have no patentable significance absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV) (B) – Changes in Shape.
Therefore, 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 side wall tarps of Brown to be a pentagonal shape, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would maximize coverage without using excessive material.
Claim 14: Brown discloses the method of using a weather protection system of claim 10, wherein at least one of the one or more short side wall tarps comprises a triangular shaped tarp (Fig. 26; the top segment of 95 has a triangular shape).
Claim 15: Brown discloses the method of using a weather protection system of claim 10, wherein the tarps comprise at least two layers of material (Fig. 12; 37 and 39).
Claim 17: Brown discloses the method of using a weather protection system of claim 13, wherein weather protection system comprises four irregular pentagonal shaped tarps (Fig. 26; there are 2 segments of 95 at each end of the structure).
Claim 18: Brown discloses the method of using a weather protection system of claim 14, wherein weather protection system comprises four triangular shaped tarps (Fig. 26; the top segment of 95 has a triangular shape, where there are 2 segments of 95 at each end of the structure).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (2,493,749) hereinafter Brown, in view of Marsh (2023/0258009), and further in view of Erbetta et al. (2003/0005953) hereinafter Erbetta.
Claim 16: Brown discloses the method of using a weather protection system of claim 10, but fails to disclose one or more bladders, wherein the bladders comprise one or more tubes and one or more cap members, and wherein the bladders are configured to be positioned around the perimeter of the building.
However, Erbetta discloses one or more bladders (Fig. 1; 22), wherein the bladders comprise one or more tubes (Fig. 1; 22) and one or more cap members (Fig. 1; 24), and wherein the bladders are configured to be positioned around the perimeter of the building (Fig. 1; 22 are depicted around the perimeter of the structure).
Therefore, 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 structure of Brown to include the bladders, as taught by Erbetta, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the attachment of flooring to the structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
