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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 202021106603 (Schmid).
Regarding Claim 1, Schmid teaches a tent framework, comprising: a plurality of support poles (1) for supporting on the ground; a plurality of tent top poles (2), one end of each of the tent top poles being hinged to a top connector (A, see below), and the other end being hinged to a corresponding support pole; a plurality of tent side poles (B), both ends of each of the tent side poles being respectively hinged to two adjacent support poles; at least one auxiliary pole (6), one end of the auxiliary pole being hinged to a sliding seat (7) such that the end is slidably connected to one of the tent top pole and the support pole, and the other end of the auxiliary pole being hinged to the other of the tent top pole and the support pole; at least one extension pole comprising a first pole section (2a), a second pole section (3) and a third pole section (8), an inner end of the third pole section being hinged to the auxiliary pole (at 5), the first pole section being arranged at an obtuse angle to the second pole section, the second pole section being arranged at an obtuse angle to the third pole section, and the first pole section facing opposite to the third pole section relative to the second pole section (see Fig. 2); and an extension seat (4) provided on the support pole or the tent top pole, and the extension pole being penetratingly arranged in a support hole of the extension seat; in an unfolded state, the first pole section being arranged to extend outward to extend out of a tent framework main body (Fig. 1); and in a folded state, the extension pole being folded and accommodated in the tent framework main body (Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
355
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Schmid teaches that the extension seat is fixedly arranged on the support pole, and the other end of the tent top pole is hinged to the extension seat (see Figs. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 5, Schmid teaches that the support hole is arranged parallel to and offset from the support pole on the extension seat (see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 8, Schmid teaches that the extension seat is provided with a first connection position (C, see below) for connecting the tent top pole, a third connection position for connecting the support pole (E), and a fourth connection position (F) for connecting the tent side pole.
PNG
media_image2.png
473
395
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Schmid teaches that a top end of the support pole is inserted into the third connection position (see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 10, Schmid teaches that the tent side poles each comprise at least one group of X-arm assemblies, and outer ends of the tent side poles are respectively hinged to the fourth connection position and the sliding seat (see Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 11, Schmid teaches that the tent top pole comprises a first pole body (G, see below) and a second pole body (H), and an outer end of the first pole body and an inner end of the second pole body are hinged to be flipped to be unfolded or folded relative to each other.
PNG
media_image3.png
541
519
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Schmid teaches that an outer end of the extension pole is not higher than a top surface of the top connector in the folded state (the outer end of the extension pole is below the extension seat in the folded position and the top connector will be level with the extension seat when folded).
Regarding Claim 3, Schmid teaches that one end of the auxiliary pole is hinged to the tent top pole, and the other end is hinged to the sliding seat, and the sliding seat is slidably assembled relative to the support pole (see Figs. 3-5).
Regarding Claim 4, Schmid teaches that an auxiliary seat (5) is fixedly provided on the auxiliary pole, and the inner end of the third pole section is hinged to the auxiliary seat.
Regarding Claim 6, Schmid teaches that in the unfolded state, a junction of the first pole section and the second pole section is located in the support hole (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Schmid teaches a tent framework, comprising: a plurality of support poles (1) for supporting on the ground; a plurality of tent top poles (2), each of the tent top poles having an upper end hinged to a top connector (A) and a lower end hinged to an extension seat (4); a plurality of tent side poles (B), both ends of each of the tent side poles being respectively hinged to two adjacent support poles; a plurality of extension seats fixedly provided on the support poles; the tent side pole each comprising at least one group of X-arm assemblies (see Fig. 13), and pole ends of the tent side poles being respectively hinged to the extension seats and a sliding seat (7); at least one auxiliary pole (6), an upper end of the auxiliary pole being hinged to the tent top pole, a lower end of the auxiliary pole being hinged to the sliding seat, and the sliding seat being slidably arranged on the support pole; and at least one extension pole (2a/3/8), an inner end of the extension pole being hinged to the auxiliary pole (at 5); in an unfolded state, the extension pole being arranged to extend outward to extend out of a tent framework main body; and in a folded state, the extension pole being folded and accommodated in the tent framework main body (see Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Schmid teaches that the extension pole comprises a first pole section (2a), a second pole section (3) and a third pole section (8), an inner end of the third pole section is hinged to the auxiliary pole (at 5), the first pole section is arranged at an obtuse angle to the second pole section, the second pole section is arranged at an obtuse angle to the third pole section, and the first pole section faces opposite to the third pole section relative to the second pole section (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Schmid teaches that an auxiliary seat (5) is fixedly 1provided on the auxiliary pole, and the inner end of the third pole section is hinged to the auxiliary seat.
Regarding Claim 18, Schmid teaches that the extension pole is arranged parallel to and offset outside the support poles in the unfolded state (see Fig. 13), and an outer end of the extension pole is not higher than a top surface of the top connector in the folded state (the outer end of the extension pole is below the extension seat in the folded position and the top connector will be level with the extension seat when folded).
Regarding Claim 20, Schmid teaches that the extension seat is fixedly arranged at a top end of the support pole; and the tent top pole comprises a first pole body (G) and a second pole body (H), and an outer end of the first pole body and an inner end of the second pole body are hinged to be flipped to be unfolded or folded relative to each other.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid as applied to Claim 8 above in view of Choi in US Publication 2011/0073148. Schmid is silent on the type of support poles. Choi teaches a tent framework including support poles (1) that are telescopic (see Paragraph 0024). 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 Schmid by using telescopic support poles as taught by Choi in order to collapse the device more compactly.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Choi in US Publication 2007/0051397. Schmid teaches a tent, comprising: a tent framework according to claim 1, but is silent on the explicit inclusion of a tarpaulin. Choi teaches a tent including a tent framework with extension poles (4) and a tarpaulin (3) placed above the tent framework; wherein each corner of the tarpaulin is supported by an extension pole in an unfolded state. 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 Schmid by adding a tarpaulin as taught by Choi in order to provide the shade and protection inherently intended by the normal use of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 19 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi, Wang, Huang, and Yang teach tent frameworks.
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 C. Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
