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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes that the applicant has other similar art not included in an a disclosure statement.
Drawings
The drawings are replete with objectionable matters, the following are merely non-limiting examples.
I) The drawings are objected to because:
1) it is unclear what the specification described “A bearing member 322” is exactly because the reference line seems to point to the surface of screw rod sleeve 321 in fig. 14, yet the specification [para. 0072] describes 322 as “between…321 and…320” [see annotated fig. 14 below]. Is the bearing member 322 the outer surface of screw rod sleeve 321 or is it the unlabeled part of fig. 14 or something else? Note that a surface of an object can be ‘a bearing’ so this is unclear.
PNG
media_image1.png
792
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2) the figures do not appear to be consistent, as non-limiting examples, see comparisons between fig.s’ 11, 12 and 14 below. A piece in fig. 11 seems missing from fig.’s 12 and 14, (etc.). And the comparison between fig.’s 11 and 14 make the overall structure of the apparatus unclear, for example, bearing seat 323 in fig. 14 appears to have an outer most circumference that would be visible to the eye, but this is inconsistent with fig. 12 which doesn’t appear to show 323. Why the discrepancy? This makes the explanation of the structure [including the claims] unclear, for example, para 0072 discusses sleeve 320 but it’s not clear if this also refers to fig.’s 11 and 12 since they don’t appear to have the same structure shown in fig. 14 which is the only figure that points to 320. Similarly, fig. 12 doesn’t appear to have the bearing seat as discussed above. Similarly, do fig.’s 11 and 12 have the rod sleeve 321? Which further begs the question do they have what seems to be critical element 712 (moving base) which is only shown in fig. 14 too, and since fig.’s 11 and 12 are so different do they also include a moving base 712 or not? Are these all different embodiments and, if so, how come this isn’t clearly described in the specification?
PNG
media_image2.png
1013
986
media_image2.png
Greyscale
3) para. 0072 discusses “a sliding groove” not shown in the drawings. If it is shown, it is not provided with a reference character and line/arrow.
II) 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 claimed:
1) claim 4 “when the moving base…rotates, the moving base moves up and down relative to the central screw rod” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is unclear how 712 and 800 both rotate based on the figures in such a way to allow the moving base 712 to move up and down. If 712 rotates, it seems like it would not be driven up and down by the screw rod 800. No new matter should be entered.
2) At the end of claim 1, “the telescopic sleeve assembly is capable of being stretched or retracted” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Paragraph 0071 states that “The first telescopic sleeve unit 710 can be stretched or retracted relative to the second telescopic sleeve unit 720.” But the drawings fail to show these two states as best understood when looking at the figures and referring to the specification. Looking at fig.’s 15 and 16, as best understood due to lack of clarity in the figures, they seem always hooked to one another.
3) At the end of claim 5, “an outer side portion of the first linkage seat and an inner side portion of the guide ring seat are capable of forming mutual collision, and an outer side portion of the second linkage seat and an outer side portion of the guide ring seat are capable of forming mutual collision” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Looking at fig.’s 15 and 16, as best understood due to lack of clarity and detail in the figures, this doesn’t appear possible. How can the top end (first linkage seat) of the second telescopic unit 720 have “mutual collision” (as best understood) with the guide ring seat 713 which is positioned on the first telescopic sleeve 711 while the bottom end of telescopic unit (second linkage seat) also be able to have “mutual collision” with the same ring guide seat 713 of first telescopic sleeve unit 711? The figures do not show how this is possible. Also, when looking at fig. 15, where is the ring guide seat 713?
Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant is expected to correct those and find all issues similar to those and correct them as well.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to for the following non-limiting examples:
1) the description of how the telescopic units and base function is unclear. In para 0072 “The moving base 712 is fixedly mounted in an inner cavity of an upper end of the first telescopic sleeve 711, and the upper end of the first telescopic sleeve 711 can rotate through a plane bearing between two portion of the bearing seat 323, such that when the first telescopic sleeve 711 rotates, the moving base 712 can rotate without interference with the cantilever base 300” is grammatically incorrect and not clear. What is this “plane bearing” and why is there no reference character with line/arrow in the drawings? Or is it not a structure at all? It's also unclear what is rotating and how? The specification at para 0072 discusses that the moving base 712 is fixedly mounted to 711, and that rotation of screw rod 800 drives the moving base 712 up or down along the screw rod 800 which also drives the first telescopic sleeve unit 711 up or down. The specification also explains that the first telescopic sleeve unit and the moving base 712 can rotate [see quoted paragraph above], so how do 711 and 712 rotate while also being driven by the screw rod 800. If they rotated too then wouldn’t they not be driven up/down as explained? Or at least there would be some different speeds of rotation and the spec/drawings don’t clearly show how any differential speeds would be possible. The figures don’t clearly show any structural capable of performing this function and the spec doesn’t explain how the structure shown in the drawings could do this. So it’s unclear how these structures are meant to function with respect to one another. Does 711 and 712 actually rotate? Are 711 and 712 actually “fixedly mounted” to one another as described in the specification?
2) the specification is also objected to for failing to proper show/explain possession of the claimed subject matter discussed in the 112a rejections in more detail below.
3) The abstract of the specification is objected to for improperly using implied language such as “Dislosed is” and improperly repeating the title in the first sentence of the abstract.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Appropriate correction is required.
Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant is expected to correct those and find all issues similar to those and correct them as well.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
**Note that the claims are replete with objectionable matters such that below are merely non-limiting examples:
Claim 1, line 1, reciting novelty claims in the preamable such as “a novel” in an application for patent (not patented) is improper in US practice.
Claim 1, line 3, “the other end” provides a lack of proper antecedent basis. Suggestion: amend to --an other end--..
Claim 1, 3rd to last line, “one telescopic sleeve unit” appears to be referring to one of the ‘at least two telescopic sleeve units’ already recited, however, it could be referring to a third unit. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner will interpret this as two total sleeve units in the scope of claim 1, however, the applicant should amend to --one of said telescopic sleeve units-- or introduce a third clearly by reciting first/second/third units if a third is intended.
Claim 2, line 3, “a pull rod is arranged the pull rod seat” needs correction for proper grammar. Also, is it in/on/through/etc. the pull rod seat?
Claim 2, line 3, “the other end of the pull rod” provides a lack of proper antecedent basis. Please correct.
Claim 16, “the number” provides a lack of proper antecedent basis. Also, “the solar panels” lacks proper antecedent basis since only one has been properly introduced. Suggestion: amend to --the solar panel comprises two solar panels--.
Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant is expected to correct those and find all issues similar to those and correct them as well.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-19 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it doesn’t appear based on the disclosure that the applicant had possession of “the telescopic sleeve assembly is capable of being stretched or retracted” as claimed at the end of claim 1. Paragraph 0071 states that “The first telescopic sleeve unit 710 can be stretched or retracted relative to the second telescopic sleeve unit 720.” But the drawings fail to show how this is obtained and the specification/figures fail to explain how this claimed function is performed. Looking at fig.’s 15 and 16, as best understood due to lack of clarity in the figures, they seem always hooked to one another. If they’re not, these figures should be described and shown in more detail to show possession of the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, there is no drawing/figure that appears to show a retracted vs. a stretched state, in fact, all the figures seem to show them in the same state. If there is a figure that shows this, it should be clearly explained. Also, there are additional reasons indicating its unknown if the applicant had possession of this claimed subject matter, for example, it isn’t clear how the telescopic assembly actually functions - please the 112a rejections of claims 4 and 5 below as well as the drawing/specification objections above for additional detail.
Regarding Claim 4, recitations such as “when the moving base…rotates, the moving base moves up and down relative to the central screw rod” is not explained in the original disclosure in such a way to show the applicant had possession of this claimed function at the time of filing. Although relative rotation of the moving base and rod screw is possible, it would require significantly further detail with more intricate explanation of rotation relativity along with structure shown to explain how claimed “moving base” 712 “rotates” and “moves up and down” if it is screw rod 800 that should rotate to linearly drive moving base 712, not rotate 712. Moving base 712 doesn’t seem like it should be able to rotate based on the figures and the specifications explanation that it is fixedly mounted to the telescopic unit 711 [see spec para 0072] which also seems to rotate which draws further confusion. If 712 rotates along with 711, then it seems that when screw rod 800 rotates it wouldn’t be able to move up and down - 711/712 would merely rotate in place. The specification draws further confusion as to how the applicant had possession of this claimed subject matter since para. 0072 explains that telescopic unit 711 rotates and furthermore, the drawings don’t clearly show the detail of how this would all function properly as can be further understood by the drawing and specification objections applied above.
Regarding Claim 5, at the end of claim 5, “an outer side portion of the first linkage seat and an inner side portion of the guide ring seat are capable of forming mutual collision, and an outer side portion of the second linkage seat and an outer side portion of the guide ring seat are capable of forming mutual collision” must be explained in some manner to demonstrate the applicant had possession of this at the time of filing. Looking at fig.’s 15 and 16, as best understood due to lack of clarity and detail in the figures, this doesn’t appear possible. How can the top end (first linkage seat) of the second telescopic unit 720 have “mutual collision” (as best understood) with the guide ring seat 713 which is positioned on the first telescopic sleeve 711 while the bottom end of telescopic unit (second linkage seat) also is able to have “mutual collision” with the same ring guide seat 713 of first telescopic sleeve unit 711? The figures do not show how this is possible or lack enough clarity/detail to do so as currently shown or explained. Also, when looking at fig. 15, where is the ring guide seat 713? Also when looking at the figures, they appear to be locked together as no figures appears to show the first and second telescopic sleeve units in different states (i.e. a retracted vs. stretched state).
Note that dependent claims are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-19 are 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors many examples of which have already been provided in the claim objections sections above.
The following are merely non-limiting examples:
Regarding Claim 1, in lines 12-13 (using the numbering in the left margin of the applicants claim set), “the outermost side” provides a lack of proper antecedent basis. The outermost side of what? Without specifics, “the outermost side” would be the outermost side of the whole system such that this claim language wouldn’t properly comport with the applicants invention. It seems the applicant should amend to --an outermost side-- or be specific and amend to --the outermost side of the screw rod-- or to whatever the applicant actually means here because it is also unclear as to what structure “arranged on the outmost side” is in reference to. Is it the cantilever base that is arranged on the outmost side of something, or is it the telescopic sleeve unit that is arranged on the outmost side of something. Please clarify.
Regarding Claim 1, in the final line, “the telescopic sleeve assembly is capable of being stretched or retracted” is unclear. It is unclear what definition of “stretched” is being applied here. How does it stretch? It seems like it just moves up and down but it doesn’t elongate or shorten in overall length with respect to itself as seemingly required by the plain meaning of the claimed term. It is further noted that the applicant has not provided a definition in the original disclosure as their own lexicographer to clarify this meaning. Also, see 112a rejection above. Please clarify.
Claim 3, lines 2-3 appear to improperly introduce another two telescopic sleeve units which would be a possible total of 4 or 5 now. How many units are there meant to be in the scope of the claim? Note that it should comport with support in the specification/drawings which seems to only have 2, not 4 or 5 as seemingly now claimed. Please clarify.
Regarding Claim 4, it is unclear how the moving base can rotate via the limitation “when the moving base…rotates”. It doesn’t seem like the linear driving would function properly if the moving base 712 rotates along with the screw rod 800. See 112a above for further detail regarding this matter.
Regarding Claim 5, it is unclear what “forming mutual collision” means. Please clarify. Also, it is unclear how the following from the final few lines is possible: “an outer side portion of the first linkage seat and an inner side portion of the guide ring seat are capable of forming mutual collision, and an outer side portion of the second linkage seat and an outer side portion of the guide ring seat are capable of forming mutual collision” based on the disclosure. The drawings/spec don’t seem to provide enough clarity/detail to show or explain this limitation. Also see 112a rejection above for further detail.
Regarding Claim 7, “gradually” is a relative term of degree which renders the claim indefinite. Such terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Note that dependent claims are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Further note that above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant is expected to correct those and find all issues similar to those and correct them as well.
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 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 1-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 8757184).
Regarding Claim 1. An outdoor sun-shading umbrella having a novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism (fig. 4), comprising an umbrella stand (A; fig. 4) and an umbrella post (at but not limited to B; fig. 4), wherein a cantilever base (D; fig. 4)is arranged on the umbrella post, the cantilever base is provided with a cantilever (rib section of A connecting D to A; easily seen in fig. 5 for example) for [intended use] cooperation, and the other end of the cantilever is mounted in cooperation with the umbrella stand (A); the outdoor sun-shading umbrella further comprises an unfolding and folding moving mechanism (such as but not limited to F shown in fig.’s 1,4,4a,4b,5), the unfolding and folding moving mechanism is used for [intended use] driving the cantilever base to move up and down along the umbrella post (see difference in fig. 4 vs. 5 for example), the unfolding and folding moving mechanism comprises a central screw rod (6, 7 and/or 8) and a telescopic sleeve assembly, the telescopic sleeve assembly comprises at least two telescopic sleeve units (many elements herein can be considered these such as sections of B, E, both or other/additional elements when interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation as claimed), the central screw rod is positioned in an inner cavity of the telescopic sleeve assembly (as seen in fig. 4 for example), the cantilever base is used for [intended use] fixedly cooperating with the telescopic sleeve unit arranged on the outermost side in a sleeving manner, and one telescopic sleeve unit and the central screw rod realize relative movement, such that the telescopic sleeve assembly is capable of being stretched or retracted (as understood when looking between fig.’s 3-5b).
Regarding Claim 2. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 1, wherein a pull rod seat (C) is farther arranged on the umbrella post, a pull rod (another of the ribs A1) is arranged the pull rod seat for cooperation, and the other end of the pull rod is used for being mounted in cooperation with the umbrella stand (as seen in fig. 5); and when the telescopic sleeve assembly is changed from a stretched state to a retracted state, the cantilever base drives the cantilever to realize unfolding or angle adjustment of the umbrella stand (as seen in fig.’s 4-5).
Regarding Claim 3. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 2, wherein the telescopic sleeve assembly has two telescopic sleeve units, namely a first telescopic sleeve unit and a second telescopic sleeve unit, the first telescopic sleeve unit is arranged outside the second telescopic sleeve unit in a sleeving manner, and the cantilever base is mounted in cooperation with the first telescopic sleeve unit (as can be seen via fig. 1 for example, along with 4a and 5).
Regarding Claim 4. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 3, wherein the first telescopic sleeve unit comprises a first telescopic sleeve (B2), a guide ring seat (there are a few as seen in fig. 1 and 4a) positioned on the first telescopic sleeve and a moving base (such as 3 as one non-limiting example) positioned in the first telescopic sleeve, the moving base is used for cooperating with the central screw rod, and when the moving base or the central screw rod rotates, the moving base moves up and down relative to the central screw rod.
Regarding Claim 5. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 4, wherein the second telescopic sleeve unit comprises a second telescopic sleeve (B2 for this claim, making the first sleeve B1 for claims above and the guide ring is 21 as seen in fig. 1 for the claims above now instead of as previously interpreted), a first linkage seat (see top of B2 at 3 in fig. 1) located at [near or in the vicinity of] an upper end of the second telescopic sleeve and a second linkage seat (5 at bottom of B2 and top of B3 in fig. 1) located at [near or in the vicinity of] a lower end of the second telescopic sleeve (4; fig. 1), an outer side portion of the first linkage seat and an inner side portion of the guide ring seat are capable of [intended use] forming mutual collision [the claim doesn’t require they form mutual collision with each other, the scope of the claim only requires each respectively form mutual collision broadly which could be with anything which they do as can be seen in fig.’s 1 and 5 for example), and an outer side portion of the second linkage seat and an outer side portion of the guide ring seat are capable of [intended use] forming mutual collision (same interpretation as above since the claim is broad as recited).
Regarding Claim 6. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 2, wherein the pull rod and the cantilever are in an X-cross fit (as see in fig. 2 - examiner interpreting ‘x cross fit’ as merely crossing paths and fitted together but not requiring a complexly perfect ‘x’ shape as the term ‘x-cross fit’ is ambiguous and broad).
Regarding Claim 7. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 2, wherein an umbrella post lifting assembly (such as E for example) is arranged between the pull rod and the umbrella post for cooperation, the pull rod seat is arranged on the umbrella post lifting assembly (see top of fig. 3 for example with ropes E passing through pull rod seat 3), the pull rod seat is used for [intended use] cooperating with the pull rod in a hinged manner (see fig. 4 vs. 5), the umbrella post lifting assembly is located at an upper portion of the umbrella post (see top of fig. 3; E), and the umbrella post lifting assembly is capable of [intended use] moving up and down relative to the umbrella post; the outdoor sun-shading umbrella further comprises a supporting rod (many of the A1’s meet this limitation; see fig. 4 and 5), one end of the supporting rod cooperates with the umbrella post in a hinged manner (as see in fig. 5), and the other end of the supporting rod cooperates with a middle of the pull rod in a hinged manner (all sections of all the ribs ‘cooperate’ with each other in order to function, the scope of ‘cooperate’ is extremely broad and is being interpreted as such); and when the outdoor sun-shading umbrella is folded, an included angle between the supporting rod and the pull rod gradually increases (see angle in annotated fig. 5 below), such that the pull rod drives the pull rod seat to be lifted upwards (the rope of E can be interpreted as a part of the seat and the rope is pulled down on one side and Upward on the other side such that the limitation is met when interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation as claimed), and the umbrella post lifting assembly is lifted upwards along the umbrella post (the rope of E can be interpreted as a part of the seat and the rope is pulled down on one side and Upward on the other side such that the limitation is met when interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation as claimed).
PNG
media_image3.png
784
595
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 7, wherein the umbrella post lifting assembly comprises an outer umbrella post (such as B1) and an inner umbrella post (such as B2), the outer umbrella post is arranged on an outer side of the upper portion of the umbrella post in a sleeving manner, the inner umbrella post is embedded in an inner cavity of the upper portion of the umbrella post, and the pull rod seat is positioned at [‘at’ meaning ‘near or in the vicinity of’] upper ends of the outer umbrella post and the inner umbrella post (due to the broadness of the term ‘at’, on can reasonably say the top of B2 is near pull rod seat C as seen in fig. 4a - especially considering it’s near enough to telescope to being very close in fig. 5 as well).
Regarding Claim 9. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 7, wherein a first supporting rod hinged seat is fixed on the umbrella post, the first supporting rod hinged seat is used for cooperating with one end of the supporting rod in a hinged manner (all hinges can be considered a ‘hinged seat’ and this umbrella has many ribs and hinges such that the limitation is met in many ways), a second supporting rod hinged seat is arranged in the middle of the pull rod (see fig. 5), and the second supporting rod hinged seat is used for [intended use] cooperating with the other end of the supporting rod in a hinged manner; and the first supporting rod hinged seat is located at an upper portion of the cantilever base (see fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 10. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 8, wherein a guide wheel seat (such as at 31 for example; see fig. 4a) is arranged at [near or in the vicinity of] a lower portion of the inner umbrella post (see fig. 4a), and a guide wheel (31) is arranged in the guide wheel seat for [intended use] cooperation.
Regarding Claim 11. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 9, wherein an umbrella post upper end cover (such as but not limited to 2 for example) is arranged at [near or in the vicinity of] an upper end of the umbrella post (at an upper end of the entire post since it is on the uppermost section B1), an inner umbrella post through cavity [a cavity in which the inner umbrella post can pass through; this is one single structural term] is provided at [near or in the vicinity of] the umbrella post upper end cover (B2 passes through 2 so it has a cavity), and the inner umbrella post (B2) is capable of [intended use] moving up and down along the inner umbrella post through cavity (as seen between fig. 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 12. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 7, further comprising a driving mechanism, wherein the driving mechanism comprises an electric driving mechanism or/and a manual driving mechanism (G; note that ‘and/or’ in its broadest interpretation is merely ‘or’ which only one of the two need be taught by the prior art for the limitation to be met by the prior art).
Regarding Claim 13. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 12, wherein the electric driving mechanism is used for driving the central screw rod to rotate, such that the telescopic sleeve assembly is capable of [intended use] being stretched or retracted along the central screw rod (it performs this function as claimed).
Regarding Claim 14. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 13, wherein the electric driving mechanism comprises a driving motor and a coupling (as seen in fig. 1), and an upper portion of the central screw rod is mounted in cooperation with the coupling (as understood by fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 15. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 14, wherein an upper portion of the pull rod seat is provided with a solar seat (a solar seat can merely mean it can withstand or help protect the umbrella user from rays of the sun which it inherently can) for [intended use] cooperation, and at least one solar panel (the cloth atop A which is described in the first or second paragraph of the detailed description as ‘not shown in the drawings and secured on the frame A’) is arranged on the solar seat (without providing limiting functional language or structure to ‘solar panel’, it is merely a panel configured to interact with sun rays such as to protect the umbrella user from ‘solar’ rays and the cloth at the top of the umbrella is a solar panel for being a panel that protects the user from solar rays such that Chen meets this broad scope as claimed; if the applicant wants ‘solar panel’ to mean that it is configured to store energy from the sun to be used by the motor, then the claim must include such language accordingly).
Regarding Claim 16. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 15, wherein the number of the solar panels is two (ribs A1 are many; each one can be considered a solar panel as claimed since they are panels meant to provide protection to the user by laying cloth thereover).
Regarding Claim 18. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 12, wherein the manual driving mechanism is used for driving the telescopic sleeve assembly to rotate, such that the telescopic sleeve assembly is capable of being stretched or retracted along the central screw rod. Note that this is moot since the prior art teaches the other option of the two provided in the ’or’ clause of claim 12. That said, also note motors can be considered ‘manual’ to for many reasons as they are manually (by humans) turned on and off or reversed, etc. If the applicant wants ‘manual’ to mean hand crank powered by human, the claim should reflect this with limitations accordingly.
Regarding Claim 19. The outdoor sun-shading umbrella having the novel unfolding and folding lifting mechanism according to claim 18, wherein the manual driving mechanism comprises a manual driving portion and a rotating shaft, one end of the rotating shaft is connected to the manual driving portion, and the other end of the rotating shaft is provided with a rotating seat; and the rotating seat is in butt joint with the telescopic sleeve assembly for cooperation and is capable of driving the telescopic sleeve assembly to rotate. Note that this is moot since the prior art teaches the other option of the two provided in the ’or’ clause of claim 12. That said, also note motors can be considered ‘manual’ to for many reasons as they are manually (by humans) turned on and off or reversed, etc. If the applicant wants ‘manual’ to mean hand crank powered by human, the claim should reflect this with limitations accordingly.
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 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 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen as applied.
Regarding Claim 17, all of the elements are discussed above except for the wind sensor. The examiner takes Official Notice that such sensors, including wind sensors to activate an action is old and well known in the art such that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the umbrella of Chen with a wind sensor to protect the umbrella and/or user from dangerous winds causing unwanted action to the umbrella and/or said action from harming the user.
Conclusion
Contact Information:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P CAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-5616. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-8.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Namrata Boveja reachable at (571) 272-8105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights