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
No IDS filed.
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 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jin (US 8763621).
Regarding Claim 1,
A tent (fig. 1), comprising: a canopy (5 and/or 7); a plurality of fasteners (31 as a non-limiting example; note that the seams/sewing/stitching are also fasteners) secured to [note that a first element can be “secured to” a second element by way of elements in between] an interior of the canopy along [note that ‘along’ is a broad term and is being interpreted as such – its plain meaning is ‘continuously beside’, ‘on a line or course parallel and close to’, ‘in accordance with’, etc.] a perimeter of the canopy (see fig.’s 6A-7B, 9A/B, and 11 – note that ‘a perimeter’ is very broad and is being interpreted as such – for example, each surface of a sheet/canopy meets the definition of the ‘perimeter’ of the sheet/canopy); a cord (33 and/or 39 and/or 45/47 - see definition or plain meaning of ‘cord’ inserted below – specifically “any influence that binds or restrains” or “a cordlike structure” – although not necessary for the rejection due to the plain meaning of ‘cord’, also refer to excerpt 1 from col. 5, lines 49-53 inserted below) secured by [note that a plain meaning of ‘by’ can mean ‘close to’ such that if needed can be interpreted as such] the plurality of fasteners to provide [intended use] a plurality of cord segments between the fasteners (33 and 39 are cord segments between the stitching’s of 45 and 47; as alternative interpretation, a ‘segment’ is defined as ‘any of the parts into which something can be divided’, its akin to a portion – therefore the claimed “cord segments” can be interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation as the loops of the cord [cord formed by 33 and 39] that pass through the apertures of each buckle 75 and 77 in fig. 7A, note that these loops have segments/portions ‘between’ 75 and 77 where they pass through the apertures of the buckles; as an alternative interpretation – the ‘cord segments’ can be interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation as segments of the buckles themselves such as the prongs of 77 since ‘cord segments’ can be interpreted as segments that make up or connect the two portions (33/39) that form the cord when connected -these are merely non-limiting examples when interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation – this is pointed out to demonstrate that he claims as recited are very broad); and a cord lock (see buckle to adjust length of each strap 53 in col. 5 from excerpt 2 inserted below) to adjust [intended use] a tension of the cord (although this is intended use language, it is inherently taught as adjust the length of the cord/strap can perform this function, for example, lengthening another fastener on the tent so that this one is shorter than the other would increase tension on this one – therefore the function claimed is capable of being performed by this lock/buckle – also note that the plain meaning definition of ‘lock’ is merely “an interlocking or entanglement of elements or parts”).
Excerpt 1 from col. 5 starting at line 49 – teaches “cord”
PNG
media_image1.png
98
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 2 from Col. 5, line 62 – cord lock to adjust tension [buckle]
PNG
media_image2.png
80
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
*Note, above are merely non-limiting examples and there are multiple additional ways to interpret the broad scope of claim 1 such that Jin meets the limitations recited. Furthermore - although not necessary to reject the scope of the claims as recited, the examiner provided many non-limiting examples of broadest reasonable interpretations of limitations recited in claim 1 above to demonstrate that the scope of said claim 1 as recited is very broad. For example, if the applicant wants the scope of ‘cord’ to mean ‘a rope made of several twisted strands’ as oppose to its plain meaning ‘any influence that bind or restrains’, then the claims should reflect that scope desired/intended.
cord
n.
1. a string or thin rope made of several strands braided, twisted, or woven together.
2. a small, flexible, insulated electrical cable.
3. a ribbed fabric, esp. corduroy.
4. a cordlike rib on the surface of cloth.
5. cords, clothing, as trousers, of corded fabric, esp. corduroy.
6. any influence that binds or restrains.
7. a cordlike structure: the spinal cord.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
Regarding Claim 2. The tent of claim 1, wherein the cord extends in a loop (such as the loop of 33 shown in fig. 6A as one non-limiting example – it is further note that loop of cord 33 in fig. 6A alone [without 39/etc.] can be the cord recited and still meet the limitations of claim 1 due to the broad terms such as ‘secured by [near]’ and that a first segment of 35 would be the upper half loop and the second segment of 35 would be the lower half loop separated by fastener 34 and reconnected at what the spec describes as “coupling extension…45” [i.e. a fastener] – see excerpt 3 inserted below from col. 6).
Excerpt 3 from col. 6, starting at line 1 - “coupling extension…45”
PNG
media_image3.png
122
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3. The tent of claim 1, wherein the plurality of fasteners includes fasteners at a first height in the canopy (see fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 4. The tent of claim 3, wherein the plurality of fasteners includes fasteners secured to the interior of the canopy along a perimeter of the canopy at a second height in the canopy, different than the first height (as understood by looking at fig.’s 9A and 9B for example).
Regarding Claim 5. The tent of claim 1, wherein the plurality of fasteners comprise at least one of hoops or hooks (note that the prior art need only teach one of an ‘or’ clause despite both being taught in this prior art as seen among fig.’s 5-7B).
Regarding Claim 6. The tent of claim 1, wherein the cord comprises one or more fasteners to [intended use] attach to one or more of the plurality of fasteners (as seen in fig.’s 5-7B as non-limiting examples).
Regarding Claim 7. The tent of claim 1, further comprising first and second poles attached to an exterior of the canopy by straps (see fig. 1 along with fig. 5), wherein the straps are attached to (a first element can be “attached to” a second element by way of elements in between) the canopy at attachment points along an exterior of the canopy (see fig.’s 1 and 5), the straps are attached to the first and second poles at locations along a length of each of the first and second poles (see fig.1), and the plurality of fasteners are secured to (a first element can be “secured to” a second element by way of elements in between) the interior of the canopy at points of the canopy corresponding to the attachment points (see excerpt 4 inserted below from col. 6). Note that the term ‘corresponding’ is very broad.
Excerpt 4 from col. 6, line 39 – corresponding attachments points
PNG
media_image4.png
118
498
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8. The tent of claim 7, wherein the plurality of fasteners are secured to (a first element can be “secured to” a second element by way of elements in between) the straps (see fig. 5 and excerpt 4 above). **Further note that this is an example of the applicant reaffirming or conceding that for one element to be “secured to” another element they may do so via other elements in between since the applicants disclosure reflects that their fasteners are secured to the straps via other element(s) such as the canvas material at the very least. Note that the claim requires all fasteners (including the ones on the interior of the canopy as claimed) to be secured to the straps which are attached to the exterior of the canopy as claimed such that they must be secured via the canopy material at the very least.
Regarding Claim 9. The tent of claim 7, wherein a tension on the cord is transferred to the poles via the plurality of fasteners and the straps (this is inherently taught when considering the discussion of tension in excerpt 4 above along with fig. 5). Note that tension, stressing and over-stressing exerted by the cord/31 onto the rain fly 5 is continuously discussed throughout the disclosure and that said tension/stressing forces would inherently transfer to 51 of fig. 5 and therefor the poles as well.
Regarding Claim 10. The tent of claim 7, wherein the attachment points and the plurality of fasteners are aligned with the first and second poles (see excerpt 4 above; also refer to fig.’s 5 and 11 – also note that fig. 5 shows a plurality of fasteners and). Also note that the phrase “aligned with” is very broad – for example, any two element are aligned with each other in space since an axis/line can always be drawn between two elements in space – in fact, this is claimed in such a broad manner it could be interpreted such as to not limit the parent claim as recited.
Regarding Claim 12. The tent of claim 1, wherein the plurality of fasteners are secured to one or more seams of the canopy (as understood via fig.’s 5-7B).
Regarding Claim 13. The tent of claim 1, wherein the plurality of fasteners include a first set of fasteners (see fig. 7A for example – the lower 45, 77, etc.) at a first height in the canopy (as seen in fig. 7A, closer to 7 than 7) and a second set of fasteners (upper 45, 75, etc.; fig. 7A) at a second height in the canopy (closer to 5 than 7), greater than the first height (as seen in fig. 7A as 5 is higher than 7 in the tent system).
Regarding Claim 14. The tent of claim 13, wherein a spacing between fasteners in the first set of fasteners is greater than a spacing between fasteners in the second set of fasteners (note that the second set of fasteners includes 75 which is made up of two fasteners in itself, one to mate with 77 and the other fastener of 75 to mate with 33, there are many spacings between these two fasteners that are short; on the other hand the spacing between the top tip of 77 and the bottom tip of 45 at 25 is ‘greater’ than any of those spacings between the two fasteners of 75). It is stressed that this is merely one interpretation and there are very many ways the prior art meets these limitations as claimed. Further note that ‘a spacing’ as claimed is broad since no further limiting requirements of either claimed spacing is claimed. As another interpretation, the aperture of fasteners 77 and 75 (which receive to fasten cord loops of 39 and 33respectively) have a width spacing and a length spacing; the length/longer spacing of the aperture in 77 is longer than the width/shorter spacing of the aperture in 75, therefore “a spacing” of the first set is greater than that of the second as claimed so broadly.
Regarding Claim 15. A tent, comprising: a canopy (5 and/or 7); first and second poles attached to attachment points along an exterior of the canopy (see fig.’s 1 and 12); a plurality of fasteners secured to an interior of the canopy at points of the canopy corresponding to the attachment points of the first and second poles (see excerpt 4 above); a cord secured by the plurality of fasteners to provide a plurality of cord segments between the fasteners in the interior of the canopy (as discussed above; see claim 1 for example); and a cord lock to adjust a tension of the cord (as discussed above in claim 1).
Regarding Claim 16. The tent of claim 15, wherein the attachment points and the plurality of fasteners are aligned with the first and second poles (see discussion of claim 10 above).
Regarding Claim 17. The tent of claim 15, wherein the first and second poles are attached to attachment points by straps, and a tension on the cord is transferred to the poles via the plurality of fasteners and the straps (see discussion in claim 9 above).
Regarding Claim 18. A tent (fig. 1), comprising: a canopy (5 and/or 7); a plurality of fasteners secured to an interior of the canopy along a perimeter of the canopy, wherein the plurality of fasteners include a first set of fasteners at a first height in the canopy and a second set of fasteners at a second height in the canopy, greater than the first height (fasteners seen in fig.’s 5-7B, 9A/B at different heights as seen in fig. 12 for example); a first cord (such as 33 and/or 39) secured by [‘by’ with the plain meaning ‘near or close to’] the first set of fasteners to [intended use] provide a plurality of cord segments between the first set of fasteners see fig.’s 6A or 7A for example and as discussed above); a first cord lock (see excerpt 2 above) to [intended use] adjust a tension of the first cord (as discussed at the end of claim 1 above); a second cord (another 33 and/or 39) secured by the second set of fasteners (there are many sets of fasteners as seen in fig. 12 for example) to [intended use] provide a plurality of cord segments between the second set of fasteners (as discussed above); and a second cord lock (see excerpt 2 above) to [intended use] adjust a tension of the first cord (it can perform this intended use as claimed).
Regarding Claim 19. The tent of claim 18, wherein the plurality of cord segments of the first and second cords are configured to [functional use] allow hanging of objects (they can perform this function in many ways as so broadly claimed – first off, they already allow for hanging of fasteners such as 34, 40, 75, etc.; in addition, if one so desired they could hang something form one of cords especially those along the vertical poles).
Regarding Claim 20. The tent of claim 18, wherein at least one of the fasteners of the first and second sets of fasteners comprises an O-ring (such as 35; fig. 9A) attached to (a first element can be ‘attached to’ a second element by way of elements in between; the applicants is even attached via strap 725 reaffirming or conceding this interpretation) the interior of the canopy (see fig. 9A but read excerpt 5 inserted below as well), wherein a clip (65; fig. 9A) is attached to the O-ring (as seen in fig. 9B) to allow [intended use] hanging of an object (it can perform this intended use as claimed if one so desired).
Excerpt 5 from col. 7 – fasteners 34/40 can be those of fig.’s 9A/B
PNG
media_image5.png
84
450
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jin as applied above.
Regarding Claim 11, Jin teaches the tent of claim 7, with a third pole attached to the exterior of the canopy by straps (since there are many poles (more than 3) pivotally connected together as seen in fig. 14, each of which are connected by straps to the exterior as seen in fig. 1 for example). Jin also teaches the third pole is secured to the first and second poles at an apex (9; fig. 2) of the tent (note that 4 poles meet at apex 9), However, Jin fails to teach at the apex, the first and second poles cross in an X pattern. The examiner takes Official Notice that it was old and well in the art to provide tents with poles that cross in an X pattern at its apex 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 Jin with first and second poles that cross in an X pattern as claimed in order to provide the predictable and expected results of allowing the poles to pass one another while maintaining structural stability of the tent while using more economic poles (as oppose to foldable system with many parts) to save money and/or ease of manufacture (due to less hinge-like mechanisms for example).
Also, if it is found that the above modification doesn’t properly address the 3 poles, then it is further noted that providing a third pole in addition to an originally 2 pole structure is a mere duplication of parts that the courts have found unpatentable as in this case 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 provide a third pole for the predictable and expected results of additional stability.
Conclusion
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 can be reached on (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