DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
This Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on May 22, 2025, which has been entered with the exception of the proposed replacement drawing sheets.
The proposed replacement drawing sheets have not been entered because (i) they include numerous drawings sheets for which no amendment is proposed/made, (ii) the sheets containing amended Figs. 6-9 fail to include the identifier “Replacement Sheet” in the top margin, and (iii) they do not correct the defect in Fig. 11.
Claims Subject to Examination
Patent claims 1-20 and new reissue claims 21-35 are subject to examination.
Establishing Assignee’s Ownership Interest
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as the assignee has not properly established its ownership interest in the patent for which reissue is being requested. Since this application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the assignee must establish its ownership interest pursuant to 37 CFR 3.73(c). See MPEP 325 and 1410.02.
The Statement Under 37 CFR 3.73(c), i.e., Form PTO/AIA /96, filed on May 22, 2025 is defective because:
The issue date for US Patent No. 11,655,643 B1 is not properly identified as May 23, 2023 in the second line of the form.
The Reel and Frame numbers identified in item 4.A. of the form do not match USPTO assignment records for US Patent No. 11,655,643 B1.
An appropriate paper satisfying the requirements of 37 CFR 3.73(c) must be submitted in reply to this Office action.
Claim Construction in Examination
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Examiner’s Claim Construction
The following claim limitations are construed by the examiner to aid in examination:
Claim Limitation:
quick-release mechanism (claims 9 and 16)
Examiner’s Construction:
some type of quick release mechanism that includes some type of ratcheting device, and art-recognized equivalents of such a pivot connection
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The disclosure describes a quick release strap system 117 that includes a nylon strap 113 fed through a quick release mechanism 114, which allows for easy tightening and releasing of tension on the strap 113. According to the original disclosure, the quick release mechanism 114 may include a ratcheting device that allows a user to easily attach the strap 113 without the full tension of the canopy on the strap 113. Thus, the original disclosure identifies the corresponding structure as some type of quick release mechanism that includes some type of ratcheting device. However, the specification fails to identify any specific structure of the quick release mechanism or its ratcheting device.
Original Disclosure – Definition
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 11,655,643 B1, which issued from US Application No. 17/412,780. The “original disclosure” is the disclosure of Application No. 17/412,780 as filed on August 26, 2021. Any subject matter added to the disclosure (including the claims) during the examination of the instant proceeding or during the earlier-concluded examination of Application No. 17/412,780 does not constitute a part of the “original disclosure”.
Prohibition of New Matter
35 USC 132(a) states, in part, that “No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.”
35 USC 251(a) states, in part, that “No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.”
Objection to Amendment – New Matter
The amendment filed on May 22, 2025 is objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) because it improperly introduces new matter for the following reasons.
The specification amendments filed on May 22, 2025 amend the paragraph located at col. 6, l. 59 to col. 7, l. 19 to recite “As shown in at least FIGS. 6-9, the beams 118 typically have a post engaging portion 124 connected to the posts 122…” This constitutes new matter due to the use of the phrase “at least”. No other drawings show the beams with a post engaging portion connected to the posts, where the beams taper in the manner described. This also constitutes new matter due to the use of the term “typically”, which allows for other possibilities that are not disclosed in the original disclosure. The examiner suggests omitting both “at least” and “typically”.
The specification amendments filed on May 22, 2025 amend the paragraph located at col. 6, l. 59 to col. 7, l. 19 to recite “The beam 118 may taper or become narrower towards the end portion 126…” This constitutes new matter due to the use of the term “may”, which states a possibility while allowing for other possibilities that are not disclosed in the original disclosure. The examiner suggests changing “may taper” to “tapers”.
The specification amendments filed on May 22, 2025 amend the paragraph located at col. 6, l. 59 to col. 7, l. 19 to recite “The beam 118…become narrower towards the end portion 126…” This constitutes new matter due to the use of the broad phrase “become narrower towards the end portion”, which encompasses a wide range of possible narrowing and, thus, encompasses narrowing in ways other than the tapered shape shown in the drawings.
New claim 21 recites that the nozzle and the hose are both in fluid communication with the debris separator. This constitutes new matter because it encompasses a plurality of possible interrelationships between the nozzle, hose and debris separator and, thus, allows for possibilities that are not disclosed in the original disclosure. The original disclosure describes a hose coupled to the debris separator and having a nozzle on a distal end of the hose from the debris separator.
New claim 22 recites three different alternatives for lighting. There is no support in the original disclosure for such alternatives. Instead, the disclosure merely describes lighting on the bottom sides of the beams.
New claim 23 recites that the debris separator is engaged with the first post, with a trash can positioned directly below the debris separator. This subject matter pertains only to the second embodiment (Figs. 6-10). However, claim 23 depends from claim 21, which requires first and second arch assemblies. The original disclosure describes the first embodiment (Figs. 1-5) as the arch embodiment. The second embodiment (Figs. 6-10) is not described or shown as having first and second “arch” assemblies.
New claim 24 recites a second debris separator that is operably connected to the source of vacuum suction. This constitutes new matter due to the use of the broad phrase “operably connected”, which encompasses a wide range of possible connections and, thus, allows for possibilities that are not disclosed in the original disclosure. The original disclosure describes a main air line connecting the debris separator a source of vacuum suction.
New claim 25 recites that the roof panel is operably connected to the first and second beams. This constitutes new matter due to the use of the broad phrase “operably connected”, which encompasses a wide range of possible connections and, thus, allows for possibilities that are not disclosed in the original disclosure. The original disclosure describes the roof panels as being attached to the beams through joists or stringers.
New claim 26 recites that the beams have post engaging portions that engage the posts, and that the beams taper from the post engaging portions to their end portions. This subject matter pertains only to the second embodiment (Figs. 6-10). However, claim 26 depends from claim 21, which requires first and second arch assemblies. The original disclosure describes the first embodiment (Figs. 1-5) as the arch embodiment. The second embodiment (Figs. 6-10) is not described or shown as having first and second “arch” assemblies.
New claims 27 and 28 recite that the beams are I-beams. This subject matter pertains only to the second embodiment (Figs. 6-10). However, claims 27 and 28 depend from claim 21, which requires first and second arch assemblies. The original disclosure describes the first embodiment (Figs. 1-5) as the arch embodiment. There is no support for first and second “arch” assemblies that comprise I-beams.
New claim 27 recites that the beams are I-beams. This subject matter pertains only to the second embodiment (Figs. 6-10). However, new claim 27 also recites that the roof panel spans between the beams on an upper portion of each beam, which pertains to the first embodiment (Figs. 1-5) and the third embodiment (Figs. 11-17). The second embodiment (Figs. 6-10) is not described or shown as having a roof panel that spans between the beams on an upper portion of each beam.
New claim 29 recites a debris separator that is operably connected to a source of vacuum suction. See the explanation above with respect to claim 24.
New claim 29 recites that the nozzle and the hose are both in fluid communication with the debris separator. See the explanation above with respect to claim 21.
New claim 30 recites three different alternatives for lighting. See the explanation above with respect to claim 22.
New claim 31 recites a cylindrical trash can. The original disclosure does not describe the trash can as cylindrical. While the drawings show the general shape of the trash can, they do not establish that the trash can is necessarily/exactly cylindrical.
New claim 31 recites that the trash can is positioned below the debris separator. See the explanation above with respect to claim 23.
New claim 32 recites a second debris separator operably connected to a source of vacuum suction. See the explanation above with respect to claim 29.
New claim 32 recites a cylindrical trash can. See the explanation above with respect to claim 31.
New claim 23 recites that the roof panel is operably connected to the first and second beams. See the explanation above with respect to claim 25.
New claims 33 and 34 recite that the beams have post engaging portions that engage the posts, and that the beams taper from the post engaging portions to their end portions. See the explanation above with respect to claim 26.
New claim 35 recites that the debris separator is engaged with the first post, with a trash can operably connected to the first post and positioned directly below the debris separator. See the explanation above with respect to claim 23.
New claim 35 recites that the beams have post engaging portions that engage the posts, and that the beams taper from the post engaging portions to their end portions. This subject matter pertains only to the second embodiment (Figs. 6-10). However, claim 35 requires first and second arch assemblies. The original disclosure describes the first embodiment (Figs. 1-5) as the arch embodiment. The second embodiment (Figs. 6-10) is not described or shown as having first and second “arch” assemblies.
For these reasons, the amendment filed on May 22, 2025 violates the prohibition of new matter under both 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in response to this Office action.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue declaration filed on December 14, 2022 is defective because it fails to specifically and properly identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application, i.e., an error that can properly serve as the basis for reissue. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP 1414-1414.01. The declaration is defective because:
It identifies three errors in the patent claims generally, but it fails to identify which patent claim(s) includes these errors. The location of the errors needs to be identified.
It states that one error is corrected by new claims requiring that the nozzle and the hose are both in fluid communication with the debris separator. This constitutes new matter for the reasons given above and, thus, is not a proper correction of an error.
It states that the patent has defects in the specification or drawing, but it fails to explain any error in the specification or drawing.
The reissue declaration filed on December 14, 2022 is defective because it fails to identify an original patent claim that the instant broadening reissue application seeks to broaden. See 37 CFR 1.175(b) and MPEP 1414-1414.01. As required by 37 CFR 1.175(b), for an application that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. See the explanation above.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the reissue oath/declaration is explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
GROUND 3: Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because these claims recite new matter. See the explanation above.
GROUND 4: Claims 5, 7, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which cause the claimed invention to achieve the desired results.
Claim 5 recites that the at least one solar panel is configured to be connected to a mains power supply of a vehicle wash facility and to supply power to one or a plurality of electrically activated components of the overall vehicle wash facility or to a mains power grid. Claim 31 recites that the at least one solar panel is connected to one or a plurality of electrically activated components of an overall vehicle wash facility. The original disclosure states that the solar panels (i) are used to deliver power to the overall systems of the present disclosure or back to the mains electrical grid if excess electricity is generated, and (ii) may be used to power the electrical uses of the stall as a stand-alone feature, or (iii) may be tied into the mains electrical grid by power cables run between the solar panels, the electrical components in the vacuum stall, and the local mains power supply. However, the specification does not describe and the drawings do not illustrate the specific manner in which the solar panel(s) is connected to any of (i) a mains power supply of a vehicle wash facility, (ii) electrically activated components of an overall vehicle wash facility, or (iii) a mains power grid. While general reference is made to the use of power cables, such cables alone are not sufficient to provide for electricity to be generated by the solar panels and transmitted to electrically activated components of the wash facility or a mains power grid. Further, the specification fails to identify the specific electrically activated components that are connected to the solar panel(s). Thus, the specification fails to explain how the invention defined by claims 5 and 31 is structured and how it functions in order to perform the claimed functions and achieve the desired results. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 32 are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
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.
GROUND 5: Claims 1-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 introduces “a vehicle wash bay” twice (ll. 1 and 3). Thus, it is unclear whether one wash bay or two wash bays are required.
In claim 1, the term “wash bay” (ll. 1 and 3) is inaccurate. The disclosed bay is used for vacuuming, not for washing.
In claim 1, the term “the top of the first canopy post assembly” (l. 8) lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 1, the recitation “a second canopy support beam attached to the top of the first canopy post assembly at first canopy support engagement location and extending forward and backward from the first canopy support engagement location” (ll. 16-17, emphasis added) is inaccurate. At ll. 16, 17 and 18, “first” should read “second”.
Claim 1 recites “a main air line fluidly connected to the debris separator and configured to be connected to a source of vacuum suction” (ll. 26-27). Claim 2 goes on to recite “the debris separator is fluidly connected via a main hose assembly to a vacuum supply source”. It is unclear how the main hose assembly of claim 2 relates to the main air line of claim 1. Are these the same or different elements? Likewise, it is unclear how the vacuum supply source of claim 2 relates to the source of vacuum suction of claim 1. Does claim 2 require more than one vacuum source?
In claim 2, the term “wash bay” (l. 3) is inaccurate. See the explanation above with respect to claim 1.
In claim 3, the term “the second canopy support base leg” (l. 4, emphasis added) lacks proper antecedent basis.
As explained in GROUND 4, the specification fails to explain how the invention defined by claims 5 and 31 is structured and how it functions in order to perform the claimed functions and achieve the desired results. Thus, it is unclear what subject matter is encompassed by claims 5 and 31, and what subject matter is excluded therefrom.
In claim 6, the recitation “the roof panel comprises at least one solar panel and the roof panel has an arcuate cross section taken between the front of the roof panel and the back of the roof panel” is indefinite. The specification fails to describe any such solar panel(s) having an arcuate cross section. Further, the arch embodiment (Figs. 1-5) is not illustrated as comprising solar panel(s) having an arcuate cross section. Thus, claim 6 fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. Such inconsistency renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “the roof panel comprises at least one solar panel”. However, claim 7 goes on to refer generally to “the roof panel” (l. 1). Thus, it is unclear whether or not the subject matter of claim 7 further defines the at least one solar panel of claim 6.
Claim 7 recites “the roof panel comprises a first roof panel portion having a first roof panel top portion and a second roof panel portion having a second roof panel top portion…at least partially covered on a top surface of first roof panel portion or the second roof panel portion with solar power cells”. The specification fails to describe any such first and second roof panel portions having roof panel top portions covered with solar power cells. Rather, the specification describes roof panels 14 and solar panels 16. Thus, claim 7 fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. Such inconsistency renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 9 and 16 recite a quick-release mechanism that invokes 35 USC 112(f). As explained in the Examiner’s Claim Construction, the specification fails to identify any specific structure of the quick release mechanism or its ratcheting device. Like “mechanism”, the term “device” is a generic placeholder for structure. Thus, the disclosed “ratcheting device” is not a specific identification of corresponding structure. Due to the failure to clearly identify the corresponding structure in the specification, the claimed quick-release mechanism is indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “the first quick-release mechanism and the second quick-release mechanism oppose one another on opposite sides of the fabric canopy each comprise a strap attached to a bar disposed within a pocket of the fabric canopy.” This subject matter is confusing due to grammatical errors. Further, the recitation “each comprise a strap attached to a bar disposed within a pocket of the fabric canopy” is indefinite because it is unclear whether one bar or two bars are required by the claim.
Claim 10 recites that the first and second quick-release mechanisms each comprise a strap. Claim 11 goes on to restate that the first and second quick-release mechanisms each comprise a strap. It is unclear how the strap of claim 11 relates to the strap of claim 10. Are these the same or different elements?
Claim 10 recites that the first and second quick-release mechanisms each comprise a strap attached to a bar disposed within a pocket of the fabric canopy. Thus, claim 10 is directed to an alternative embodiment (not shown in the drawings but described at col. 6, ll. 55-58) that is different from the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 10. However, claim 11 recites that the first and second quick-release mechanisms each comprise a strap permanently attached to the fabric canopy. Thus, claim 11 is directed to the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 10. As a result, claim 11 contradicts and is inconsistent with claim 10, thereby rendering claim 11 indefinite.
Claim 12 recites three different alternatives: a garbage can, a mat rack, and an air hose bracket. The final wherein clause (ll. 7-9) is not set apart from the three different alternatives recited earlier in the claim. Rather, the final wherein clause continues directly from the third alternative. Thus, it is unclear whether the final wherein clause pertains only to the third alternative, or whether the final wherein clause is required regardless of which alternative is chosen/utilized.
In claim 12, the phrase “at least substantially parallel” (l. 7) is indefinite because it is unclear how the phrase “at least” modifies/broadens the phrase “substantially parallel”. That is, it is unclear how “at least substantially parallel” is different from “substantially parallel”. It is not possible to ascertain with a reasonable degree of certainty what additional subject matter is encompassed by “at least”.
In claim 12, the phrase “linear cross-section” is indefinite because it is not possible for a cross-section of a structure to be linear (i.e., arranged in or extending along only a line). Further, “linear cross-section” fails to accurately characterize the disclosed roof panels.
In claim 13, “vehicle wash vacuum system” (l. 1) is indefinite due to the use of the word “wash”. See the explanation above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 15 recites “a plurality of solar panels that overlap one another” (l. 2). The specification fails to describe any such solar panels that overlap one another. Thus, claim 15 fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. Such inconsistency renders the claim indefinite.
In claim 15, the term “the at least one solar panel” (l. 2) lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, this term is inconsistent with the earlier recitation of “a plurality of solar cells” (l. 2).
In claim 16, the recitation “each comprise a strap attached to a bar disposed within a pocket of the fabric canopy” (ll. 5-6) is indefinite because it is unclear whether one bar or two bars are required by the claim.
In claim 17, “vehicle wash vacuum system” (l. 1) is indefinite due to the use of the word “wash”. See the explanation above with respect to claim 1.
In claim 21, the recitation “the nozzle and the hose are both in fluid communication with the first debris separator” (ll. 12-13) is indefinite. This subject matter encompasses a plurality of possible interrelationships between the nozzle, hose and debris separator and, thus, allows for possibilities that are not described in the specification and that are not consistent with the specification. For example, the claim allows for the nozzle to be in fluid communication with the debris separator separately from the hose. Thus, claim 21 fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. Such inconsistency renders the claim indefinite.
In claim 29, the recitation “the nozzle and the hose are both in fluid communication with the first debris separator” (ll. 12-13) is indefinite. See the explanation above with respect to claim 21.
Claim 29 recites “a source of vacuum suction” (ll. 10-11). Claim 32 goes on to recite “a source of vacuum suction” (ll. 2-3). It is unclear how the source of vacuum suction of claim 32 relates to the source of vacuum suction of claim 29. Does claim 32 require more than one vacuum source?
In claim 35, the recitation “the nozzle and the hose are both in fluid communication with the first debris separator” (ll. 13-14) is indefinite. See the explanation above with respect to claim 21.
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Arau”
DE Publication No. 20 2014 005 149 U1 (with translation)
“Bougioukos”
US Publication No. 2008/0016786 A1
“Brandstetter”
AT Publication No. 004 483 U1 (with translation)
“Carsey”
US Patent No. 3,509,911
“Doncel-Lopez”
CH Publication No. 601 617 A5 (with translation)
“Hamrick”
US Patent No. 3,543,325
“Hirano”
JP Publication No. 2000-179044 A (with translation)
“Hoffman et al.”
US Publication No. 2011/0290305 A1
“Kaiser”
US Patent No. 3,242,620
“Kim”
KR Publication No. 20-0200172 Y1 (with translation)
“Liu”
CN Publication No. 210858164 U (with translation)
“Morris”
US Patent No. 5,114,050
“Ota et al.”
JP Publication No. H01-254452 A (with translation)
“Richardson”
US Publication No. 2014/0144490 A1
“Werner”
US Publication No. 2014/0216531 A1
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.
GROUND 6: Claims 17, 19, 21, 24-29, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Richardson in view of Morris and Hamrick.
Richardson discloses a structural arch system (canopy assembly) 25 comprising:
A first arch assembly spaced apart from a second arch assembly, wherein each arch assembly comprises a beam 3 attached to a post 1, wherein the beams 3 are I-beams and have post engaging portions 5 that engage the posts 1, and the beams 3 taper from the post engaging portions 5 to end portions opposite the post engaging portions 5. See Figs. 1-4 and 6-10; ¶¶ 0059, 0061, 0064, 0066-0067, 0071.
A roof panel 8 spanning between the beams 3 of the spaced arch assemblies, with the roof panel 8 supported on upper portions of the beams 3. See Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0059, 0066, 0071.
A solar panel 11 supported on the roof panel 8. See Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶ 0060, 0071. The alternative embodiment of Figs. 11-19 includes photovoltaic panels 62. See Figs. 11-12; ¶¶ 0076-0077. Such solar panels are known to possess solar cells.
Richardson discloses that equipment can be mounted on the arch assemblies (Figs. 1 and 3 show equipment mounted on one of the posts 1), with such equipment including an inverter 23 and a vehicle charging outlet 24. See Figs. 1 and 3; ¶ 0070. However, Richardson fails to teach that such equipment includes a first debris separator disposed on the first arch assembly, a main air line fluidly connecting the debris separator to a source of vacuum suction, a hose coupled to a first side of the first debris separator, a nozzle on an end of the hose distal from the first debris separator, and a second debris separator disposed on the second arch assembly and connected to the source of vacuum suction.
Morris teaches a canopy assembly comprising a roof structure (see Fig. 1) supported on posts 16, 16.1, first and second debris separators 30 (only one of which is shown) supported on the posts 16, 16.1, a vacuum suction source 32 connected to each of the debris separators 30, a first hose 26 coupled to a first side of the first debris separator 30 by hollow conduit-like members 18, 28, a nozzle (not shown in detail) on an end of the first hose 26 distal from the first debris separator 30, a second hose 26.1 coupled to a first side of the second debris separator (not shown but supported on post 16.1) by hollow conduit-like member 18.1 (and a member similar to member 28), and a nozzle (not shown in detail) on an end of the second hose 26.1 distal from the second debris separator. See Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 38-64; col. 3, ll. 14-32.
Hamrick teaches a vehicle vacuuming system comprising a plurality of debris (cyclone) separators C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5 mounted on different support structures in plural locations, a main air line 45, 46 (and branch conduits 31-35) fluidly connecting the debris separators C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5 to a vacuum suction source 36, hoses 50 coupled to first sides of plural ones of the debris separators C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, and a nozzle 70 on an end of each hose 50 distal from the respective debris separator, wherein the debris separators C-1, C-2 are supported on posts 22, 23 adjacent to vehicle parking locations. See Figs. 1-6; col. 3, l. 9 to col. 4, l. 64. While installed in association with a service station, Hamrick teaches that such is a non-limiting example representative of various type of installations for the vehicle vacuuming system. See col. 2, l. 60 to col. 3, l. 8. Hamrick teaches that it is advantageous to locate the debris separators C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5 in proximity to the hoses 50 (near the location where the user performs vehicle vacuuming) because this prevents heavier waster material from being drawn into the branch conduits 31-35 (and the main air line 45, 46). See col. 4, l. 65 to col. 5, l.
From the teachings of Morris and Hamrick, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richardson by mounting a vehicle vacuuming system (with the components taught by Morris and Hamrick) to the canopy assembly to allow a user to conveniently vacuum their vehicle while it is parked under the canopy assembly. In so modifying Richardson, the skilled artisan would have mounted the debris separators to the arch assemblies in a manner similar to that taught by Morris and also in order to achieve the advantage taught by Hamrick. Further, such a modification of Richardson is consistent with Richardson’s teaching that equipment can be mounted on the arch assemblies to increase the functionality of the canopy system.
With respect to claim 17, as explained above, Richardson discloses that equipment can be mounted on the arch assemblies. While Figs. 1 and 3 show the inverter 23 and charging outlet 24 mounted on one of the posts 1, Richardson states that “How these elements are positioned in the canopy assembly 25 is not critical, so long as they can be accessed and made use of by vehicles and the like. This is within the level of skill in the art.” (¶ 0070). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount the debris separators taught by Morris and Hamrick to different portions of the canopy assembly 25 (including to the beams 3) to suit a particular application or user preference. Further, such a modification involving a mere shift in location of parts is generally recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
GROUND 7: Claims 22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Richardson in view of Morris and Hamrick (GROUND 6) and further in view of Hoffmann et al.
Richardson fails to teach lights mounted on a bottom side of at least one of the beams 3. Hoffmann et al. teaches a canopy assembly comprising: beams 12 attached to posts 4; and lights 46 mounted on bottom sides of the beams 12. See Figs. 1-4 and 11-13; ¶¶ 0050, 0054, 0059.
From the teachings of Hoffmann et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richardson by mounting lights on bottom sides of the beams 3 to illuminate the area below the canopy assembly, thereby improving convenience and safety for the user in low light conditions.
GROUND 8: Claims 13, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Richardson in view of Morris and Hamrick (GROUND 6) and further in view of Carsey.
Morris and Hamrick both teach hoses coupled to first sides of plural debris separators. However, Morris and Hamrick fail to teach first and second hoses on first and second sides of at least one of the debris separators. Carsey teaches a debris separator 5 mounted on an overhead support structure 7, with the debris separator 5 having inlets on plural sides thereof, and with hoses 15 connected to the inlets on the plural sides of the debris separator 5. See Figs. 1-4; col. 1, l. 56 to col. 2, l. 6.
From the teachings of Carsey, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Richardson by providing at least one of the debris separators with inlets on plural sides thereof and by connecting hoses to these inlets because this increases the functionality of the vacuuming system by allowing one debris separator to service more than one hose, thereby enabling more users to use the system at one time, and also providing more flexibility in positioning the hoses with respect to the vehicle that is being vacuumed. Further, such a modification involving a mere duplication of parts is generally recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to the claim 13 requirement that the debris separator is disposed on one of the beams, see the explanation with respect to claim 17 in GROUND 6.
GROUND 9: Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brandstetter in view of Morris and Hamrick.
Brandstetter discloses a structural arch system (canopy assembly) comprising:
A first arch assembly spaced apart from a second arch assembly, wherein each arch assembly comprises a beam 13 attached to a post assembly, and wherein each post assembly comprises a base leg 11 and a pair of arched stabilizing legs 10 disposed between the base leg 11 and the respective beam 13. See Figs. 1-3; the abstract; ¶¶ 0005-0010.1
A roof panel (see in Figs. 1-2) spanning between the beams 13 of the spaced arch assemblies, with the roof panel supported on upper portions of the beams 13 by purlins 16. See Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0005, 0013.
Brandstetter fails to teach a debris separator disposed on the first arch assembly, a main air line fluidly connecting the debris separator to a source of vacuum suction, a hose coupled to a first side of the debris separator, and a nozzle on an end of the hose distal from the debris separator.
See the detailed discussion of the teachings of Morris and Hamrick in GROUND 6. From these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Brandstetter by mounting a vehicle vacuuming system (with the components taught by Morris and Hamrick) to the canopy assembly to allow a user to conveniently vacuum their vehicle while it is parked under the canopy assembly. In so modifying Brandstetter, the skilled artisan would have mounted the debris separator(s) to the arch assembly(ies) in a manner similar to that taught by Morris and also in order to achieve the advantage taught by Hamrick.
With respect to claim 17, the skilled artisan would appreciate that equipment can be mounted on the arch assemblies of Brandstetter, and how such equipment is positioned is not critical so long as it is accessible to the intended user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount the debris separator(s) taught by Morris and Hamrick to different portions of the canopy assembly (including to the beams 13) to suit a particular application or user preference. Further, such a modification involving a mere shift in location of parts is generally recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
GROUND 10: Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaiser in view of Morris, Hamrick and Carsey.
Kaiser discloses a structural canopy system (canopy assembly) comprising:
A first canopy support 2 spaced apart from a second canopy support 3, wherein each canopy support comprises an I-beam 4, 5 attached to a top of a base leg (post) 6, 7, with the I-beams 4, 5 extending forward and backward from the base legs 6, 7, and with the base legs 6, 7 engaging a mounting surface at an angle that is not 90° assembly, and wherein each post assembly comprises a base leg 11 and a pair of arched stabilizing legs 10 disposed between the base leg 11 and the respective beam 13. See Figs. 1-5; col. 1, l. 62 to col. 2, l. 10; col. 2, ll. 19-38.
A roof panel 1 (including corrugated roofing 68) spanning between the I-beams 4, 5 of the spaced canopy supports 2, 3, with the roof panel 1 supported on and coupled to upper portions of the I-beams 4, 5. See Figs. 1-2, 3B and 5-7; col. 1, ll. 62-67; col. 2, ll. 39-62.
Kaiser fails to teach a debris separator disposed on at least one of the canopy supports, a main air line fluidly connecting the debris separator to a source of vacuum suction, first and second hoses on first and second sides of the debris separator, and nozzles on ends of the hoses distal from the debris separator.
See the detailed discussion of the teachings of Morris and Hamrick in GROUND 6. From these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kaiser by mounting a vehicle vacuuming system (with the components taught by Morris and Hamrick) to the canopy assembly to allow a user to conveniently vacuum their vehicle while it is parked under the canopy assembly. In so modifying Kaiser, the skilled artisan would have mounted the debris separator(s) to the canopy supports in a manner similar to that taught by Morris and also in order to achieve the advantage taught by Hamrick.
See the detailed discussion of the teachings of Carsey in GROUND 8. From the teachings of Carsey, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Kaiser by providing at least one of the debris separators with inlets on plural sides thereof and by connecting hoses to these inlets because this increases the functionality of the vacuuming system by allowing one debris separator to service more than one hose, thereby enabling more users to use the system at one time, and also providing more flexibility in positioning the hoses with respect to the vehicle that is being vacuumed. Further, such a modification involving a mere duplication of parts is generally recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
GROUND 11: Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaiser in view of Morris, Hamrick and Carsey (GROUND 10) and further in view of Hoffmann et al. and Werner.
With respect to claim 3, Kaiser fails to teach that each canopy support includes a base leg and a pair of arched stabilizing legs disposed between the base leg and the respective beam. Hoffmann et al. teaches a canopy assembly comprising: beams 12 attached to canopy supports, wherein each canopy support includes a base leg 4 and a pair of stabilizing legs 6, 8 disposed between the base leg 4 and a respective beam 12. See Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0050, 0059. Werner teaches a canopy assembly comprising: arched beams 34 attached to canopy supports 126, wherein each canopy support includes a base leg 128 and a pair of stabilizing legs 136 disposed between the base leg 128 and a respective beam 34. See Fig. 12; ¶ 0041 (with ¶¶ 0032, 0034-0035 and 0039-0040 describing the embodiment of Figs. 2-11). From the teachings of Hoffmann et al. and Werner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kaiser by providing each canopy supports with stabilizing legs disposed between its base leg and the respective beam in order to better reinforce the canopy supports and enable them to withstand greater loading.
With respect to claim 4, Kaiser’s roof panel 1 is planar. However, Kaiser fails to teach that the roof panel comprises at least one solar panel. Hoffmann et al. teaches that the canopy assembly supports solar panels 20 (functioning as roof panels), a housing 54 is mounted on one of the posts 4, and wiring 66 provides electricity to and from the housing 54 and the solar panels 20. See Figs. 1-2, 5 and 9-12; ¶¶ 0054-0058, 0060. Werner teaches that the canopy assembly supports solar panel arrays 22a-22d (functioning as roof panels). See Figs. 2-3 and 9-12; ¶¶ 0031, 0033-0035, 0039-0040. From the teachings of Hoffmann et al. and Werner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kaiser by using solar panels for at least a portion of the roof structure in order to increase the functionality of the canopy assembly by allowing it to generate electricity from solar energy.
With respect to claim 5, Hoffmann et al. teaches that a housing 54 is mounted on one of the posts 4, and wiring 66 provides electricity to and from the housing 54 and the solar panels 20. See Fig. 12; ¶ 0060.
With respect to claim 6, Werner teaches that the solar panel arrays 22a-22d are generally flat (which allows for some curvature) and mounted on the arched beams 34, and Werner explains the advantages of the arched (arcuate) configuration. See Figs. 2-3 and 9-12; ¶¶ 0033-0035, 0039-0040.
With respect to claim 7, Hoffmann et al. and Werner both teach plural solar panels. Such solar panels are known to possess solar cells.
GROUND 12: Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaiser in view of Morris, Hamrick and Carsey (GROUND 10) and further in view of Bougioukos.
Kaiser fails to teach a fabric canopy stretched between the canopy supports. Bougioukos teaches a canopy assembly 102 comprising a fabric canopy 112 stretched between canopy supports 104. See Figs. 1-2 and 11-15; ¶¶ 0081-0084, 0100-0104. From the teachings of Bougioukos, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kaiser by replacing the relatively rigid roof panel with a fabric canopy in order to reduce weight and cost. Further, the substitution of one well-known alternative for another is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art when, as here, the substitution yields only a predictable result.
GROUND 13: Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaiser in view of Morris, Hamrick and Carsey (GROUND 10) and further in view of Liu.
Kaiser fails to teach a garbage can attached to at least one of the base legs of the canopy supports. Liu teaches a canopy assembly comprising garbage cans 14 attached to base legs 1 of plural canopy supports. See Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0021.2 From the teachings of Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kaiser by attaching a garbage can to at least one of the base legs of the canopy supports to provide a convenient means for disposing of trash.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Arau and Doncel-Lopez each teach a canopy assembly including tapered beams attached to posts.
Hirano teaches a canopy assembly including arched beams attached to posts.
Kim teaches a canopy assembly including vacuum cleaners and a trash can.
Ota et al. teaches a canopy assembly including a vacuum cleaner and a trash can.
Claims Not Rejected on Prior Art
Claims 9-11, 15, 16, 23, 31, 32 and 35 are not rejected based upon prior art. However, these claims do not recite allowable subject matter in their current form due to the rejections and objections set forth in this Office action.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because:
In claim 1, at l. 9, “at first” should read “at a first”.
In claim 1, at l. 17, “at” should read “at a”.
In claim 1, at ll. 28-29, “a distal end of the first hose from” should read “an end of the first hose distal from”.
In claim 1, at ll. 30-31, “a distal end of the second hose from” should read “an end of the second hose distal from”.
In claim 3, at l. 5, “canopy [support] beam” should read “canopy support beam” for consistency with claim 1.
In claim 9, at l. 2, “and the” should read “and to the”.
In claim 13, at ll. 15-16, “a distal end of the first hose from” should read “an end of the first hose distal from”.
In claim 13, at l. 18, “a distal end of the second hose from” should read “an end of the second hose distal from”.
In claim 17, at ll. 14-15, “a distal end of the hose from” should read “an end of the hose distal from”.
In claim 20, at ll. 2-3, “a distal end of the second hose from” should read “an end of the second hose distal from”.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive/accurate because (i) the claims are not limited to the “arch” embodiment (Figs. 1-5), (ii) the claims are not limited to a “solar” roof panel, and (iii) the claimed invention is more than just an “arch”. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 608.01(o). The specification fails to describe the following claimed subject matter:
The roof panel comprises at least one solar panel and the roof panel has an arcuate cross section taken between the front of the roof panel and the back of the roof
panel (claim 6).
The first quick-release mechanism and the second quick-release mechanism oppose one another on opposite sides of the fabric canopy (claim 10).
The roof panel is at least substantially parallel with the mounting surface and has a linear cross-section across substantially all of an entire width of the roof panel (claim 12).
The roof assembly comprises a plurality of solar panels that overlap one another (claim 15).
The specification is objected to because:
At col. 1, ll. 38 and 39, “wash bay” is inaccurate. See the explanation above.
At col. 2, ll. 41 and 47, “wash bay” is inaccurate. See the explanation above.
At col. 3, ll. 9, 12, 15, 17 and 20, “arch” is inaccurate because Figs. 1-5 are described as the “arch embodiment”, and the embodiment of Figs. 6-10 does not include an “arch”.
At col. 3, ll. 19-21, the brief description of Fig. 10 should mention reference character “X” shown in Fig. 6.
At col. 3, ll. 37-39, it appears that the brief description of Fig. 16 should mention reference characters “XVI” shown in Fig. 12.
At col. 3, ll. 37, “elevated side view” appears to be inaccurate since reference characters “XVI” identify a cross section in Fig. 12.
At col. 4, ll. 4-6, the singular terms “a beam 18”, “The beam 18”, “a straight beam” and “the beam” are inaccurate and inconsistent with the later description of plural “beams 18”.
At col. 4, l. 6, “FIG. 1” should read “FIGS. 1-3”.
At col. 4, ll. 10 and 20-21, the singular terms “the supporting structure 20” and “the support structure 20” are inaccurate and inconsistent because each beam 18 is supported by a supporting structure 20.
In the amended paragraph located at col. 4, ll. 22-40, the singular terms “a support structure 120”, “The support structure 120” and “The support structure 20, 120” are inaccurate and inconsistent. See the explanation above.
In the amended paragraph located at col. 4, ll. 22-40, the terms “a support structure 120” and “The support structure 120” are inconsistent with the later terms “The support structure 20, 120” (due to the inconsistency in reference numbers).
In the amended paragraph located at col. 4, ll. 22-40, the singular terms “a single post 122”, “a base leg…23, 122” and “The base leg…23, 122” are inaccurate and inconsistent because each supporting structure 20 has a base leg/post.
In the amended paragraph located at col. 4, ll. 22-40, the term “a single post 122” is inconsistent with the later terms “a base leg…23, 122” and “The base leg…23, 122” (due to the use of post vs. base leg).
In the amended paragraph located at col. 4, l. 54 to col. 5, l. 7, “(LED) 52 lighting” should read “(LED) lighting 52”.
At col. 5, ll. 8-9, 12, 17, 22-23, 25, 32, 36-37, 41, 45-46, 51 and 52, the singular terms “a debris separator 34”, “The debris separator 34”, “the debris separator 34” and “the separator 34” are inconsistent with the later description of plural “debris separators” (col. 5, l. 26).
At col. 5, l. 10, “rear” and “Rear” contradict the definition of front and rear at col. 3, ll. 46-51 and contradict the use of “rear” at col. 5, ll. 61-64.
At col. 5, l. 33, “front” contradicts the definition of front and rear at col. 3, ll. 46-51 and contradict the use of “rear” at col. 5, ll. 61-64.
At col. 5, l. 66, the description of plural “roof panels 14, solar panels 16” is inaccurate and inconsistent because the drawings only show one roof panel 14 (though plural solar panels 16 are shown). See “simple flat panel 14” (i.e., singular panel 14) at col. 6, l. 6.
At col. 6, ll. 33-34, the singular term “quick release strap system 117” is inaccurate because Fig. 10 shows plural quick release strap systems 117.
At col. 6, ll. 35, 36, 38, 40-41, 41, 42 and 48, the singular term “strap 113” is inaccurate because Fig. 10 shows plural straps 113.
At col. 6, ll. 36-37, 39 and 49, the singular terms “quick release mechanism 114”, “quick release mechanism” and “mechanism 114” are inaccurate because Fig. 10 shows plural quick release mechanisms 114.
At col. 6, ll. 43 and 44, the singular terms “bracket 115” and “bolt 116” are inaccurate because Fig. 10 shows plural brackets 115 and plural bolts 116.
At col. 6, l. 57, the singular term “bar 119” is inconsistent with the earlier description of plural “bars 119”.
In the amended paragraph located at col. 6, l. 59 to col. 7, l. 19, the term “posts 122” is inconsistent with the earlier terms “a base leg…23, 122” and “The base leg…23, 122” (due to the use of post vs. base leg). See the explanation above.
In the amended paragraph located at col. 6, l. 59 to col. 7, l. 19, the singular terms “a garbage or trash can 130”, “the garbage can 130”, “The garbage can 130”, “the garbage can” and “The garbage can” are inaccurate and inconsistent because each base leg/post has a garbage/trash can attached thereto.
In the amended paragraph located at col. 6, l. 59 to col. 7, l. 19, the singular terms “the debris separator 34” and “debris separator 34” are inconsistent with the earlier description of plural “debris separators”. See the explanation above.
At col. 7, l. 22, the term “single post assembly 120” is inconsistent with the earlier description of “a support structure 120”. See the explanation above.
At col. 7, l. 33, “Y-shaped upward support base leg 23” is inaccurate and inconsistent with the earlier description of two stabilizing legs 24, 26 that attached to the top of the base leg 23.
At col. 7, ll. 33 and 54, the singular terms “base leg 23” and “the base 23” are inconsistent with the earlier description of plural base legs 23.
At col. 7, l. 64, the singular term “the beam 18” is inconsistent with the earlier description of plural beams 18.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed below must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
A main air line fluidly connected to the debris separator and configured to be connected to a source of vacuum suction (claims 1, 13 and 17).
The debris separator is fluidly connected via a main hose assembly to a vacuum supply source located remote from the vacuum stall canopy system and outside of the vehicle wash bay (claim 2).
The at least one solar panel is configured to be connected to a mains power supply of a vehicle wash facility and to supply power to one or a plurality of electrically activated components of the overall vehicle wash facility or to a mains power grid (claim 5).
The roof panel comprises at least one solar panel and the roof panel has an arcuate cross section taken between the front of the roof panel and the back of the roof panel (claim 6).
The first and second quick-release mechanisms each comprise a strap attached to a bar disposed within a pocket of the fabric canopy (claims 10 and 16).
The roof panel s at least substantially parallel with the mounting surface (claim 12).
The roof panel has a linear cross-section across substantially all of an entire width of the roof panel (claim 12).
A plurality of solar panels that overlap one another (claim 15).
The main air line fluidly connected to the second debris separator (claim 20).
A main air line fluidly connected to the first debris separator and configured to be connected to a source of vacuum suction (claim 21).
First and second arch assemblies (claim 21) in combination with the first debris separator engaged with the first post, with a trash can positioned directly below the debris separator (claim 23).
A second debris separator operably connected to the source of vacuum suction (claim 24).
First and second arch assemblies (claim 21) in combination with the beams having post engaging portions that engage the posts, and the beams taper from the post engaging portions to their end portions (claim 26).
First and second arch assemblies (claim 21) in combination with beams that are I-beams, and the roof panel spanning between the beams on an upper portion of each beam (claim 27).
First and second arch assemblies (claim 21) in combination with beams that are I-beams (claim 28).
A first debris separator operably connected to a source of vacuum suction (claim 29).
First and second arch assemblies (claim 21) in combination with a trash can positioned below the first debris separator (claim 31).
First and second arch assemblies (claim 29) in combination with the beams having post engaging portions that engage the posts, and the beams taper from the post engaging portions to their end portions (claims 33 and 34).
First and second arch assemblies (claim 35) in combination with a trash can operably connected to the first post and positioned directly below the first debris separator (claim 35).
First and second arch assemblies (claim 35) in combination with the beams having post engaging portions that engage the posts, and the beams taper from the post engaging portions to their end portions (claim 35).
The drawings are objected to because:
The paragraph located at col. 6, l. 59 to col. 7, l. 1 has been amended to recite reference numbers “124” and “126”, but these reference numbers do not appear in the drawings. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
Reference numbers “X” appears in Fig. 6 (identifying a region of enlargement), but it is not mentioned in the specification. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings.
In Fig. 11, reference number “150” should be changed to “158”. See col. 7, l. 55 of the specification and drawing Figs. 14-17.
Reference numbers “XVI” appear in Fig. 12 (identifying a cross section), but they are not mentioned in the specification. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Amendments
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this merged proceeding should be directed:
By Patent Center3: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail4 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/Laura Davison/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 All citations are to the English translation.
2 All citations are to the English translation.
3 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).
4 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights