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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 15, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 9596958 B1), hereinafter Murphy, in view of Martire (FR 2955757 A1), hereinafter Martire, and further in view of MacLean (US 20050066957 A1), hereinafter MacLean.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 23, Murphy discloses an assembly configured to cover a cooking device, comprising:
a cover including an upper section (“upper cover assembly 50” column 4, line 39) and a lower section (“The grill cover set 10 includes a lower skirt assembly 20” column 4, line 16), wherein the upper section is configured to selectively cover and uncover a hood of the cooking device when the upper section is in an unfolded configuration (“upper cover assembly 50 that provides a protective covering for the top of the grill 100, specifically including a grill hood 102” column 4, line 39);
wherein, when the upper section is removed, at least a portion of the cover remains attached to the cooking device (“benefiting from time and effort saved by only having to remove and re-install the upper cover assembly 50 of the grill cover set 10 when grilling” column 7, line 22)
PNG
media_image1.png
461
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Murphy does not disclose:
wherein an inner surface of the upper section includes a loop, wherein the upper section is foldable between the unfolded configuration and a folded configuration in which the loop is exposed, and wherein, when the upper section is in the unfolded configuration, the loop is not exposed;
a stand including a hook, wherein, when the upper section is folded into the folded configuration, the hook is configured to hold the loop such that the stand supports the upper section, wherein the stand is free-standing such that the stand is separate from a support structure of the cooking device, and such that the stand is able to remain vertically upright without being supported by the cooking device or the support structure of the cooking device, wherein, when the upper section is folded into the folded configuration and the loop is held by the hook, the upper section of the cover is rearward of the cooking device, wherein the hook is arranged rearward of the cooking device;
wherein the upper section is configured such that, when moving from the unfolded configuration to the folded configuration, two opposed portions of the upper section are foldable toward one another in a first direction and then another portion of the upper section is foldable in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, at which point the loop becomes exposed.
However, Martire teaches:
wherein an inner surface of the upper section includes a loop, wherein the upper section is foldable between the unfolded configuration and a folded configuration in which the loop is exposed, and wherein, when the upper section is in the unfolded configuration, the loop is not exposed (“The chair cover 1 also comprises textile strips 16, 18 on the back face 122, 142 of at least one of the parts 12, 14 for the suspension of the chair cover 1 to a hanger 2 so that a once the chair cover 1 hanging from the hanger 2, the back portion 14, if appropriate with the rear portion 132 of the skirt 13, is deployed. Thus, the formation of unwanted folds on the chair cover 1 is limited or even avoided” and “The textile strips 16, 18 are preferably positioned on the back faces: at a lower rim 1321 of the rear portion 132 of the skirt 13; and - between the sitting part 12 and the front part 131 of the skirt 13” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference);
a stand (3) including a hook (2), wherein, when the upper section is folded into the folded configuration, the hook is configured to hold the loop such that the stand supports the upper section (Figures 3 and/or 4), wherein the stand is free-standing such that the stand is separate from a support structure of the device, and such that the stand is able to remain vertically upright without being supported by the device or the support structure of the device (“a storage step E41 on a carrier 3 of the chair cover 1. In this case, the chair cover 1 is held suspended on the hanger 2 and the hanger 2 is hooked to the carrier 3” “This step may also be necessary if the on-seat storage of the chair cover 1 is not possible”);
wherein the upper section is configured such that, when moving from the unfolded configuration to the folded configuration, two opposed portions (133, 134) of the upper section are foldable toward one another in a first direction and then another portion (131) of the upper section is foldable in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, at which point the loop becomes exposed (Figure 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
392
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
420
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
454
456
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Martire’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the hanging arrangement as is taught in Martire, in the assembly disclosed by Murphy because Martire states that hanging is necessary when it is not possible to have the cover on the chair. Therefore, including the stand as taught by Martire will allow a user to store the cover of Murphy when it is not possible to have the cover on the grill.
Murphy, as modified by Martire, does not disclose wherein, when the upper section is folded into the folded configuration and the loop is held by the hook, the upper section of the cover is rearward of the cooking device, wherein the hook is arranged rearward of the cooking device.
However, MacLean teaches when the upper section is folded into the folded configuration, the upper section of the cover is rearward of the cooking device, wherein the support is arranged rearward of the cooking device.
PNG
media_image5.png
547
504
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of MacLean’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the support is arranged rearward of the cooking device as is taught in MacLean, in the assembly as presently modified because the court has held that rearrangement of parts, where shifting the position would not have modified the operation of the device, is indicia of obviousness In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and an obvious matter of design choice In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In this case, moving the support, and by extension the hook, to the back as in MacLean would not modify operation beyond the position. Therefore, shifting the position of the hook is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Murphy, as modified by Martire and MacLean, discloses the assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein, when the loop is held by the hook, the lower section of the cover is wrapped around a bottom portion of the cooking device (“benefiting from time and effort saved by only having to remove and re-install the upper cover assembly 50 of the grill cover set 10 when grilling” column 7, line 22).
Regarding claim 15, Murphy, as modified by Martire and MacLean, discloses the assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein the cooking device is a barbecue grill (“a grill cover set 10 that is in accord with the present invention installed on an existing grill 100” column 4, line 9).
Regarding claim 21, Murphy, as modified by Martire and MacLean, discloses the assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein, when the upper section is in the unfolded configuration and when the cover is covering the hood of the cooking device, the inner surface of the upper section faces the cooking device (The inside surface of the cover 50 faces the cooking device).
Regarding claim 24, Murphy, as modified by Martire and MacLean, discloses the assembly as recited in claim 2, wherein the lower section includes heat-resistant material (“The major portions of the skirt assembly 20 and upper cover assembly 50 are envisioned being made using a fire-retardant textile material” column 4, line 49 and “The skirt assembly 20 is envisioned to being made using at least one (1) elongated sheet of fire-retardant fabric material such as NOMEX®, MARLAN®, MARKO®, or an equivalent fabric” column 5, line 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and provided the double patenting rejection is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests an assembly with all of the limitations of claim 5. No art was found such that further modification of Murphy, Martire, and MacLean would have made the claim obvious. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim, distinguish the claims from the prior art.
Claims 6-14 are allowable at least because they depend from allowable claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Davies (GB 907346 A) “The invention relates to a stand on which hoops, or other articles can be suspended” page 1, line 10
PNG
media_image6.png
440
361
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Weinstein (US 3454075 A)
PNG
media_image7.png
267
474
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Burgess (US 4834128 A)
PNG
media_image8.png
445
567
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Noonan (US 7594695 B2)
PNG
media_image9.png
385
477
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Bromberek (US 20130062025 A1)
PNG
media_image10.png
470
720
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762