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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second pocket being “fused along a pair of sides and a bottom of the first pocket” as set forth in claim 12; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the second pocket is “fused along a pair of sides and a bottom of the first pocket”. Such a feature is not show in the drawings, nor is a second pocket being disposed on top of the first pocket disclosed in the specification.
Claim 12 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrases “a pair of sides” and “a bottom” (of the first pocket) in line 10 are double recitations. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “pair of sides” and “bottom” set forth in line 10 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno (4,811,991).
Per claim 1, Moreno et al shows a protective cover 20 for a wheel rim including interior and exterior surfaces and a periphery that forms a concave shape, such that the exterior surface is shaped outwardly while the interior surface is shape inwardly. A hand hold 36 is disposed on the cover 20. Figure 12 shows at least one pocket 142 is formed on the exterior surface of the cover. The pocket 142 is sized to hold an accessory 90; and includes a top opening 151, a pair of sides (148 and 150) and a bottom (160 and 162) adhered to the exterior surface. The periphery comprises a protrusion 22 extending from the interior surface and running around the periphery. The protrusion 22 is secured around, and covers, the wheel rim. The periphery further includes a flexible ring seal 40 therearound. The cover 20 of Moreno et al is capable of “hands-free retention” on the wheel rim (i.e. the cover could be retained against the wheel rim by the user’s knee or leg, or propped on another object).
Per claim 8, the periphery (namely the protrusion 22) is expansible.
Regarding claim 11, Moreno et al does not specify the type of “sponge-like absorbent material” from which the flexible seal 40 is formed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the flexible seal of Moreno et al from a material capable of preventing liquids from reaching the surface of the wheel while cleaning a tire.
Regarding claim 1, the cover 20 is made from cardboard or plastic. However, Moreno et al does not disclose that the cardboard or plastic is “post-consumer waste” (i.e. recycled) material. It is well-known that both carboard and certain plastics are recyclable materials. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, would find it obvious to use “post-consumer waste” (i.e. recycled) carboard or plastic to form the cover of Moreno et al, to reduce the environmental impact of manufacturing the cover.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al as applied to claims 1-2, 8, and 11 above, and further in view of Alvarez (2015/0336125).
Regarding claim 3, Moreno et al does not show the cover including a second handle. Alvarez teaches the use of a cover 20 including first 25 and second 26 hand holds thereon. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the cover of Moreno et al with a second hand hold, as an obvious multiplication of parts allowing a variety of grips to be used to hold the cover in place during use.
Regarding claim 4, Moreno et al does not disclose the dimensions of the hand holds. However, such dimensions are result effective variables, dependent upon the size of the cover, and to allow a user to effectively hold the cover without undue difficulty during use.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al as applied to claims 1-2, 8, and 11 above, and further in view of Cailor et al (5,524,972).
Regarding claims 5-6, Moreno et al does not show the cover having a second pocket, its orientation with respect to the first pocket. Figures 10-11 of Cailor et al teach a protective cover having first 84 and second 86 pockets. The pockets (84 and 86) are arranged at the 3 and 9 o’clock positions. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the cover of Moreno et al with a second pocket (constructed like the first), as an obvious multiplication of parts, for the purpose of allowing a second accessory to be stored on the cover.
Regarding claim 7, Moreno et al as modified by Cailor et al does not show or disclose the dimensions of the pockets. However, such dimensions are result effective variables, dependent upon the size of the cover, and dependent upon the size of the accessories meant to be held therein.
Regarding claim 19, Moreno et al does not show the expanding portion of the cover being an “accordion” expanding portion. Cailor et al teaches the use of an “accordion” expanding portion (42+44+46+48). Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the cover of Moreno et al with an “accordion” expanding portion, as a substitute equivalent configuration, dependent upon the desired aesthetics of the cover, and to allow the cover to be used with different diameter wheels.
Claim(s) 12, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al in view of Cailor et al as applied to claims 5-7 and 19 above, and further in view of Williams (6,598,942). Moreno et al as modified by Cailor et al meets the limitations of the above claims, except as specifically noted below.
Regarding claim 12, Moreno et al as modified by Cailor et al does not disclose the thickness of the cover. However, this is a result effective variable, dependent upon the desired flexibility and weight of the cover, in addition to the cost of the material being used to form the cover.
Further regarding claim 12, Moreno et al as modified by Cailor et al does not disclose the hand holds extending “through the concave cover from the exterior surface to the interior surface”. Figure 4 of Williams teaches a cover 22 having first and second hand holds 26 that extend therethrough from the exterior surface to the interior surface.
Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the cover of Moreno et al as modified by Cailor et al with hand holds that extend through the cover, as a substitute equivalent configuration, to reduce the complexity of the cover during manufacturing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Moreno et al “does not teach or suggest the periphery, protrusion, ring seal, and hands-free retention”. However, this is not exactly the case. First, the cover of Moreno et al inherently includes a “periphery”. Second, Moreno et al clearly shows and describes the periphery of the cover including a protrusion (i.e. lip 22). Third, Moreno et al clearly shows and describes the periphery including a ring seal (i.e. band of absorbent material 40). Lastly, it should be noted that the claims lack any actual physical structure of the invention to achieve the “hands-free retention” of the cover; and the cover of Moreno et al is fully capable of being retained on the wheel rim in a “hands-free” manner as set forth in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615