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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (‘851) in view of Caldwell (‘455) and Erickson (‘747). The reference to Phillips teaches structure substantially as claimed including a cover device comprising: a body having an opening (18); a structure to position the cover (resilience of the fabric); and an indicia (20), the body is comprised of a fabric material, the indicia is comprised of a pattern, a logo, an emblem, an image, a symbol, a design, a letter, a word, a character, an animal, an advertisement, or a brand, the body comprising a top and side panel, the only difference being that the structure to position is not a magnetic fastener around the opening and the indicia is not a removably attached structure. However, the reference to Caldwell (at 14) teaches the use of providing a fastener at the opening to securely position the cover and the reference to Erickson (at 58) teaches the use of a removable indicia to provide different messaging to be old.. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Phillips with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a magnetic fastener to provide additional security, as taught by Caldwell and a removable indicia to provide different indicia options since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed. The method would have been obvious in view of the structures. The provision of a plurality of fasteners is a matter of design parameters and how much securement is desired which would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (851) in view of Caldwell (‘455) and Erickson (‘747) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Albite (948). The reference to Phillips in view of Caldwell and Erickson teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including a cover device comprising: a body having an opening (18); a structure to position the cover (resilience of the fabric); and an indicia/placard (20), the body is comprised of a fabric material, the indicia is comprised of a pattern, a logo, an emblem, an image, a symbol, a design, a letter, a word, a character, an animal, an advertisement, or a brand, the cover comprising a padding the only difference being that the padding is not a foam. However, the reference to Albite (at least pg 12) recognizes the use of providing a foam as padding to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Phillips in view of Caldwell and Erickson with a reasonable expectation of success, to include foam as the padding, as taught by Albite since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result. thereby providing structure as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 OCT 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See rejections of above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571 270 3742. 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.
/JOSE V CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637