DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
3. Information Disclosure Information
The information disclosure statement (IDS) that Applicant filed on 08/19/2023 is NOT considered since none of the documents listed on the IDS form is submitted.
4. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102/103
● The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
● The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over, Gentile 6,062,629.
Regarding claim 1, Gentile teaches the following claimed limitations: a vinyl car wrap material comprising of a clear vinyl without adhesive (col.2, lines 38-67 and col.7, lines 8-15: e.g., an apparatus for protecting the exterior of a vehicle; wherein the apparatus is a clear or transparent vinyl material, which relies on electrostatic charge to adhere to the surface being covered/wrapped).
Although Gentile does not expressly describe that the above car wrap material is “designed to teach new students how to apply car wraps”, the above is merely indicating the intended purpose of the apparatus. In particular, with the exception of the requirement for a clear vinyl that does not have adhesive, no design feature is implied regarding the car wrap material.
In this regard, given the fact that Gentile’s vinyl car wrap material is already a clear material, which does not have adhesive, it already meets the design that the claim is implying; and accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further utilize the above material as an aid that allows the user to easily view the surface being covered; so that, the user would readily recognize whether he/she is applying the cover on the right part/section of the vehicle, etc.
Gentile teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1. Gentile further teaches:
Regarding claim 4, the lack of adhesive allows for the student to reuse the vinyl until proficiency has been established (col.2, lines 59-67; col.7, lines 8-15: e.g., the vinyl material relies on an electrostatic charge—as opposed to an adhesive—to adhere to the surface of the vehicle; and therefore, this inherently allows for the user to reuse the vinyl until proficiency has been established);
Regarding claim 5, the transparency of the vinyl material allows the student to see the vehicle behind the wrap and get a better understanding of how the vinyl wraps around the vehicle (col.5, lines 59-64; col.5, lines 41-54: e.g., the vinyl material is already clear and transparent; and therefore, this inherently allows the user to easily see the vehicle behind the wrap, regardless of whether such observation helps the user get a better understanding of how the vinyl wraps around the vehicle);
Regarding claim 6, static electricity between the vehicle and the vinyl car wrap material is what holds the vinyl in place while proficiency in the trade is established (col.2, lines 50-67; col.7, lines 8-15: e.g., besides being pliable, the vinyl material relies on an electrostatic charge to adhere to the surface of the vehicle, as the user is applying the vinyl material to the part of the vehicle being covered. Thus, the user develops proficiency as he/she is repeatedly applying the vinyl material to one or more parts of the vehicle).
● Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Gentile 6,062,629 in view of Hill 5,673,490.
Regarding claim 2, Gentile teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Gentile, as discussed per claim 1, does not teach whether the clear vinyl has a grid pattern.
However, Hill teaches a transparent vinyl material, wherein the vinyl material includes grid lines/patterns for aligning the vinyl material on a smooth surface (col.1, lines 61-67; col.2, lines 1-10; col.3, lines 5-10).
Although Hill does not expressly describe wrapping the vinyl sheet on a part of a vehicle, Hill is still analogues art since Hill is also teaching the use of a vinyl sheet to wrap an object at least temporarily (also see MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)).).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, 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 invention of Gentile in view of Hill; for example, by incorporating a vinyl material with temporary or permanent light gridlines (e.g., the user may add gridlines to the existing transparent vinyl material, or obtains a transparent vinyl material that already includes gridlines, etc.); so that, the user uses the gridlines as a guide to properly align the vinyl material, as the user is placing the vinyl material on a part of the vehicle to be covered; and such arrangement helps the user to minimize inadvertent mistakes during the wrapping process, etc.
● Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Gentile 6,062,629 in view of Sadlier 2009/0183807.
Regarding claim 3, Gentile teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1. Gentile does not describe that the clear vinyl has special point markings to teach a student how to properly stretch the vinyl around the contours of a vehicle.
Note that part of the limitation, “to teach a student how to properly stretch the vinyl around the contours of a vehicle”, is merely describing an intended purpose.
Nevertheless, Sadlier teaches a flexible sheet/cover that is used for wrapping objects ([0025]); and wherein this flexible sheet includes a point marking in order to show/guide the user easily apply the sheet on a corner (i.e., contour) part of the object being covered ([0030] lines 3-9).
Here also Sadlier is an analogous art since it relates to a flexible sheet material that one uses to cover an object even though the object being covered is not necessarily part of a vehicle (again see MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, 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 invention of Gentile in view of Sadlier; for example, by incorporating a vinyl material that has one or more temporary or permanent markings applicable for one or more contour parts of the vehicle (e.g., the user may add corner/contour markings to the existing transparent vinyl material, or obtains a transparent vinyl material that already includes such markings, etc.); so that, the user uses the corner/contour markings as a guide to properly apply the vinyl material, as the user is placing the vinyl material on a corner/contour part of the vehicle to be covered; and such arrangement also helps the user to minimize inadvertent mistakes during the wrapping process, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715