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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed October 1st, 2025, with respect to the claim objection has been considered and are accepted.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed October 1st, 2025, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 have been considered. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 have been withdrawn with the exception of claims 5-6 and 8.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-7, filed October 1st, 2025, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 & 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, the instant Office action has been made final.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendments and / or remarks filed on October 1st, 2025. Claims 1-20 remain pending and are currently being examined.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 requires the limitation “a constant temperature layer” in line 3. Wherein the specification discusses “a constant temperature layer” in paragraph [0035], it is unclear to the examiner how the “constant temperature layer” maintains a constant temperature. For examination purposes “a constant temperature layer” will be interpreted as an “insulating layer”. Claims 6 and 8 are also rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 10-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Garnick et al. (US 20180334020 A1), in view of Staudt et al. (US 20170144525 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Garnick et al. teaches a vehicle cover (100) having at least one panel (100), wherein the vehicle cover (100) includes a multi-layered fabric (wherein Garnick et al. teaches “Materials can be laminated, layered, coated, and/or impregnated to make the materials water-resistant and/or waterproof, for example with a waterproof resinous material such as a melamine-formaldehyde resin or polyacrylic ester resin, or by laminating waterproof thermoplastic resin films.”), and a carrying bag (wherein Garnick et al. teaches “. The cover can also be enclosed in a variety of packaging , for example a plastic bag , a storage bag , a fabric bag , a molded foam and / or plastic case , a drawstring bag , a hard - sided case , etc .”) (Figs. 1-17; [0018], [00125], [0126], [0131])
Garnick et al. does not teach wherein the panel includes at least one flexible rod removably attached to the vehicle cover by inserting the at least one flexible rod into a pocket of the vehicle cover to create a frame for the at least one panel.
Staudt et al. further teaches a vehicle cover (14) wherein at least one panel (26) includes at least one flexible (wherein Staudt et al. teaches “Preferably, the support rods are flexible but have resilience so that when the rods are bent they will return to their unbent state unless prevented from doing so”) rod (94) removably attached to the vehicle cover (14) by inserting the at least one flexible rod (94) into a pocket (90) of the vehicle clover (10) to create a frame for the at least one panel (Wherein Staudt et al. teaches “As shown in FIGS. 5 & 6, as the support rods 94 are bent into a curved shape, the sheet 26 follows the curvature of the support rods 94 and forms a curved sheet surface”) (Figs. 1-7; [0009], [0033], [0038], [0040], [0058]-[0060])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., and provide at least one flexible rod forming a frame as taught by Staudt et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide a vehicle cover with a flexible rod to form a frame in the panel, in order to reinforce the vehicle cover against inclement weather.
Regarding Claim 7, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein the at least one flexible rod is made from metal, steel, or polymer.
Staudt et al. further teaches a flexible rod (94) comprised of polymer (Wherein Staudt et al. teaches “The support rods 94 are preferably made from PVC pipe or a similarly resilient material.”) (Figs. 5-6; [0044])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover as taught by Garnick et al., and provide for flexible rods comprised of a polymer as taught by Staudt et al. Wherein Garnick et al. is silent as to the material of the flexible rod, and fails to teach that it is made of polymer. Staudt et al. teaches the use of polymer for a flexible rod. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Garnick et al. by providing the rod as formed from polymer because such a modification involves the mere selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use and therefore fails to distinguish the invention over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 10, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein the at least one panel has a frame around an outer edge of the at least one panel.
Staudt et al. further teaches wherein the at least one panel has a frame (90) around an outer edge of the at least one panel (26). (Wherein Staudt et al. teaches “The stitching 86 affixes the edges of the material and a pocket 90 is created around the sheet 26.”) (Figs. 2-4A; [0041]-[0042])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover as taught by Garnick et al., and provide for a panel having a frame as taught by Staudt et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a panel frame, in order to define a perimeter of the vehicle cover, and provide for a stitched pocket for receiving a flexible rod.
Regarding Claim 11, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 10 above except; wherein the frame forms a pocket configured to receive the at least one flexible rod.
Staudt et al. further teaches wherein the frame (90) forms a pocket (90) configured to receive the at least one flexible rod (wherein the flexible rod 94 is received within a connecting sleeves 100 positioned within the pocket). (Figs. 4-4b; [0058])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover as taught by Garnick et al., modified above, and provide for a panel having a frame as taught by Staudt et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a panel frame, in order to define a perimeter of the vehicle cover, and provide for a stitched pocket for receiving a flexible rod.
Regarding Claim 15, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above;
Garnick et al. further teaches wherein a carrying bag is configured to house the vehicle cover (100). (wherein Garnick et al. teaches “. The cover can also be enclosed in a variety of packaging , for example a plastic bag , a storage bag , a fabric bag , a molded foam and / or plastic case , a drawstring bag , a hard - sided case , etc .”) (Figs. 1-17; [0018])
Regarding Claim 16, Garnick et al. teaches a vehicle cover assembly (100) comprising: a vehicle cover (100) having at least one panel (100), wherein the vehicle cover includes a multi-coated fabric (wherein Garnick et al. teaches “The material can be constructed from strips of polyethylene that are woven together . They can optionally be coated on both sides .”); and a carrying bag. (wherein Garnick et al. teaches “. The cover can also be enclosed in a variety of packaging , for example a plastic bag , a storage bag , a fabric bag , a molded foam and / or plastic case , a drawstring bag , a hard - sided case , etc .”) (Figs. 1-17; [0009], [0018], [00125], [0126], [0130])
Garnick et al. does not teach wherein the at least one panel includes at least one flexible rod removably attached to the vehicle cover by inserting the at least one flexible rod into a pocket of the vehicle cover to create a frame for the at least one panel.
Staudt et al. further teaches a vehicle cover (14) wherein at least one panel (26) includes at least one flexible (wherein Staudt et al. teaches “Preferably, the support rods are flexible but have resilience so that when the rods are bent they will return to their unbent state unless prevented from doing so”) rod (94) removably attached to the vehicle cover (14) by inserting the at least one flexible rod (94) into a pocket (90) of the vehicle clover (10) to create a frame for the at least one panel (Wherein Staudt et al. teaches “As shown in FIGS. 5 & 6, as the support rods 94 are bent into a curved shape, the sheet 26 follows the curvature of the support rods 94 and forms a curved sheet surface”) (Figs. 1-7; [0009], [0033], [0038], [0040], [0058]-[0060])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., and provide at least one flexible rod forming a frame as taught by Staudt et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide a vehicle cover with a flexible rod to form a frame in the panel, in order to reinforce the vehicle cover against inclement weather.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garnick et al. (US 20180334020 A1), in view of further in view of Staudt et al. (US 20170144525 A1), further in view of Kreuger (DE 102019100472 A1), with an English translation provided herein, and further in view of Cassell (US 20200223301 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein the multi-layered fabric comprises at least a UV resistant film layer, a polyethylene layer, an ethyl-vinyl acetate layer, and a soft-liner layer.
Wherein Garnick et al. teaches a plurality of layers (wherein Garnick et al. teaches “The cover 100 can have one or more layers , for example having an outer layer of one material and an inner layer of another material”) including a UV treatment (wherein Garnick et al. teaches “The material can be puncture and tear resistant , UV - treated , and designed to repel water”), a polyethylene layer (wherein Garnick et al. teaches “. Vehicle covers intended to lessen and / or prevent hail damage can include : Kevlar and para - aramid synthetic fibers generally ; other aramids such as Nomex and Technora ; rigid plastics such as polyvinyl chloride , high - density polyethylene , and high density polypropylene ; common textile fibrous fabrics such as cotton and wool , and a variety of other materials.”), an ethyl-vinyl acetate layer (wherein Garnick et al. teaches “In other embodiments , the foam can be formed from an ethylene-vinyl acetate co-polymer”). (Figs. 1-17; [0016]-[0017], [0131], [0145])
Garnick et al. does not teach a UV resistant film, or a soft-liner layer.
Regarding the UV resistant film, Kreuger further teaches a vehicle cover (1) incorporating a UV resistant film (wherein Kreuger teaches “If the film track stretched between two rollers on the body roof is a UV protection film, the vehicle on the roof is protected from direct UV radiation.”) (Figs. 1-2; [0013])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., modified above, and provide for a UV resistant film layer for a vehicle cover as taught Kreuger. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide a vehicle cover with a UV resistant film layer, in order to protect the vehicle and the cover from UV radiation.
Regarding the soft-liner layer, Cassell further teaches providing a car cover with (100) with a bottom soft layer (110). (Fig. 2; [0029])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., modified above, and provide for soft-liner layer as taught by Cassell. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide a vehicle cover with a soft-liner layer, in order to protect the finish of the vehicle from being damaged during application of the cover.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garnick et al. (US 20180334020 A1), in view of Staudt et al. (US 20170144525 A1), further in view of Cassell (US 20200223301 A1), further in view of Pehrson (US 20090102230 A1), and further in view of Wu (CN 108909462 A), with an English translation provided herein.
Regarding Claim 3, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein the multi-layered fabric is 190T polyester taffeta fabric with PP cotton.
Wherein Garnick et al. teaches a multi-layered fabric (100). (Wherein Garnick et al. teaches “The cover 100 can have one or more layers , for example having an outer layer of one material and an inner layer of another material”) (Figs. 1-17; [0131]; [0145])
Regarding the taffeta fabric, Pehrson further teaches the use of 190T polyester taffeta fabric (wherein Figure 1 teaches 190T polyester). (Figs. 1-2; [0023])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., and provide a 190T polyester taffeta fabric layer as taught by Pehrson. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide a vehicle cover with a 190T polyester taffeta fabric layer because it is a lightweight and waterproof material.
Regarding the PP cotton layer, Wu further teaches a protective cover (500) with a protective layer (503) comprised of PP cotton. (Fig. 3; [0035], [0042])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., and provide for a PP cotton layer as taught by Wu. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide a vehicle cover with a PP cotton layer, in order to reliably protect the vehicle with the cover.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garnick et al. (US 20180334020 A1), in view of Staudt et al. (US 20170144525 A1), and further in view of Umbrauto (https://www.amazon.com/Umbrauto-Trailer-Upgraded-Waterproof-Windproof/dp/B09NC2CJNT).
Regarding Claim 4, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 1 above except; wherein the multi-layered fabric has 6 layers.
Wherein Garnick et al. teaches a multi-layered fabric (100). (Wherein Garnick et al. teaches “The cover 100 can have one or more layers, for example having an outer layer of one material and an inner layer of another material”) (Figs. 1-17; [0131]; [0145])
Umbrauto further teaches a vehicle cover with at least 6 layers. (Wherein Umbrauto teaches “Built with a 7-layer non-woven roof and 3-layer reinforced side panels, our cover provides superior sun protection and tear resistance.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., and provide for a cover comprising 6 layers as taught by Umbrauto. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a vehicle cover with 6 layers in order a cover to incorporate the plurality of material benefits from separate layers.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garnick et al. (US 20180334020 A1), in view of Staudt et al. (US 20170144525 A1), and further in view of Umbrauto (https://www.amazon.com/Umbrauto-Trailer-Upgraded-Waterproof-Windproof/dp/B09NC2CJNT), further in view of Cassell (US 20200223301 A1), and further in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 5, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 4 above except; wherein the multi-layered fabric includes a UV resistant layer, a first snowproof and waterproof layer, a dustproof layer, a second snowproof and waterproof layer, a constant temperature layer, and a soft layer.
Wherein Garnick et al. teaches a multi-layered fabric (100). (Wherein Garnick et al. teaches “The cover 100 can have one or more layers , for example having an outer layer of one material and an inner layer of another material”) (Figs. 1-17; [0131]; [0145])
Garnick further teaches use of a UV, snowproof, dust proof, and waterproof layer (wherein Garnick teaches “The material can be puncture and tear resistant , UV - treated , and designed to repel water”), and they use of an insulating layer (wherein Garnick teaches “In other embodiments , the foam can be formed from an ethylene-vinyl acetate co– polymer”). (The examiner notes that a waterproof layer would be dustproof and snowproof). (Figs. 1-17; [0009], [0016], [0131])
Garnick et al. does not teach multiple snowproof layers, or a soft material layer.
Regarding the soft material layer, Cassell further teaches a soft material layer (110) for a vehicle cover (100). (Fig. 2; [0029])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., modified above, and provide a soft layer in contact with a vehicle exterior as taught by Cassell. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a soft layer for a vehicle cover to prevent inadvertent damage or abrasion of a vehicles finish during application.
Regarding the multiple snowproof layers, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., modified above, and by virtue of design choice, provide for an additional snowproof layer. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and wherein mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; one would be motivated to provide for an additional snowproof layer in order to provide protection to the vehicle from inclement weather.
Regarding Claim 6, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 5 above except; wherein the soft layer comes in contact with a vehicle exterior.
Cassell further teaches wherein the soft layer (110) of a vehicle cover (100) comes in contact with a vehicle exterior. (Wherein Cassell teaches “The bottom layer is made of soft material such as silk so that the vehicle's external surface will not experience any scratching from other layers of the cover 100 or from hail and debris.”) (Fig. 2; [0029])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., modified above, and provide a soft layer in contact with a vehicle exterior as taught by Cassell. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a soft layer for a vehicle cover to prevent inadvertent damage or abrasion of a vehicles finish during application.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garnick et al. (US 20180334020 A1), in view of Staudt et al. (US 20170144525 A1), further in view of Umbrauto (https://www.amazon.com/Umbrauto-Trailer-Upgraded-Waterproof-Windproof/dp/B09NC2CJNT), further in view of Cassell (US 20200223301 A1), further in view of design choice, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zenaq (https://zenaq.com/en/product/protect_film/), with a 08/20/2022 priority date archived through the Wayback machine.
Regarding Claim 8, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 5 above except; wherein the at least one flexible rod is enclosed in a protective film or Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tube.
Zenaq further teaches a flexible rod (1 in Annotated Figure 1 below) enclosed in a protective film (2 in Annotated Figure 1 below).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., modified above, and provide for a flexible rod enclosed in a protective film as taught by Zenaq. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a flexible rod for a vehicle cover enclosed in a protective film, in order to enhance the durability of the flexible rod and prevent it from inclement weather.
PNG
media_image1.png
441
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garnick et al. (US 20180334020 A1), in view of Staudt et al. (US 20170144525 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of O’Brien (https://www.obcorp.com/-/media/ametekobrien/documents/products/tubing-bundles/coated-tubing/pvc/j-line-jacket-tubing-data-sheet.pdf?la=en&revision=f23c2c67-13d9-44ce-a1d2-21270a79c65c).
Regarding Claim 9, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 5 above except; wherein the at least one flexible rod is enclosed in a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tube.
O’Brien further teaches wherein at least one flexible rod is enclosed in a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tube. (Wherein O’Brien teaches “SV47 is a proprietary thermoplastic formulation that exceeds the requirements of 105C PVC and outperforms other PVC jacket materials in UV resistance as well as providing low temperature flexibility to –30°/-35°C.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., modified above, and provide for a flexible rod enclosed in a PVC tube as taught by O’Brien. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a flexible rod for a vehicle cover enclosed in a PVC tube, in order to enhance the durability of the flexible rod and shield it from UV damage.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garnick et al. (US 20180334020 A1), in view of Staudt et al. (US 20170144525 A1), further in view of O’Brien (https://www.obcorp.com/-/media/ametekobrien/documents/products/tubing-bundles/coated-tubing/pvc/j-line-jacket-tubing-data-sheet.pdf?la=en&revision=f23c2c67-13d9-44ce-a1d2-21270a79c65c), and further in view of Pehrson (US 20090102230 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 7 above except; wherein the vehicle cover further comprises at least one elastic band attached to an outer edge of the vehicle cover.
Pehrson further teaches a vehicle cover (1 in Annotated Figure 1 below) comprising at least one elastic band (2-3 in Annotated Figure 1 below) attached to an outer edge of a vehicle cover (1 in Annotated Figure 1 below). (Figs. 1-2; [0023])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover as taught by Garnick et al., and provide for elastic bands for securing the cover to a vehicle as taught by Pehrson. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for elastic bands for securing the cover, in order for the cover to accommodate vehicles with varying dimensions during securement.
PNG
media_image2.png
592
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 12 above except; wherein the vehicle cover further comprises a rear elastic band and a front elastic band.
Pehrson further teaches wherein the vehicle cover (1 in Annotated Figure 1 above) further comprises a rear elastic band (4 in Annotated Figure 1 above) and a front elastic band (5 in Annotated Figure 1 above). (Figs. 1-2; [0023])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover as taught by Garnick et al., and provide for elastic bands for securing the cover to a vehicle as taught by Pehrson. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for elastic bands for securing the cover, in order for the cover to accommodate vehicles with varying dimensions during securement.
Regarding Claim 14, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 13 above except; the method comprising: unfolding the vehicle cover; placing the vehicle cover over a vehicle; securing the vehicle cover to the vehicle by attaching the elastic band, the rear elastic band, and the front elastic band to the vehicle.
Wherein Garnick et al. teaches unfolding (as seen in Figure 10) a vehicle cover (100), and placing a vehicle cover (100) over a vehicle (as seen in Figure 14). (Figs. 10, 14; [0018], [0127])
Pehrson further teaches securing a vehicle cover (100) to a vehicle by attaching the elastic band (2-3 in Annotated Figure 1 above), the rear elastic band (4 in Annotated Figure 1 above), and the front elastic band (5 in Annotated Figure 1 above) to a vehicle. (Figs. 1-2; [0023])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover as taught by Garnick et al., and provide for elastic bands for securing the cover to a vehicle as taught by Pehrson. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for elastic bands for securing the cover, in order for the cover to accommodate vehicles with varying dimensions during securement.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garnick et al. (US 20180334020 A1), in view of Staudt et al. (US 20170144525 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 17, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 16 above except; wherein the multi-coated fabric has at least 4 coats.
Wherein Garnick et al. teaches multi-coated fabric (100). (Wherein Garnick et al. teaches “The material can be constructed from strips of polyethylene that are woven together . They can optionally be coated on both sides . The material can be puncture and tear resistant , UV - treated , and designed to repel water”) (Figs. 1-17; [0009], [0125])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., modified above, and by virtue of design choice, provide for 4 layers of coatings to a vehicle cover. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and wherein mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; one would be motivated to provide four coatings to a vehicle cover, in order to take advantage of the properties afforded to the cover by each coating.
Claim 18, so far as it is definite, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garnick et al. (US 20180334020 A1), in view of Staudt et al. (US 20170144525 A1), further in view of design choice, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Columbia Coatings (https://www.amazon.com/RAL-9007-Aluminum-metallic-Coating/dp/B00GUMTC7O).
Regarding Claim 18, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 17 above except; wherein the multi-layered fabric includes a 190T polyester taffeta fabric having a UV resistant aluminum powder coating, a Polyurethane water resistant coating, a Polyacrylate protective coating and a soft coating.
Wherein Garnick et al. teaches a UV coating (wherein Garnick et al. teaches “The material can be constructed from strips of polyethylene that are woven together . They can optionally be coated on both sides . The material can be puncture and tear resistant , UV - treated , and designed to repel water.”, and a Polyurethane water resistant coating (wherein Garnick et al. teaches “textiles covered with polyurethane compositions , textiles treated with various hydrophobic components”, a Polyacrylate protective coating (Wherein Garnick et al. teaches “Materials can be laminated , layered , coated , and / or impregnated to make the materials water - resistant and / or waterproof , for example with a waterproof resinous material such as a melamine formaldehyde resin or polyacrylic ester resin , or by laminating waterproof thermoplastic resin films”) and a soft coating (wherein Garnick et al. teaches “hypalon coated nylon or polyester fabric”). (Figs. 1-17; [0016])
Garnick et al. does not teach 190T taffeta fabric, or having a UV resistant aluminum powder coating.
Regarding the taffeta fabric, Pehrson further teaches the use of 190T polyester taffeta fabric (wherein Figure 1 teaches 190T polyester). (Figs. 1-2; [0023])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., modified above, and provide a 190T polyester taffeta fabric layer as taught by Pehrson. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide a vehicle cover with a 190T polyester taffeta fabric layer because it is a lightweight and waterproof material.
Regarding the UV resistant aluminum powder coating, Columbia coatings teaches UV resistant UV resistant aluminum powder coating paint (RAL 9007).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., modified above, and provide for using UV resistant aluminum powder coating paint taught by Columbia Coatings. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide a vehicle cover coated with an aluminum powder coating paint, in order to enhance the UV resistance of the vehicle cover.
Claim 19, so far as it is definite, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garnick et al. (US 20180334020 A1), in view of Staudt et al. (US 20170144525 A1), further in view of design choice, further in view of Columbia Coatings (https://www.amazon.com/RAL-9007-Aluminum-metallic-Coating/dp/B00GUMTC7O), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Cassell (US 20200223301 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Garnick et al., modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 18 above except; wherein the soft layer comes in contact with an outer surface of the vehicle.
Cassel further teaches wherein a soft layer (110) of a vehicle cover (100) comes in contact with an outer surface of the vehicle. (Wherein Cassell teaches “The bottom layer is made of soft material such as silk so that the vehicle's external surface will not experience any scratching from other layers of the cover 100 or from hail and debris.”) (Fig. 2; [0029])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover with a plurality of layers as taught by Garnick et al., modified above, and provide a soft layer in contact with a vehicle exterior as taught by Cassell. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a soft layer for a vehicle cover to prevent inadvertent damage or abrasion of a vehicles finish during application.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staudt et al. (US 20170144525 A1), in view of Garnick et al. (US 20180334020 A1), and further in view of Pehrson (US 20090102230 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Staudt et al. teaches a method of using a vehicle cover assembly (10), the method comprising: Providing a vehicle cover assembly (10), the vehicle cover assembly (10) comprising: a vehicle cover (14) having at least one panel (26), wherein the at least one panel (26) includes at least one flexible (wherein Staudt et al. teaches “Preferably, the support rods are flexible but have resilience so that when the rods are bent they will return to their unbent state unless prevented from doing so”) rod (94) removably attached to the vehicle cover (14) by inserting the at least one flexible rod (94) into a pocket (90) of the vehicle clover (10) to create a frame for the at least one panel (Wherein Staudt et al. teaches “As shown in FIGS. 5 & 6, as the support rods 94 are bent into a curved shape, the sheet 26 follows the curvature of the support rods 94 and forms a curved sheet surface”); placing the vehicle cover (10) over a vehicle (12); and securing the vehicle cover (10) to the vehicle (12) with attachment straps (60, 62, 76, 78). (Figs. 1-7; [0009], [0033], [0038], [0040], [0058]-[0060])
Staudt et al. does not teach a carrying bag, or unfolding a vehicle cover; or securing the vehicle cover to a vehicle by attaching a first and second side elastic band, a rear elastic band, and a front elastic band to the vehicle.
Regarding the carrying bag, Garnick et al. further teaches a carrying bag (wherein Garnick et al. teaches “The cover can also be enclosed in a variety of packaging , for example a plastic bag , a storage bag , a fabric bag , a molded foam and / or plastic case , a drawstring bag , a hard - sided case , etc .”) for a vehicle cover (100), and unfolding the vehicle cover (As seen in Figure 10). (Fig. 10; [0018], [0127])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover as taught by Staudt et al., and provide for a carrying bag for a vehicle cover as taught by Garnick et al. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for a carrying bag for a vehicle cover, in order for the user to conveniently stow a vehicle cover when it is not in use.
Regarding securing the cover with elastic bands, Pehrson further teaches securing a vehicle cover (1 in Annotated Figure 1 above) to a vehicle by attaching a first and second side elastic band (2 and 3 in Annotated Figure 1 above), a rear elastic band (4 in Annotated Figure 1 above), and a front elastic band (5 in Annotated Figure 1 above) to a vehicle. (Figs. 1-2; [0023])
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the vehicle cover as taught by Staudt et al., and provide for elastic bands for securing the cover to a vehicle as taught by Pehrson. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide for elastic bands for securing the cover, in order for the cover to accommodate vehicles with varying dimensions during securement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Masao (JP 2004322997 A), teaches an automobile body cover featuring a flexible rod.
Lovisetto (US 10232696 B1), teaches a vehicle cover assembly that uses flexible rods.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR E 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R CAUDILL whose telephone number is (303)297-4349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30 MT.
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, NATHAN JENNESS can be reached on (571) 270-5055. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JUSTIN CAUDILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 11 December 2025