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 Amendment
The amendment filed 1/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 17-30 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of Claims 1-30 have been fully considered and they are persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Newsome teach a minimum thickness that would protect from hail 1” or greater (Page 2), the examiner agrees and this limitation is taught by US Publication 2020/0317038 by Hobson. Due to this, a 2nd Non-Final Action is being issued.
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.
Claims 29-30 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.
Regarding claim 29, it is unclear if “vehicle mirror” in “the protective panel is mounted on vehicle mirror” is a part of the invention. For purposes of examination the examiner is interpreting the claim to say “the protective panel is configured to be mounted on the vehicle mirror”.
Claim 30 is rejected due to its dependency.
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 17-19, 25-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by US Patent 5343915 issued to Newsome (Here forth “Newsome”) in view of Foreign Publication ES1065312 by Lausin (Here forth “Lausin”) and US Publication 2020/0317038 by Hobson (Here forth “Hobson”).
Regarding claim 17, Newsome discloses a protective panel against a hail with a radius of a predetermined value R (Fig 5b of Newsome, the protective panels that cover a majority of the side of the vehicle are made of a material capable of protecting the vehicle from hail that have a radius R), comprising a package (Fig 5b, the protective panels consist of a package of layers that form the protective panel), and a soft material layer inside the package (Column 1 lines 40-41, soft material is polyethylene foam), wherein the soft material layer has the Young's modulus Esm in a range of 1 MPa to 150MPa (Polyethylene foam has a Young’s Modulus that can range from 0.3 to 145MPa and density of up to 25 kg/m^3), wherein R is [Not taught: greater than ½ inch] (Column 3 lines 40-45, the polyethylene foam is capable of protecting the vehicle from small sized hail. According to National Weather Service “Hail Threat Defined” small sized hail is any hail under 1 in in diameter),
wherein either the soft material layer has a deformation characteristic of a linear elastic material and has a minimum thickness Tsm that satisfies Equation 1 (Fig 5b of Newsome, the soft material has a certain thickness that is capable of protecting the vehicle from hail; the materials of Newsome are the same as the applicant and used with similar sized hail. So absent some structural difference, the soft material of Newsome is presumed to satisfy these equations.):
PNG
media_image1.png
75
240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein W is a kinetic energy of the hail having the radius of the predetermined value R, or the soft material layer has a deformation characteristic of a nonlinear elastic material and a minimum thickness Tsm that satisfies Equation 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
61
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein W is the kinetic energy of the hail having the radius of the predetermined value R,
PNG
media_image3.png
23
32
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is a plateau strength of the soft material layer.
PNG
media_image4.png
26
27
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is a plateau strain of the soft material layer, and
PNG
media_image5.png
22
43
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is [Not taught: a compressive strain limit of the soft material layer with a value of 0.5 to 0.6], or the soft material layer has a deformation characteristic of an elastic-plastic material and a minimum thickness Tsm that satisfies Equation 3:
PNG
media_image6.png
60
558
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein W is the kinetic energy of the hail having the radius of the predetermined value R,
PNG
media_image7.png
21
27
media_image7.png
Greyscale
is a yielding strength of the soft material layer,
PNG
media_image8.png
26
23
media_image8.png
Greyscale
is a yielding strain of the soft material layer, and
PNG
media_image9.png
30
42
media_image9.png
Greyscale
is [Not taught: a compressive strain limit of the soft material layer with a value of 0.5 to 0.6] (Fig 5b of Newsome, the polyethylene material is capable of enduring the Kinetic energy W of small hail and having a thickness of Tsm; the materials of Newsome are the same as the applicant and used with similar sized hail. So absent some structural difference, the soft material of Newsome would satisfy these equations.).
Newsome does not expressly disclose a compressive strain limit of the soft material layer with a value of 0.5 to 0.6
Lausin discloses a protective panel that teaches a compressive strain limit of the soft material layer with a value of 0.5 to 0.6 (The instant application in the specification states that the soft material layer 31 has a compressive strain limit of 0.5-0.6, and Fig 8 that calls out layer 31 states that the material used for 31 is soft high-density polyethylene foam; Since the applicant states that the soft material layer is soft high-density polyethylene foam, the examiner believes that this material meets all of the equations above related to the material mentioned and has a density of no more than 200 kg/m3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Newsome and Lausin before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the protective panel of Newsome to have the middle soft material specifically be high-density polyethylene instead of just polyethylene such that the compressive strain limit has a value of 0.5 to 0.6 and density of no more than 200 kg/m^3, as taught by Lausin, to advantageously protect the vehicle from hail damage as high-density polyethylene has excellent impact resistance and able to withstand high impact without breaking or deforming.
Newsome as modified does not expressly disclose a minimum thickness of the cover that can protect the vehicle from 1in thick hail
Hobson disclose a similar vehicle cover that teaches wherein R is greater than ½ inch (Abstract, the thickness can be thick enough to prevent damage from baseball size hail which includes hail with R value greater than ½”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Newsome as modified and Hobson before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the protective panel of the modified Newsome to include the concept of having the thickness of a material be thick enough to prevent damage from 1in or more sized hail, as taught by Hobson, to advantageously protect the vehicle from medium sized hail.
Regarding claim 18, Newsome as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the soft material layer has a density of no more than 200 kg/m3 ( See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 17; Polyethylene Foam has a density of up to 25 kg/m^3 which is less than 200 kg/m^3 and the instant application discloses that element 31 that is the soft layer is made of high-density polyethylene that has a density of 200kg/m^3).
Regarding claim 19, Newsome does not expressly disclose wherein the thickness Tsm is no more than 30 mm.
Lausin further discloses a protective panel that teaches wherein the thickness Tsm is no more than 30 mm (Page 7, Para 5 of Lausin, the thickness can be any thickness including a thickness that is no more than 30mm that is deemed appropriate and with greater hardness can absorb the impact of forces, like hail).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Newsome as modified and Lausin before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the protective panel of the modified Newsome to have the soft material layer be of any thickness, including no more than 30mm, as taught by Lausin, to advantageously only use as much material is needed to protect the vehicle within that is deemed appropriate to absorb the impact (Page 7, Para 5 of Lausin).
Regarding claim 25, Newsome further discloses protection system against a hail having the radius R, comprising the protective panel of claim 17, wherein the protective panel is shaped and sized to cover at least a portion of a vehicle to be protected from hails (Fig 4 of Newsome, the vehicle cover is sized and shaped to cover a portion of a vehicle from hail depending on the radius of the hail being equal to R).
Regarding claim 26, Newsome further comprising a mount assembly to detachably mount the protective panel on at least a part of the vehicle (Fig 3-4 of Newsome, the mount assembly comprises attachments straps/cables 27 and 28 that help mount the protective panels to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 28, Newsome further discloses wherein the fragile part to be protected from hails includes the windshield, hood, roof, wing, fuselage, and trunk of a land or air vehicle on the ground (Fig 4 of Newsome, the protective panels protect the windshield, hood, and trunk from hail).
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Newsome and Lausin in view of Chinese Publication CN202045966 b Guo (Here forth “Guo”).
Regarding claim 20, Newsome further discloses wherein the protective panel further comprises a [Not taught: hard] cover layer attached to one side of the soft material layer (Fig 5b of Newsome, layer 30 is a cover layer that provides waterproofing or repellency), wherein [Not taught: the cover layer has its Young’s modulus Ecv that is larger than the Young’s modulus Esm of the soft material layer, wherein the Young’s modulus of the cover layer ranges from 300 MPa to 10 GPa].
Newsome does not expressly disclose that the cover layer is hard and has Young’s Modulus ranging from 300Mpa to 10GPa
Guo discloses a similar vehicle cover that teaches a hard cover layer; the cover layer has its Young’s modulus Ecv that is larger than the Young’s modulus Esm of the soft material layer, wherein the Young’s modulus of the cover layer ranges from 300 MPa to 10 GPa (Claim 5 of Guo, a vehicle cover can have a hard layer that is made of Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene which is a material that is mentioned in the specification of the instant application to have a young’s modulus between 1.79 and 3.2 GPa).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Newsome as modified and Guo before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the protective panel of the modified Newsome to have the cover layer be a hard cover layer made of Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, as taught by Guo, to advantageously improve the protection provided by the protective panel to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 21, Newsome as modified does not expressly disclose that the cover layer has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 3 mm
Lausin discloses a similar protective panel that teaches wherein the cover layer has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 3 mm (Page 7 Para 5 of Lausin, the thickness can be any thickness including a thickness that is between 0.1mm to 3 mm that is deemed appropriate and with greater hardness can absorb the impact of forces, like hail).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Newsome as modified and Lausin before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the protective panel of the modified Newsome to apply the concept of having the a protective panel layer be a thickness of 0.1 to 3mm to the cover layer, as taught by Lausin, to advantageously provide the material thickness needed to protect the vehicle within that is deemed appropriate to absorb the impact (Page 7, Para 5 of Lausin).
Regarding claim 22, Newsome as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the cover layer is made of a thermoplastic polymer selected from Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), Polycarbonate (PC), and Acrylic (PMMA) (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 20; Claim 5 of Guo, the cover layer can be made of Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Newsome, Hobson and Lausin in view of US Publication 2008/0174144 by Coleman (Here forth “Coleman”).
Regarding claim 23, Newsome further discloses wherein the protective panel further comprises a [Not taught: fabric] sheet to wrap the soft material layer (Fig 5b of Newsome, sheet wraps the bottom of the soft fabric material), [Not taught: wherein the fabric sheet has a tensile strength of more than 500 MPa and a fracture strain of more than 5%].
Newsome as modified does not expressly disclose that the fabric sheet has a tensile strength of more than 500Mpa and fracture strain of more than 5%
Coleman disclose a similar vehicle cover that teaches that the fabric sheet has a tensile strength of more than 500Mpa and fracture strain of more than 5% (Para 18 of Coleman, a layer can include aramid).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Newsome as modified and Coleman before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the protective panel of the modified Newsome to apply the concept of including Kevlar aramid fabric fibers to the protective panel, as taught by Coleman to advantageously provide scratch and abrasion resistance.
Regarding claim 24, Newsome as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the fabric sheet is made of fabrics selected from a group consisting of aramid, carbon, glass fabrics, ballistic fabrics Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) and S2-glass fabrics (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 23; Para 18 of Coleman).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Newsome, Hobson and Lausin in view of US Publication 2022/0063386 by Aguilar (Here forth “Aguilar”) and Australian Publication AU2230800 by Minnett (Here forth “Minnett”).
Regarding claim 27, Newsome discloses straps (Fig 3 of Newsome, straps 27 and 28 removably attach the cover to the vehicle).
Newsome as modified does not expressly disclose sewn pocket to insert the protective panel
Aguilar disclose a similar protective panel that teaches comprising a mount assembly that has sewn pockets to insert the protective panel and straps to secure the protective panel (The claim is interpreted to mean sewn pocket instead of sewn pockets; Para 21 of Newsome and Fig 4 of Newsome, pocket 101 is sewn to the vehicle protective panel 103).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Newsome as modified and Aguilar before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the protective panel of the modified Newsome to apply the concept of including a sewn pocket to the protective panel that the panel can be inserted within, as taught by Aguilar to advantageously be able to store the protective panel when not in use.
Newsome as modified does not disclose straps are sewn hook and loop straps.
Minnett discloses a similar protective panel that teaches straps are sewn hook and loop fastener straps (Page 5 Para 1 of Minnett, the straps are sewn and include a female loop strap and male hook strap).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Newsome as modified and Aguilar before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the protective panel of the modified Newsome to have the straps be sewn and be hook and loop straps, as taught by Aguilar to ensure the straps are secured to the cover and be able to quickly secure and release the straps.
Claims 29-30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Newsome, Hobson and Lausin in view of US Publication 2014/0261934 by Abeyta (Here forth “Abeyta”).
Regarding claim 29, Newsome as modified does not expressly disclose the panel is mounted to mirror stands and door handles using Y-shaped joints
Abeyta discloses a similar protective panel that teaches wherein the protective panel is mounted on the vehicle mirror stands and door handles using Y-shaped joints (Para 14 and Fig 1 of Abeyta, the protective panel is mounted on the vehicle mirror stands and handles using straps as joints; Para 12 of Abeyta, the joints are hook and loop straps that form a releasable joint that can quickly secure the protective panels on the vehicle mirror stands and door handles; Fig A of Abeyta shown below, the joints/hook and loop straps are Y-shaped).
PNG
media_image10.png
180
348
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fig A- Examiner Annotated Fig 1 of Abeyta
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Newsome as modified and Abeyta before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the protective panel of the modified Newsome to include Y-shaped hook and loop strap joints as taught by Abeyta to advantageously ensure the cover is secured to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 30, Newsome as modified includes all the limitations including wherein the Y-shaped joint has two long hook and loop fastener straps that are sewn on the protective panel to form a releasable joint and quickly secure the protective panel on the vehicle mirror stands or door handles with strong joint forces (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 29; Fig 10 of Jiing, the hook and loop straps 191/192 form releasable joint).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 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 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.
/JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 22 April 2026
Prosecution Insights