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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18, the scope of the claim is unclear because claim 10 recites “coating interior surface of a rigid top shell with an adhesive” and claim 18 recites “coating interior surfaces of at least one of a rigid top shell member and/or a rigid bottom shell member with an adhesive.” Using the phrase “at least one of” as well as “and/or” makes the scope unclear as to whether coating interior surfaces of the rigid top shell is actually required by claim 18 since it was previously required in the parent claim but now is presented in the alternative. Additionally, an antecedent basis issue arises with “a rigid top shell” as one has already been recited in the parent claim. Examiner recommends rewriting the phrase as “further comprising the step of coating interior surfaces of a rigid bottom shell member with an adhesive” to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 11,008,769 (hereinafter Elliott).
Regarding claim 1, Elliott discloses a cover (100) for a spa, comprising: a core (140) formed from a solid block of expanded polystyrene (col. 2, ln. 19-20) (fig. 1A-1C); a hydrophobic coating applied directly to the core and encasing the core (col. 8, ln. 47-49); and a membrane (130) encasing the core and hydrophobic coating.
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0189750 (hereinafter Jensen).
Regarding claims 5-6, Elliott is silent as to the type of hydrophobic coating and thus fails to show it is an elastomer poly urea coating. Attention is turned to Jensen in the same field of endeavor of spa covers which teaches poly urea is a suitable material for a hydrophobic elastomer coating for a spa cover (par. 34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select poly urea as the material for the hydrophobic coating of Elliott since the selection of a known material suitable for its intended use involves only routine skill in the art as evidenced by the teachings above.
Regarding claims 7-8, Elliott is silent as to the type of hydrophobic coating and thus fails to show it is a polyurethane coating, wherein the polyurethane coating is a two-part spray coating. Attention is turned to Jensen in the same field of endeavor of spa covers which teaches two-part spray coating of a polyurethane layer is a suitable material for a hydrophobic coating for a spa cover (par. 34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select a two-part spray polyurethane coating as the material for the hydrophobic coating of Elliott since the selection of a known material suitable for its intended use involves only routine skill in the art as evidenced by the teachings above.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0260765 (hereinafter Spicer).
Regarding claim 9, Elliott shows the membrane is heavy vinyl but fails to show it is a hard, rigid shell. Attention is turned to Spicer in the same field of endeavor of spa covers which shows a hard, rigid shell (12, 14) that encapsulates a structural core (18) (par. 40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the membrane of Elliott to be a hard, rigid shell to provide additional structural integrity to the cover as evidenced by the teachings mentioned above. This coincides with the goals and teachings of Elliott which also contemplate having a spa cover with sufficient rigidity to enhance safety standards.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10, 15-16, 19, and 21-22 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754