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 supplemental amendment received May 29, 2026 is accepted. Examiner notes that the most recent claim set shows markups with respect to the claims received April 22, 2026. However, the claim set received April 22, 2026 does not contain proper markups with respect to the claim set received November 14, 2025 and examined for the Non-Final Action. To facilitate compact prosecution, for this action only, the Examiner is accepting the claim sets. Future claim sets must be properly marked up.
It is noted that the numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Claims 17-19 are cancelled and claim numbering resumes with claim 21. It appears claim 20 is omitted. It is understood that claim 20 should be indicated as cancelled. Additionally, claims 27-108 are indicated as being cancelled but claim 28 also is indicated as being “currently amended.” It is understood that claims 27-108 should be indicated as being cancelled and claim 28 should be indicated as cancelled because claim 28 is a duplicate of claim 5. Further, there are two claim “133”. Accordingly, the second claim 133 and the subsequent claims are renumbered as indicated below.
Claims should be indicated as follows:
Claim 20 is cancelled.
Claims 27-108 are cancelled.
Misnumbered second instance of claim 133 is renumbered claim 134
Misnumbered claim 134 is renumbered claim 135
Misnumbered claim 135 is renumbered claim 136
Misnumbered claim 136 is renumbered claim 137
Misnumbered claim 137 is renumbered claim 138
Misnumbered claim 138 is renumbered claim 139
Misnumbered claim 139 is renumbered claim 140
Misnumbered claim 140 is renumbered claim 141
Misnumbered claim 141 is renumbered claim 142
Misnumbered claim 142 is renumbered claim 143
Misnumbered claim 143 is renumbered claim 144
Misnumbered claim 144 is renumbered claim 145
Misnumbered claim 145 is renumbered claim 146
Misnumbered claim 146 is renumbered claim 147
Misnumbered claim 147 is renumbered claim 148
Misnumbered claim 148 is renumbered claim 149
Misnumbered claim 149 is renumbered claim 150
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. However, the extensive claim amendments include limitations not previously examined and necessitated the new grounds of rejection discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for lacking a semicolon at the end of the second clause.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 109, and 111 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said metal frame.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a protective backing” in multiple instances. It is unclear if multiple protective backings are required or if the claim should refer to the previously recited protective backing.
Claim 1 recites “wherein said right flap, top flap and bottom flap.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for the top flap and bottom flap. For examination, it is assumed to mean said right flap, upper flap, and left flap.
Claim 109 recites “said lower flap comprises a weight to retain said lower flap on a hood of said vehicle.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for the lower flap.
Claim 111 recites “said plurality of anchor tabs.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In view of the 112 issues the claims have been examined as best understood.
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 1-2, 6, 8, 25, 109, 110 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosetto et al. (US 11,358,443), hereinafter referred to as Tosetto, in further view of Locklear (US 2009/0301671).
Regarding claim 1, Tosetto discloses a cover (10/11; protective screen) for a transparent armament window of a vehicle, said transparent armament window comprising a peripheral frame extending outward from said vehicle and framing said transparent armament (directed to an intended use, even so, the cover of Tosetto is applied to military vehicles), said cover comprising:
a cover front face (11) comprising a protective cover top (123) secured to a protective backing (22) with insulating material (125) therebetween (Fig 4),
the cover front face including an upper side, a lower side, a right side, and a left side (perimeter), the cover front face being configured to seat atop the transparent armament window of the vehicle with the upper side of the cover front face adjacent an upper edge of the transparent armament window (Figs 1 and 8), the lower side of the cover front face adjacent a lower edge of the transparent armament window, the right side of the cover front face adjacent a right edge of the transparent armament window, the left side of the front face adjacent a left edge of the transparent armament window (Fig 1);
an upper flap (top 14) comprising a protective flap top secured to a protective backing (22), the upper flap extending from the upper side of the cover front face (Fig 4),
the upper flap comprising a series of upper flap magnets (15, 16, 17) configured to secure said upper flap to said metal frame when said upper flap is folded over the transparent armament window;
a right flap (right 14) comprising a protective flap top secured to a protective backing (22), the right flap extending from the right side of the cover front face,
the right flap comprising a series of right flap magnets (15, 16, 17) configured to secure said right flap to said metal frame when said right flap is folded over the transparent armament window;
a left flap (left 14) comprising a protective flap top secured to a protective backing (22), the left flap extending from the left side of the cover front face,
the left flap comprising a series of left flap magnets (15, 16, 17) configured to secure said left flap to said metal frame when said left flap is folded over the transparent armament window.
Tosetto teaches that the flaps around the perimeter of the cover engage the peripheral frame (31) of the transparent armament window (Fig 8). Although Tosetto discloses that the cover is easily folded, Tosetto fails to specifically disclose the upper flap being configured to pivot relative to the upper side of the cover front face whereby the upper flap folds over the transparent armament window at the upper edge thereof, the right flap being configured to pivot relative to the right side of the cover front face whereby the right flap folds over the transparent armament window at the right edge thereof, the left flap being configured to pivot relative to the left side of the cover front face whereby the left flap configured to fold over the transparent armament window at the left edge thereof, wherein said right flap, top flap and bottom flap are configured to pivot relative to said cover body so as to provide sealing engagement on said peripheral frame of said transparent armament window to prevent light from passing through said transparent armament window. However, Locklear teaches a cover having upper, right, and left flaps each with a series of magnets and each flap configured to pivot (upper flap pivots about fold 210 forming portion 206a as shown in Fig 3 and the side flaps 300 fold as shown in Fig 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Tosetto such that the flaps pivot in order to fold over the window to provide sealing engagement on said peripheral frame of said transparent armament window to prevent light from passing through said transparent armament window as such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results. The folding of the flaps would provide a known means of providing secure attachment and conforming the cover to the vehicle window. A sealing engagement is understood to be formed when the cover is attached to the frame.
Regarding claim 2, Tosetto discloses a plurality of anchor tabs (23) attached to said cover front face and configured for securing said cover front face to said vehicle by a series of tie downs (24) (Figs 1, 2a, and 2b).
Regarding claim 6, Tosetto discloses a lower flap (Fig 2a) configured to extend over a lower edge of said peripheral frame of said transparent armament window.
Regarding claim 8, Tosetto discloses wherein the insulating material within the cover front face provides padding that protects the transparent armament window from strikes and abrasions caused by natural materials (col 2, lines 30-44).
Regarding claim 25, Tosetto discloses a lower flap comprising a protective flap top secured to a protective backing therebetween (same manner as upper, right and left flaps), the lower flap extending from the lower side of the cover front face. As modified with Locklear above, the flaps are provided in the same manner and therefore the lower flap being configured to pivot relative to the lower side of the cover front face whereby the lower flap folds over the transparent armament window at the lower edge thereof, and the lower flap being configured to secure to the vehicle when the lower flap extends over the lower edge of the transparent armament window thereby covering the transparent armament window at the lower edge.
Regarding claim 109, Tosetto discloses wherein said lower flap comprises a weight to retain said lower flap on a hood of said vehicle (magnets are weights).
Regarding claim 110, Tosetto discloses wherein said weight is magnetic.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosetto and Locklear, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Singleton (US 9,061,575).
Regarding claim 3, Tosetto as modified with Locklear above, teaches flaps with magnets. further teaches an upper pocket formed in the upper flap, the upper pocket being configured to receive therein the at least a first magnet that secures the upper flap to the vehicle when the upper flap extends over the upper edge of the transparent armament window; a right pocket formed in the right flap, the right pocket being configured to receive therein the at least a first magnet that secures the right flap to the vehicle when the right flap extends over the right edge of the transparent armament window; and a left pocket formed in the left flap, the left side pocket being configured to receive therein the at least a first magnet that secures the left flap to the vehicle when the left flap extends over the left edge of the transparent armament window. However, Singleton teaches that it is known to provide magnets of a vehicle cover within pockets (Figs 2A and 2B) to allow securement of the cover to the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Tosetto in view of Locklear such that the magnets are provided in pockets since it is a known technique for equivalently securing magnets to a cover, as taught by Singleton. As modified, Tosetto is provided with an upper pocket formed in the upper flap, the upper pocket being configured to receive therein the at least a first magnet that secures the upper flap to the vehicle when the upper flap extends over the upper edge of the transparent armament window; a right pocket formed in the right flap, the right pocket being configured to receive therein the at least a first magnet that secures the right flap to the vehicle when the right flap extends over the right edge of the transparent armament window; and a left pocket formed in the left flap, the left side pocket being configured to receive therein the at least a first magnet that secures the left flap to the vehicle when the left flap extends over the left edge of the transparent armament window.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosetto and Locklear, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Tusch (US 5,547,734).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tosetto teaches an insulating material but fails to disclose the insulating material comprising a radiant barrier configured to block thermal signatures from interior of the vehicle thereby preventing viewing into the interior of the vehicle from exterior of the vehicle using a thermal imaging device.
However, Tusch discloses an insulating material comprising a radiant barrier (provided on layer “a”, infra red quality paint; col 4, lines 58-62) that blocks thermal signatures from interior of the vehicle thereby preventing viewing into the interior of the vehicle from exterior of the vehicle using a thermal imaging device (avoids thermal imaging detection).
PNG
media_image1.png
76
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a radiant barrier to the materials of Tosetto since it is known to prevent detection by thermal imaging devices, as taught by Tusch. All the elements were known in the prior art and such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Claim 111 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosetto and Locklear, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (US 5,035,460).
Regarding claim 111, Tosetto discloses the cover front face has four corners and at least one anchor tab (23) located on the edges of the cover front face. Tosetto fails to disclose said cover front face comprises at least four corners, wherein one anchor tab of said plurality of anchor tabs is positioned at each of said corners of said at least four corners of said cover front face. However, Huang teaches anchor tabs located at the corners of a cover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the anchor tabs of Tosetto and provide them at the corners, since such technique is known and such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12, 14-16, 21-23 are objected to for depending from rejected claims but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form containing the subject matter of intervening claims.
Claims 112-150 contain allowable subject matter.
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 Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
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 Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights