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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 10, 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Please see circled items on attached claims.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 recite “A protective layer” in the preamble and then go on to say the layer comprises a “cover” forming a barrier layer. This wording seems a bit backward to the examiner. Typically a cover can be formed by many different layers. The end product is a cover which comprises a barrier layer (and potentially more layers). Since the wording still makes sense in the context of the specification, this is not a rejection for indefiniteness, however applicant may want to rework this aspect of the claims.
Claims 9 and 15 recite the phrase “furniture time comprises”. The word time should be changed to “item”.
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 5-15 and 20 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.
Claims 5 and 10 recite the limitation "throughout said bottom surface" in the last line of the claims which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the adhesive layer can go throughout itself. The adhesive layer simply completely covers the bottom surface of the barrier layer.
Claims 8, 14, and 20 recite the limitation "is molded" in the first line which renders the claims indefinite. Use of the phrase “is molded” suggests a method step is being performed. It is unclear if the act of molding is required for the apparatus. Does the cover always need to have the act of molding being performed?
Claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected for being dependent on an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mohr (US 2020/0290491 A1). Mohr discloses:
1. A protective layer for adhering to furniture, the protective layer comprising:
a protective cover (1) molded (“angled corresponding to the contour”; Para 90082]) over a furniture item (3) forming a barrier layer around the furniture item;
wherein said cover having a top surface (“side facing away from the motor vehicle seat”; Para 0051)) and a bottom surface (surface adjacent the seat 3);
wherein said top surface is waterproof (“first outer layer comprises HPDE”; Para 0052]) ;
wherein said bottom surface having a continuous adhesive strip (“adhering effect provides that the plastic film does not move or moves with a reduced extend”; Para 0051) along a periphery (extends along the whole surface, including the periphery) of the bottom surface for securing said cover to the furniture item;
wherein said cover having a thickness from 1.0 (“100 μm“; para [0049]) mm to 2.0 mm; and
further wherein said cover is scratch-proof (“first outer layer comprises HPDE”; Para 0052]).
2. The protective layer for adhering to furniture of claim 1, wherein said cover having a material selected from the group consisting of a PVC sheeting, a self-adhesive (“adhering effect than a second outer layer of the plastic film”; Para [0051]) clear film (“transparent outer layers”; Para [0050]), a polyurethane, and an epoxy.
3. The protective layer for adhering to furniture of claim 2, wherein said top surface of said cover is wipeable (HPDE is inherently wipeable) for removing spills.
4. The protective layer for adhering to furniture of claim 3, wherein said cover is washable (HPDE is inherently washable).
5. The protective layer for adhering to furniture of claim 4, wherein said bottom surface having an adhesive layer throughout said bottom surface (“second outer layer of the plastic film faces towards the motor vehicle seat and due to its higher friction and/or adhering effect”; Para [0051]; i.e. on the entire rear surface)
6. The protective layer for adhering to furniture of claim 5, wherein said adhesive layer is a self-adhesive layer (provides adhesion on contact, no heat or pressure required).
7. The protective layer for adhering to furniture of claim 6, wherein said cover is transparent (“transparent outer layer”; Para [0054]).
8. The protective layer for adhering to furniture of claim 7, wherein said cover is molded over the furniture item, further wherein said molded is selected from the group consisting of a thermoforming, a vacuum forming, a lamination molding (“weldings 20 are produced only by generation of heat”; Para [0083]), and an injection molding.
9. The protective layer for adhering to furniture of claim 8, wherein said cover molded over the furniture time comprises molded over an entire surface area (See Fig. 10, over the entire seat and backrest area) of the furniture item.
Regarding Claims 10-15, Mohr discloses all of the limitations as described above and discloses even smaller thicknesses; See Para [0049]).
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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr as applied to claims 1-15 above, and further in view of Weinstein (US 8733837 B2). Mohr discloses the protective layer as described above and discloses different regions separated by foldings (6).
Weinstein teaches a similar furniture cover having:
wherein said cover having a first panel (110), a second panel ((130A and 130b), and a third panel (140);
wherein said first panel, said second panel, and said third panel are detachably attached (the entire cover can be removed from the furniture);
wherein said second panel and said third panel conform and cover opposing arm portions (“pair of arms”; See Claim 1) and side portions (“a back”; See Claim 1) of the furniture item;
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the protective layer of Mohr with the panels of Weinstein. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide extra protection for well used portions of the furniture.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. the other prior art made of record shows similar furniture covers which also have adhesive strips and may form a basis for a 103 type rejection if needed in the future.
US 20100201169 A1
US 9845034 B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M O'HARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM eastern.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/BRIAN M O'HARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642