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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/6/2026 has been entered.
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(s) 1 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addesso (6926341) in view of Sanders (4982921).
Addesso shows a door guard for protecting an interior of a car door, the door guard comprising: a cover configured to at least partially cover a door panel; the cover comprising a size configured to generally cover the door panel (see figure 2b), a shape comprising a contour configured to generally correspond with a shape of the door panel; and a coupling system(130) for selectively attaching the cover to the interior of the car door.
Addesso does not show the coupling system comprising a fastener comprising a continuous fastener strip extending along at least a portion of a perimeter of a back surface of the cover, and a complementary fastener secured to an anchoring system, wherein the complementary fastener is configured to selectively engage with the fastener at a plurality of points along the continuous fastener strip, and the anchoring system is configured to selectively engage with the car door.
Sanders(figures 2-5) shows the coupling system comprising a fastener(30, next to 22, figure 4) comprising a continuous fastener strip(Velcro) extending along at least a portion of a perimeter of a back surface of the cover, and a complementary fastener(30 next to 14) secured to an anchoring system(16), wherein the complementary fastener is configured to selectively engage with the fastener at a plurality of points along the continuous fastener strip, and the anchoring system is configured to selectively engage with the car door.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addesso’s cover to show the coupling system comprising a fastener comprising a continuous fastener strip extending along at least a portion of a perimeter of a back surface of the cover, and a complementary fastener secured to an anchoring system, wherein the complementary fastener is configured to selectively engage with the fastener at a plurality of points along the continuous fastener strip, and the anchoring system is configured to selectively engage with the car door as taught by Sanders with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide for easy releasable folding attachment of the back surface of the cover to the complementary fastener closed to the anchoring system.
Claim(s) 2 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addesso (6926341) in view of Sanders as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Katz (4372364).
Addesso as modified shows all the claimed limitations including the cover having a front surface, the back surface.
Addesso does not show a middle sheet of batting between the front and back surfaces, a stitching secured the front surface to the back surface through the middle sheet.
Katz shows a middle sheet of batting between the front and back surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addesso’s modified cover to show a middle sheet between the front and back surfaces as taught by Katz with a reasonable expectation of success since the layers would provide a strong protective layer against impact damaging the underlying structure, and using stitching to attach the layers together would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as it provides for fast easy securing of the layers together.
Claim(s) 3 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addesso (6926341) in view of Sanders.
Addesso shows all the claimed limitations including each fastener disposed on the back surface of the cover, Addesso does not show the complementary fastener is disposed farther from a perimeter of the cover than the fastener.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addesso’s modified cover to show the complementary fastener is disposed farther from a perimeter of the cover than the fastener with a reasonable expectation of success in order to secure the folding portion of the cover to the anchoring system neatly with the edge of the folding portion away from the mobile window pane.
Claim(s) 4-10 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addesso (6926341) in view of Sanders.
Addesso shows all the claimed limitations except for the fastener extends along at least two edges of the back surface of the cover.
Sanders figure 3, further discloses the use of fastener (32) extending along at least two edges of the back surface of the cover.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addesso’s modified cover to show the fastener extends along at least two edges of the back surface of the cover with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily quickly attach the fastener to the complementary fastener as needed without having to try to match up smaller corresponding Velcro fastening pieces.
Per claims 5, Addesso as modified further shows the anchoring system comprises a clip(130) comprising at least one of a window clip and a door chip, the clip comprising a rigid, flat portion configured to be inserted into a gap between a window the car door and the door panel.
Per claim 6, Addeso as modified further shows the anchoring system comprises the window clip, and wherein the window clip comprises: a base(the part that is outside of the gap) comprising the complementary fastener; and a shim(the part inside the gap) coupled to the base, wherein the shim comprising a feature configured to retain the shim in the gap(inherently so it is meant to be inserted and mounted in the ga), the feature comprising at least one of a tip that is angled with respect to a plane of the shim and a protrusion.
Per claim 7, Addesso as modified further shows the anchoring system comprises the door clip, and wherein the door clip comprises: a strap comprising the complementary fastener; and a tab coupled to the strap, wherein a tip of the tab is angled with respect to a base(the bend) of the tab(inherently at an angle as the tab needs to bend so as to be inserted into the gap).
Per claim 8, Addesso as modified shows the complementary fastener is configured to selectively engage with the fastener at any point along the continuous fastener strip.
Per claim 9, Addesso as modified shows the at least two edges include at least a bottom edge of the back of the cover and a top edge of the back of the cover.
Per claim 10, Addesso as modified further shows the fastener comprising a first portion of a hook and loop fastener, and wherein the complementary fastener comprising a second portion of the hook and loop fastener.
Claim(s) 11 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addesso in view of Sanders.
Per claims 11, Addesso as modified shows all the claimed structural limitations. The claimed method steps would have been the obvious method steps of manufacturing a door guard with Addesso’s modified cover.
Claim(s) 12-13, 15-18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addesso in view of Sanders and further in view of Katz.
Addesso as modified shows all the claimed structural limitations except for the cover comprising a third material forming a batting.
Addesso does not show a middle sheet of batting between the front and back surfaces, a stitching secured the front surface to the back surface through the middle sheet.
Katz shows a middle sheet of batting between the front and back surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Addesso’s modified cover to show a middle sheet between the front and back surfaces as taught by Katz with a reasonable expectation of success since the layers would provide a strong protective layer against impact damaging the underlying structure, and using stitching to attach the layers together would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as it provides for fast easy securing of the layers together.
Per claims 12-13, 15-18, Addesso as modified shows all the claimed structural limitations. The claimed method steps would have been the obvious method steps of manufacturing a door guard with Addesso’s modified cover.
Claim(s) 19-21 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addesso in view of Sanders.
Addesso as modified shows all the claimed structural limitations. The claimed method steps would have been the obvious method steps of protecting an interior of a car door with Addesso’s modified cover.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13, 15-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different door covering attachments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, BRIAN GLESSNER can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PHI D A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633