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 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 1-4 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 lines 3-5, recite limitation, “steering wheel member”. It is unclear if this is the same element as steering wheel cover member. The examiner, at best, will interpret the two elements the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "steering wheel cover member" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 –
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 –
Claim(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11708015 B1 Willis; Seojeong Lee.
Regarding claim 1 Willis teaches, a car seat and steering wheel cover fabricated of a flexible material comprising: a main body (fig. 2, element 9); a steering wheel member attached to said main body (fig. 3, element 3), said steering wheel member in the form of a hood having an opening circumscribed by a stretchable member (fig. 3, element 7) to attach said steering wheel member to a steering wheel such that said steering wheel member encompasses said steering wheel (fig. 3, element 7); a first strap attached to said main body and configured to attach to a driver car seat (fig. 3, element 7, col. 3, lines 53-54 second headrest equal to driver’s seat); a second strap attached to said main body (fig. 3, element 1) and configured to attach to a passenger car seat; an attachment member configured to retain said main body in an area occupied by said passenger car seat (fig. 3, element 1); and wherein when in position said main body hangs over at least a bottom rest and back rest of said driver car seat and passenger car seat (fig. 2).
Note: the steering wheel and passenger car seat are intended use, and thus not required.
Regarding claim 2, Willis teaches, the car seat and steering wheel cover of claim 1 wherein said steering wheel cover member is in the form of a hood with a stretchable member circumscribing a hood opening (fig. 2, element 3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 5655810 A Shikler; Arie.
Regarding claim 3, Willis teaches, the car seat and steering wheel cover of claim 1 but fails to teach, wherein said flexible material is reflective on at least one surface.
However Shikler teaches, wherein said flexible material is reflective on at least one surface (fig. 2, element 32).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover taught by Willis with the with the reflective material taught by Shikler with a reasonable expectation of success “to reflect sunlight and resulting heat radiation” (col. 3, lines 55-56).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 5031684 A Soong; Jeanne F. et al.
Regarding claim 4, Willis teaches, the car seat and steering wheel cover of claim 1 but fails to teach, wherein said attachment member is one of the following: a) a suction cup; b) a hook; c) a clip; d) hook and loop fasteners; e) adhesive; f) snap; g) carabiner; or h) weight.
However, Soong teaches, wherein said attachment member is one of the following: a) a suction cup (fig. 2, element 32); b) a hook; c) a clip; d) hook and loop fasteners; e) adhesive; f) snap; g) carabiner; or h) weight.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover taught by Willis with the with the suction cup taught by Soong with a reasonable expectation of success “enabling variation of positioning of the cups and the application of the shade to different sizes of windows” (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDI M. CURRY whose telephone number is (469)295-9296. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-F.
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 J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/C.M.C/
Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642