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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 9/10/2026 is acknowledged and appreciated. The claim amendments and arguments have been considered. With respect to claim 16 Applicant argues that the Watson reference (U.S. Patent 6,811,268) does not teach a ring distinct from the flexible body to which a cap is hinged. In response, Examiner asserts that Watson does teach a “barrel body” (item 40) to which the hinge is attached while also teaching a “grasping collar” (item 30). The remaining claim rejections have been modified to account for the corresponding amendments and/or arguments.
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) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Watson et al. (U.S. Patent 6,811,268).
In regards to claim 16, Watson et al (henceforth referred to as Watson) discloses a cover for an optic device comprising:
a flexible body for securing the cover to an optic device (item 30);
a ring connected to the flexible body. The cap portion includes a portion constituting a ring (item 40);
a cap (item 50) complementary to the ring. The ring is attached to a cap and holds an attachable component;
the cap operably connected to the ring by a hinge such that the cap is pivotable relative to the ring. The ring and cap are operably connected to each other via a hinge (item 44) as depicted in figure 4.
In regards to claim 17, Watson discloses that the cap has an interior portion that is capable of releasably and securely holding a display (item 60).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim 1-5, 7, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinert et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0319216) in view of Chestnut et al. (U.S. Patent 5,495,676).
In regards to claim 1, Meinert et al (henceforth referred to as Meinert) disclose a cover for an optical device comprising:
a cap. Meinert teaches a cap for an optical device as depicted in figures 12 and 13;Meinert does not explicitly teach a flexible body formed of a single flexible material. However, Chesnut et al (henceforth referred to as Chestnut) teaches a lens cap that attaches to a scope via a flexible sleeve (item 162) and includes a first end and a second end and further, the flexible body portion is of a single flexible material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's invention to provide any of various connecting members in/on the cap of Meinert including a flexible sleeve as taught by Chesnut, to provide an easily removable attachment means. Additionally, note that the connection end of the sleeve is designed to provide an interference fit with the scope and is at least somewhat smaller in diameter than the opposite end of the sleeve;
wherein the flexible body has a first end and a second end and further wherein the first end is wider than the second end. As modified, the flexible sleeve of Chesnut includes a taper with the second end being narrower than that of the first (col. 8, lines 4-21);
andwherein the means for releasably and securely holding a display is permanently attached to the cap. At least a portion of the means to hold a “display” (portions of cap for holding storage item) is permanently attached to the cap.
In regards to claim 2, Meinert discloses that the means for releasably and securely holding a display is integrally formed with the cap. Note that Meinert teaches a cap with a recess or lip that allows a card to fit and be secured within the cap and these portions are integral to the cap (see figures 11, 12 and 13).
In regards to claim 3, Meinert discloses that the cap has an interior portion and the means for releasably and securely holding a display is permanently attached to the interior portion of the cap. The cap of Meinert has a portion constituting an interior portion that holds a storage item.
In regards to claim 7, Meinert fails to disclose that the means for releasably and securely holding a display is an annular ridge formed in the cap. However, Chesnut teaches using an annular ridge or lip to hold a component of a lens cap (see item 126). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to utilize any of various structures or configurations in/on the cap of Meinert to mount or hold various components including using an annular ridge as taught by Chesnut, since an annular ridge potentially provides 360 degrees of support.
In regards to claim 8, Meinert discloses that the display has at least one indent formed therein such that the display may be selectively removed from the means for releasably and securely holding a display by the at least one indent. Meinert teaches that the cap includes a recessed or indented portion to place and remove the stored item.
In regards to claim 13, Meinert fails to disclose that the at least one resilient retention member is an annular ring. However, Chesnut teaches using an annular ridge or lip to hold a component of a lens cap (see item 126). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to utilize any of various known structures or configurations in/on the cap of Meinert to mount or hold various components including using an annular ring as taught by Chesnut, since an annular ring potentially provides 360 degrees of support.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinert et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0319216) and Chestnut et al. (U.S. Patent 5,495,676) as per claim 1 and further in view of Sale et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0044252).
In regards to claim 4, Meinert does not explicitly disclose that the means for releasably and securely holding a display is at least two resilient tabs. However, Sale et al teaches multiple embodiments to hold an item in/on the inside of the cap including a configuration that constitutes two tabs (see figure 3) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide any of various means to hold the data card of Meinert in/on the cap including tabs as claimed, to allow the card to be secured while still easily removed.
In regards to claim 5, Meinert does not explicitly discloses that the means for releasably and securely holding a display is at least one resilient post. However, Sale teaches multiple embodiments to hold an item in/on the inside of the cap including a configuration that constitutes a post (see figure 7a) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide any of various means to hold the data card of Meinert in/on the cap including a post as claimed, to allow the card to be secured while still easily removed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinert et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0319216) and Chestnut et al. (U.S. Patent 5,495,676) and in further view of Campean et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0218841).
In regards to claim 6, Meinert fails to disclose that the means for releasably and securely holding a display is at least one magnet. However, Campean et al (henceforth referred to as Campean) teaches using a magnet on an optical device cap and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's invention to utilize any of various known securing means to secure items associated with the Meinert cap, including magnets as taught by Campean, since magnets provide a durable, long-lasting means of holding objects together.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. (U.S. Patent 6,811,268) in view of Sale et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0044252).
In regards to claim 18, Watson fails to disclose that the display includes DOPE data. However, Sale teaches applying data to the inside surface of a cap which is capable of including DOPE data (Sale teaches applying a sticker). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's invention to apply information display in/on the cap surface as taught by Sale, to make it readily accessible.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinert et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0319216) in view of Chestnut et al. (U.S. Patent 5,495,676) and further in view of Sale et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0044252).
In regards to claim 9, Meinert discloses cover for an optical device comprising:
Meinert teaches a body capable of attaching the cover to the optical device, but not that the body is flexible. However, Chestnut teaches a scope cap attachment with a flexible body (item 162) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a flexible attachment means to attach the cover of Meinert as taught by Chestnut, to allow easy attachment and detachment;
wherein the flexible body has a first end and a second end, and further wherein the first end is wider than the second end. Meinert as modified by Chestnut illustrates a cover with a wider portion at one “end” than that of the opposite end (see figures 6a and 6b);
a cap connected to the body such that the cap can be opened or closed, the cap having an interior potion. The cap of Meinert includes an interior portion that is used to store items and/or place a sticker with user information and the cover/cap opens and closes via a hinge;Meinert teaches a display with a perimeter; but not at least one resilient retention member attached to the interior portion of the cap for retaining the display. However, Sale teaches a "display" area with a resilient pocket retaining member (cavity) and the at least one resilient retention member capable of temporarily deforming to receive and release the display. The pocket depicted in figures 7a and 7b of Sale deforms to some degree to secure the item (a memory card). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a resilient retention component in/on the Meinert cover/cap as taught by Sale to allow the device to grip or hold different items;Meinert as modified teaches that the display has at least one indent formed in the perimeter such that the display may be released from the at least one resilient retention member at least through the use of the at least one indent. The back of the cap includes an area constituting a display that is recessed (indented).
In regards to claim 10, Meinert discloses that the display has at least two sides and data of personal equipment is visible by at least one side of the at least two sides. Meinert teaches that the data is visible from at least one side.
In regards to claim 11, Meinert as modified with Sale discloses that the at least one resilient retention member is a tab noting that Sale teaches multiple embodiments to hold an item in/on the inside of the cap including a configuration that constitutes a tab (see figure 3).
In regards to claim 12, Meinert as modified with Sale discloses that the at least one resilient retention member is a post. Sale teaches multiple embodiments to hold an item in/on the inside of the cap including a configuration that constitutes a post (see figure 7a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are allowable.
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claims 14 or 15, including all the limitations of the base claim, that the top layer and bottom layer are different colors. With respect to claim 19, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 19, including all the limitations of the base claim, that the substrate is formed by coupling at least two layers, and wherein at least one layer of the at least two layers has a different color.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected. Claims 14 and 15 are objected to and claims 19 and 20 are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights