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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on March 2, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 2, 6, and 13 are amended; claims 5, 15, and 16 are canceled; claim 20 is withdrawn; resulting in claims 1-4, 6-14, and 17-19 pending for examination.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maycock (GB 2227725, previously cited) in view of LeBoff et al. (US 5,502,912, previously cited) and Wright (US 2,828,975, newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Maycock teaches a vehicle license and document holder for attaching to a vehicle windscreen (vehicle sticker placard device), comprising superimposed sheets of transparent plastic material which form front and back walls (12, 13) and are joined together along weld lines (10, 11) (Abstract; p. 5, Ln 26-31; Figs. 1-2). The holder comprises a plurality of pockets (1, 2, 3, 4) which are formed by weld lines (10) which separate and close adjoining sides of the pockets from one another (p. 5, Ln 20-24; Fig. 1). The pockets are intended to receive a vehicle license and/or other documents such as parking tickets or an insurance document (p. 4, Ln 21-23; p. 6, Ln 20-34).
The front wall (12) is taken to correspond to the claimed body component, wherein the front wall has multiple individual compartments that are covered by the back wall (13; thin plastic sheet) which is welded to the front wall to create pockets (1, 2, 3, 4). Maycock teaches that, in use, the holder is attached to the inside surface of a vehicle windscreen by means of an adhesive on its front wall (p. 6, Ln 20-24).
With respect to the shape of the body component, Maycock teaches that the pockets may be arranged side by side, above and below one another and/or in other orientations, they may be of different sizes and/or shapes, preferably rectangular, square, or modified forms of such shapes, for example with a corner or corners omitted (p. 2, Ln 13-21). An embodiment of the holder in which the front and back walls each have a rectangular shape, wherein each of the pockets has a square or rectangular shape, is therefore envisaged based on the teachings of Maycock (e.g., where the configuration shown in Fig. 1 does not include an optional cut-away corner).
Although Maycock teaches that the holder may be attached to the inside surface of a vehicle windscreen by means of an adhesive on its front wall, and further teaches that the holder can be detached, when required, by peeling the front wall away from the surface (p. 3, Ln 1-13; p. 6, Ln 20-24), the reference does not expressly teach that the adhesive is made of an impermanent adhesive material which allows the body component to be repeatedly attached to one surface.
However, in the analogous art of vehicle document holders, LeBoff et al. teaches a display holder for a registration sticker, inspection sticker, certificate, license, photograph, or the like, which consists of a structure for protecting the display item while allowing viewing thereof (Abstract). To one face of the holder is affixed a layer of flexible material coated with a pressure sensitive adhesive by which the holder can be firmly secured to the inside of a car windshield (col 7, Ln 29-36). The adhesive coating may be made of an impermanent adhesive material which allows the holder to be repeatedly attached to one surface, removed, and attached to another surface without damaging the holder or the surface to which the holder is attached (col 7, Ln 42-46). The use of an impermanent adhesive allows the user to use the holder in multiple locations over a period of time, wherein a user is provided with flexibility as to the types of surfaces to which the holder may be attached (col 7, Ln 46-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle license and document holder taught by Maycock by using an impermanent adhesive that can be repeatedly attached to a surface without damaging the holder as the adhesive material used to coat the front wall of the holder, as taught by LeBoff et al., in order to enable the device to be repositioned within the vehicle or to be relocated to another vehicle as necessary.
Maycock in view of LeBoff et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach a thickness of the adhesive coating. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined an optimum value of the thickness of the impermanent adhesive coating taught by LeBoff et al., especially given the teachings in LeBoff et al. regarding the desire to enable the holder to be repeatedly attached to a surface and removed at any point in time without damaging the holder or the surface to which it is attached. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to adjust the thickness of the adhesive coating, such as to a value of 1/8 inch, in order to achieve the necessary adhesive strength for attaching the holder to a desired surface in a removable manner.
Although Maycock further teaches that, if desired, printed matter may be printed on the front and/or back walls of the holder (p. 7, Ln 1-2), the reference does not expressly teach that the plurality of image indicia provided by the printed matter is integrated into the body component.
However, in the analogous art of document holders, Wright teaches a device comprising a pocket in which an indicia-receiving card can be received, wherein the covering of the pocket is of a light-transmitting material so that the card is easily and readily readable while in the pocket (p. 1, Ln 22-26; Figs. 1-2). Similar to Maycock, Wright teaches that the device is preferably made of flexible vinyl plastic sheeting since this material is light in weight, strong, soft, and pleasing to the touch, and may be readily decorated by printing, painting, or embossing thereon (col 1, Ln 57-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle license and document holder taught by Maycock in view of LeBoff et al. by forming the decorative printed matter (image indicia) by embossing rather than by printing, given that Wright recognizes the equivalence of these processes for forming decorative indicia on a thin transparent vinyl document holder. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Regarding claim 2, Maycock in view of LeBoff et al. and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. It is noted that the limitations directed to the plurality of pockets displaying vehicle stickers and cards are considered functional limitations directed to an intended use of the claimed device. The claims do not require that the vehicle sticker placard device comprises said display vehicle stickers and cards, only that the pockets are used to display the stickers and cards. Maycock teaches that the pockets are intended to receive a vehicle license and/or other documents such as parking tickets or an insurance document (p. 4, Ln 21-23; p. 6, Ln 20-34), such that the holder is capable of displaying stickers and cards as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Maycock in view of LeBoff et al. and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. As shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of Maycock, the front wall (12; body component) is of minimal thickness and has an elongated rectangular configuration with top and bottom elongated edges extending parallel along a length thereof and with opposite end edges extending transverse to the length thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Maycock in view of LeBoff et al. and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above. As noted above, Maycock teaches that the front wall (12; body component) is able to be adhered to an inside surface of a vehicle windscreen to affix the holder thereto (p. 1, Ln 28-34). Therefore, when the front wall is adhered to the inside surface of a vehicle windshield, the front surface of the front wall faces out the windshield while the rear surface faces an interior of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, Maycock in view of LeBoff et al. and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Maycock further teaches that a protective cover (peel-off covering) may be applied over the adhesive and can be peeled off to expose the adhesive when the holder is to be affixed to the windscreen (p. 3, Ln 1-6).
Regarding claim 7, Maycock in view of LeBoff et al. and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above, and Maycock further teaches that the adhesive applied to the front surface of the front wall is a clear, ultraviolet light resistant adhesive (p. 6, Ln 11-18).
Regarding claim 8, Maycock in view of LeBoff et al. and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above, and Maycock further teaches that the first pocket and second additional pocket (1, 3) have a sealed bottom seam, sealed opposing right and left seams, and an opening (5, 8) along the top creating an open interior (p. 4, Ln 31-p. 5, Ln 11; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Maycock in view of LeBoff et al. and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above, and Maycock further teaches that the openings into the pockets are for the insertion of the vehicle license and other documents, wherein the openings are defined between the front and back walls for ease of access into the pocket (p. 2, Ln 5-11; Fig. 2). Therefore, the openings allow users access to the open interiors of the pockets and allow users to easily interchange vehicle stickers and cards, as needed, within the plurality of pockets.
Regarding claim 10, Maycock in view of LeBoff et al. and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above, and Maycock further teaches that both the front and back walls (12, 13) may be transparent so that documents within the pockets can be displayed through the transparent walls (p. 1, Ln 28-32; p. 2, Ln 33-35; claim 1).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Maycock in view of LeBoff et al. and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above, and Maycock further teaches that the pockets (1, 2, 3, 4) are arranged in both a vertical configuration (i.e., pockets 1 and 2 and pockets 3 and 4 stacked vertically) and a horizontal configuration (i.e., pockets 1 and 3 and pockets 2 and 4 arranged horizontally). Moreover, Maycock teaches that the first and third additional pockets (2, 4) have openings (6, 9) provided along their side edges (Fig. 1), such that the holder is configured to be operated (i.e., by inserting cards, documents, etc. into pockets) in a vertical manner and in a horizontal manner.
Claims 13, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maycock (GB 2227725, previously cited) in view of St Clair (US 11,837,115, previously cited) and Wright (US 2,828,975, newly cited).
Regarding claim 13, Maycock teaches a vehicle license and document holder for attaching to a vehicle windscreen (vehicle sticker placard device), comprising superimposed sheets of transparent plastic material which form front and back walls (12, 13) and are joined together along weld lines (10, 11) (Abstract; p. 5, Ln 26-31; Figs. 1-2). The holder comprises a plurality of pockets (1, 2, 3, 4) which are formed by weld lines (10) which separate and close adjoining sides of the pockets from one another (p. 5, Ln 20-24; Fig. 1). The pockets are intended to receive a vehicle license and/or other documents such as parking tickets or an insurance document (p. 4, Ln 21-23; p. 6, Ln 20-34).
The front wall (12) is taken to correspond to the claimed body component, wherein the front wall has multiple individual compartments that are covered by the back wall (13; thin plastic sheet) which is welded to the front wall to create pockets (1, 2, 3, 4). The first pocket and second additional pocket (1, 3) each have a sealed bottom seam, sealed opposing right and left seams, and an opening (5, 8) along the top creating an open interior (p. 4, Ln 31-p. 5, Ln 11; Fig. 1). Maycock teaches that the openings into the pockets are for the insertion of the vehicle license and other documents, wherein the openings are defined between the front and back walls for ease of access into the pocket (p. 2, Ln 5-11; Fig. 2). Therefore, the openings allow users access to the open interiors of the pockets and allow users to easily interchange vehicle stickers and cards, as needed, within the plurality of pockets.
With respect to the shape of the body component, Maycock teaches that the pockets may be arranged side by side, above and below one another and/or in other orientations, they may be of different sizes and/or shapes, preferably rectangular, square, or modified forms of such shapes, for example with a corner or corners omitted (p. 2, Ln 13-21). An embodiment of the holder in which the front and back walls each have an elongated rectangular shape, wherein each of the pockets has a square or rectangular shape, is therefore envisaged based on the teachings of Maycock (e.g., where the configuration shown in Fig. 1 does not include an optional cut-away corner). As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the front wall (12; body component) is of minimal thickness and has top and bottom elongated edges extending parallel along a length thereof and with opposite end edges extending transverse to the length thereof.
Maycock teaches that the front wall (12; body component) is able to be adhered to an inside surface of a vehicle windscreen to affix the holder thereto (p. 1, Ln 28-34). Therefore, when the front wall is adhered to the inside surface of a vehicle windshield, the front surface of the front wall faces out the windshield while the rear surface faces an interior of a vehicle. A protective cover (peel-off covering) may be applied over the adhesive and can be peeled off to expose the adhesive when the holder is to be affixed to the windscreen (p. 3, Ln 1-6).
Maycock teaches that the holder may be attached to the inside surface of a vehicle windscreen by means of an adhesive on its front wall, and further teaches that the holder can be detached, when required, by peeling the front wall away from the surface (p. 3, Ln 1-13; p. 6, Ln 20-24). Maycock differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that the adhesive is made of an impermanent adhesive material which allows the body component to be repeatedly attached to one surface, removed, and attached to another surface without damaging the body component or the surfaces to which it is attached.
However, in the analogous art of vehicle document holders, St Clair teaches an identification and information holder for traffic stops, comprising a display configured for removable affixation to a vehicle door or window (Abstract). The display (100) may comprise a securing object (118), such as a temporary adhesive which can be reused, for securing the device onto the vehicle door or window (col 5, Ln 44-55; Figs. 1-2, 4-5). For example, during a traffic stop, the holder and display device may be removably engaged or affixed to a door, window, or body of a vehicle so that it can easily be viewed, while the holder may otherwise be stored in a folded configuration inside the vehicle when not in use (col 2, Ln 29-44; col 6, Ln 9-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle license and document holder taught by Maycock by using an impermanent adhesive that can be attached, removed, and reattached to various surfaces without damaging the holder as the adhesive material used to coat the front wall of the holder, as taught by St Clair, in order to enable the device to be temporarily affixed to a surface when in use and removed when not in use.
Maycock in view of St Clair differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach a thickness of the adhesive coating. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined an optimum value of the thickness of the temporary adhesive taught by St Clair, especially given the teachings in St Clair regarding the desire to enable the holder to be removably affixed to a door, window, or body of a vehicle during a traffic stop and otherwise stored in a folded configuration when not in use. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to adjust the thickness of the adhesive, such as to a value of 1/8 inch, in order to achieve the necessary adhesive strength for attaching the holder to a desired surface in a removable manner.
Although Maycock further teaches that, if desired, printed matter may be printed on the front and/or back walls of the holder (p. 7, Ln 1-2), and St Clair teaches that the display (100) may comprise a logo (119) made of a reflective material on the front portion (104) (col 6, Ln 15-18), the combination of references does not expressly teach that the symbol indicia provided by the printed matter or the logo is stamped into the body component.
However, in the analogous art of document holders, Wright teaches a device comprising a pocket in which an indicia-receiving card can be received, wherein the covering of the pocket is of a light-transmitting material so that the card is easily and readily readable while in the pocket (p. 1, Ln 22-26; Figs. 1-2). Similar to Maycock, Wright teaches that the device is preferably made of flexible vinyl plastic sheeting since this material is light in weight, strong, soft, and pleasing to the touch, and may be readily decorated by printing, painting, or embossing thereon (col 1, Ln 57-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle license and document holder taught by Maycock in view of St Clair by forming the decorative printed matter (symbol indicia) by embossing rather than by printing, given that Wright recognizes the equivalence of these processes for forming decorative indicia on a thin transparent vinyl document holder. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Regarding claim 14, Maycock in view of St Clair and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above, and Maycock further teaches that the pockets may be of different sizes and/or of different shapes (p. 2, Ln 13-21; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Maycock in view of St Clair and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above, and Maycock further teaches that the front wall is transparent so that the documents may be displayed therethrough (p. 1, Ln 28-p. 2, Ln 3).
Regarding claim 18, Maycock in view of St Clair and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above, and Maycock further teaches that the front and back walls may be made of transparent material and that the adhesive may be a clear, ultraviolet resistant adhesive (p. 1, Ln 32; p. 2, Ln 33-35; p. 6, Ln 11-13).
Regarding claim 19, Maycock in view of St Clair and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above, and Maycock further teaches that the pockets (1, 2, 3, 4) are arranged in both a vertical configuration (i.e., pockets 1 and 2 and pockets 3 and 4 stacked vertically) and a horizontal configuration (i.e., pockets 1 and 3 and pockets 2 and 4 arranged horizontally). Moreover, Maycock teaches that the first and third additional pockets (2, 4) have openings (6, 9) provided along their side edges (Fig. 1), such that the holder is configured to be operated (i.e., by inserting cards, documents, etc. into pockets) in a vertical manner and in a horizontal manner.
Response to Arguments
Response-Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings is overcome by the replacement drawings filed March 2, 2026, in which the reference numeral “118” is shown in Fig. 4.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 2-12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention are overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to claim 2 and by the cancellation of claim 15 in the response filed March 2, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12 of the remarks filed March 2, 2026, have been considered but are moot because they do not address the new combination of references being used in the rejections above.
In light of the amendments to claims 1 and 13, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Maycock and Boukari et al. and under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Maycock in view of St Clair are withdrawn, and Wright is used in combination with Maycock in view of LeBoff et al. and Maycock in view of St Clair to address the new limitations directed to the image or symbol indicia integrated or stamped into the body component.
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785