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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 29, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the opening on the top end on the back of the boat seat in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) cancelled from the claim(s).
Additionally, the “small pocket with Velcro for the drawstring to be hidden” in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the term “Velcro”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1-14, the Applicant claims a single piece, form-fitting seat cover without providing any detail as to how the seat cover will be mounted onto the boat seat. In the absence of such detail, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) is left with a non-enabling disclosure which would require undue experimentation to figure out how this invention is supposed to work and what it is supposed to actually do.
According to MPEP §2164.01(a), the following factors should be considered to determine enablement and whether undue experimentation would be required:
The breadth of the claims;
The nature of the invention;
The state of the prior art;
The level of ordinary skill;
The level of predictability in the art;
The amount of direction provided by the inventor
The existence of working examples; and
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Regarding element (A), breadth of the claims: The claims recite “A form-fitting seat cover that includes a top seat cover for slipping over a top of the boat seat for mounting onto the back of the boat seat”. The claims do not give sufficient details about how an opening on the top end of the top seat cover can be placed on the back of the boat seat and then pulled downward to cover the seat back. As currently claimed, the seat cover can either be on the bottom end of the seat cover or the opening can be on the back end of the top cover such that it can be placed on the back of the boat seat and pulled downward. However, an opening on the top end of the top seat cover cannot be used to pull the seat cover down.
Regarding element (B), nature of the invention: There are two different embodiments of the seat cover invention. The first embodiment as shown in fig. 1, is a single piece form fitting seat cover. Paras. [037-038] discuss the single piece form fitting seat cover, and discloses that the opening is located along the bottom edge 14. The second embodiment as shown in fig. 1A, is a two-form fitting boat seat cover. When applicant references the opening on the top end of the back seat in para. [040], applicant is referencing the form-fitting boat seat cover of fig. 1A, not the single piece form fitting seat cover of fig. 1. Claim 1 recites “the top seat cover can be placed with an opening on the top end thereof on the back of the boat seat and then pulled downward to cover the back”, and this cannot be accomplished with the opening being only on the top, the opening would necessarily have to be on the bottom edge of the seat cover in order for the seat cover to be pulled downward on the boat seat.
Regarding element (C), the state of the prior art, and (D), the level of one of ordinary skill, reference Croshaw (US 5,265,933 A) is representative of the state of the prior art and level of one of ordinary skill, and works by pulling down a seat cover with an opening in the back of the seat cover over the back of the boat seat and then pulled downward to cover the back. As shown in fig. 1 of Croshaw, there is an opening on the back of the top seat cover such that the seat cover can be placed on the top end on the back of the boat seat and then pulled downward to cover the back.
Regarding element (F), the amount of direction provided by the inventor: The disclosure provides direction to achieve a single piece form fitting seat cover that has an opening on the bottom edge of the seat cover such that it can be placed over the seat and pulled downward. However, the disclosure provides insufficient guidance to make and use a seat cover that can be pulled down with the opening on the top end of the seat cover instead of the bottom of the seat cover. The amount of experimentation needed to achieve the claimed configuration (i.e., pulling down a seat cover over the boat seat with the opening on the top end) is undue, as PHOSITA would not have reasonable expectations of success in attempting to make a seat cover which pulls down using an opening in the top of the seat cover.
Regarding element (G), working examples: The inventor has not provided any indication that this claimed concept has been reduced to a working example.
Regarding element (H), quantity of experimentation needed: As previously stated, the quantity of experimentation required to make or use the invention, as presently claimed with the opening on the top of the top cover, based on the contents of the present disclosure would be very high since a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonable expectations of success.
In general, the disclosure describes a single piece form fitting seat cover that has an opening on the top end and then is placed on the back of the boat seat and pulled downward to cover the back which is not sufficiently disclosed. In effect, a PHOSITA is left with a non-enabling disclosure because it is unclear how, at least, an opening is provided on the top end and pulled downward to cover the back.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites “the top seat cover can be placed with an opening on the top end thereof on the back of the boat seat and then pulled downward to cover the back” which is indefinite, because it is unclear how the seat cover will be placed on the back of the boat seat through the opening on the top end. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner is applying a seat cover that is installed in the same way as recited in claim 1, such that it can be pulled downward to cover the back of the boat seat.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the seat cover is made of two layers of fabric with heat-resistant and water-resistant or waterproof properties which slip onto the back and bottom of a relatively small boat seat, respectively.” Which is indefinite, because it is unclear what a “relatively small” consists of.
Claim 12 recites “The fabric used for the boat seat covers 11” which is indefinite, because since the preamble is now referring back to the fabric and not the single piece form fitting seat cover, it is unclear if it requires all of the limitations of claim 11.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the top cover can slip over the top of the seat like a bag; and a drawstring closure on the back of the seat cover is provided with a small pocket with Velcro for the drawstring to be hidden and kept out of the way” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, in light of the 112b rejection regarding claim 1 above, it is unclear where the opening on the top cover would be, and therefore, it is unclear if the seat cover is capable of slipping over the top of the seat like a bag. Second, it is unclear from the specification and drawings how the closure itself has a small pocket with Velcro.
Furthermore, claim 13 contains the trademark/trade name “Velcro”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a hook and loop fastener and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croshaw (US 5,265,933 A) in view of Romero (US 2008/0231096 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 USC 112a & 112b above, Croshaw discloses a single piece, form-fitting seat cover (seat cover 24, fig. 1) for covering boat seat fabrics of a small or medium boat seat (is capable of being used for covering a boat seat);
the form fitting seat cover including a top seat cover (front panel 32, fig. 1) for slipping over a top of the boat seat for mounting onto the back of the boat seat (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) and a bottom seat cover for mounting over the bottom of the boat seat (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below);
the top seat cover can be placed with an opening on the top end thereof on the back of the boat seat (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) and then pulled downward to cover the back (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below); and the bottom seat cover can be placed with an opening on the rear end thereof (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) and pulled backward to cover the bottom of the seat (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below).
However, Croshaw does not appear to specifically disclose the form fitting seat cover being
constructed of a fabric having heat-resistant, and water-resistant properties.
Romero is in the field of a multi-layered covering article (Abstract) and teaches the form
fitting seat cover being constructed of a fabric having heat-resistant, and water-resistant properties (Para. [0024], “the layer 10 may be constructed of a variety of materials, one particularly useful embodiment would utilize a light weight cloth, such as cotton, polyester, microfiber (blended polyester and polyamide or nylon compositions), and other similar fabrics”. Furthermore, Para. [0026], discloses “[a]s an additional alternative, a durable material, such as canvas, could be used as the second layer 20”; as shown in figs. 1 & 2. Examiner notes, in using the same materials as the instant invention, it would therefore have the same material properties).
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 seat cover of Croshaw such that it was made of two layers of fabric having heat-resistant, and water-resistant properties as taught by layers 10 and 20 of Romero, since such a durable member could be advantageous when the article is called upon to protect the seat from extreme conditions (Romero: Paras. [0024-0026]).
PNG
media_image1.png
391
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1: annotated image of Croshaw’s fig. 1
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Croshaw in view of Romero discloses the invention in claim 1, and further provides wherein the seat cover is made of two layers of fabric with heat-resistant and water-resistant or waterproof properties which slip onto the back and bottom of a relatively small boat seat, respectively (as set forth above in claim 1, Romero discloses in at least Paras. [0024-0026], that layer 10 can be constructed of polyester, and a second layer 20 can be made of canvas).
Regarding claim 3, Croshaw in view of Romero discloses the invention in claim 2, and Croshaw further discloses wherein the top and bottom seat covers can be secured in place with a first draw string closure (Col. 3, lines 57-63, “[b]y cinching or pulling the drawstrings 44 and 52 and then tying or joining them to the sections 68 and 72 respectively, the drawstrings each form a continuous loop with respective sections, and the seat cushion top panel 28 and seat back front panel 32 are pulled smoothly, and uniformly over the seat cushion 8 and seat back 12 respectively”).
Claim(s) 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croshaw in view of Romero as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Durnil (US 2015/0197172 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Croshaw in view of Romero discloses the invention in claim 3, and further provides seat covers suitable for boat seats (as set forth above in claim 1), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the seat cover covers boat seats typically made with vinyl or leather fabrics which become hot and weathered when exposed to external conditions.
However, Durnil is in the field of a seat protection system (Abstract) and teaches wherein the seat cover covers [boat] seats typically made with vinyl or leather fabrics which become hot and weathered when exposed to external conditions (Para. [0026], “[t]he materials are preferably chosen so that the seat protection system 20 can act as a barrier between a user's body and the seat or chair in use, to prevent damage to the seat's materials such as leather or expensive vinyl”).
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 seat of modified Croshaw such that it was made of vinyl or leather fabric, since such fabric provides superior durability, ease of cleaning, and stain resistance compared to cloth.
Regarding claim 5, Croshaw in view of Romero and Durnil discloses the invention in claim 4, and further discloses wherein the seat cover will keep the boat seats covered during and after use and may be removed and stored or washed as desired (Col. 1, lines 42-45, “It is a further object of the invention to provide such a seat cover and fastening system which facilitates the rapid installation and removal of the cover from a vehicle seat”; as shown in fig. 2, the prior art seat cover is capable of keeping the seats covered during and after use and may be removed as desired).
Regarding claim 6, Croshaw in view of Romero and Durnil discloses the invention in claim 5, and further provides wherein the seat cover is made of a fabric with heat resistant and water resistant or waterproof properties are provided to prevent potential burns or uncomfortable contact with the original boat seat fabrics and keep original boat seat fabrics safe and intact (as set forth above in claim 1, Romero discloses in at least Paras. [0024-0026], that layer 10 can be constructed of polyester, and a second layer 20 can be made of canvas, and thereby, capable of the function of preventing potential burn or uncomfortable contact with the original seat fabric).
Regarding claim 7, Croshaw in view of Romero and Durnil discloses the invention in claim 6, and further provides wherein the seat cover is made of a synthetic material constructed of neoprene, polyester, or canvas1 (as modified above in claim 1, Romero discloses in at least Paras. [0024-0026], layer 10 can be constructed of polyester, and a second layer 20 can be made of canvas).
Regarding claim 8, Croshaw in view of Romero and Durnil discloses the invention in claim 7, but is silent regarding the original boat seat fabric being vinyl or leather.
However, Durnil is in the field of a seat protection system (Abstract) and teaches wherein the original boat seat fabric is vinyl or leather that get hot when exposed to heat or the sun (Para. [0026], “[t]he materials are preferably chosen so that the seat protection system 20 can act as a barrier between a user's body and the seat or chair in use, to prevent damage to the seat's materials such as leather or expensive vinyl”).
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 seat of modified Croshaw such that it was made of vinyl or leather fabric, since such fabric provides superior durability, ease of cleaning, and stain resistance compared to cloth. As a result of modifying the seat cover of Croshaw in light of the Vinyl boat seat cover of Durnil, the seat cover will prevent potential burns or uncomfortable contact by the user with the original boat seat fabrics like vinyl or leather.
Regarding claim 9, Croshaw in view of Romero and Durnil discloses the invention in claim 8, and further provides wherein the seat cover will prevent damage to the original boat seat fabrics due to weather or UV exposure (as set forth above in claim 1, Romero discloses in at least Paras. [0024-0026], that layer 10 can be constructed of polyester, and a second layer 20 can be made of canvas. Examiner notes, both materials are well known in the art to be a suitable material for UV protection).
Regarding claim 10, Croshaw in view of Romero and Durnil discloses the invention in claim 9, and further provides wherein the fabric used for the boat seat covers can be treated with anti-mildewing/anti-molding solutions before sale, before use, or after use (Examiner notes, it is considered that the seat cover of modified Croshaw is capable of being treated with anti-mildewing/anti-molding solutions at any time, including before or after use).
Regarding claim 11, Croshaw in view of Romero and Durnil discloses the invention in claim 10, and Romero further discloses wherein the fabric used for the boat seat covers the water-resistant or waterproof properties of the seat covers, the seats will or should remain undamaged due to contact with water (as shown in figs. 2 & 4, layer 10 covers the second layer 20 which can be made of a durable material such as canvas, see Paras. [0024-0025]. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that canvas is water-resistant).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Croshaw in view of Romero and Durnil discloses the invention in claim 11, and further provides a fabric that can be treated with anti-mildewing/anti-molding solutions before sale, before use, or after use. The seat covers may also be washed to prevent the formation of mildew and/or mold (Examiner notes, it is considered that the seat cover of modified Croshaw is capable of being treated with anti-mildewing/anti-molding solutions at any time, including before or after use. Furthermore, the seat covers may also be washed to prevent the formation of mildew and/or mold).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croshaw in view of Romero and Durnil as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Popp et al. (US 2023/0284773 A1), hereinafter Popp.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Croshaw in view of Romero and Durnil discloses the invention in claim 12, and further discloses wherein the top cover can slip over the top of the seat like a bag (as shown in fig. 1); and a drawstring closure on the back of the seat cover is provided with a small pocket [with Velcro] for the drawstring to be hidden and kept out of the way (Col. 3, lines 20-22, “the rear edge 34 of the sheet of material 33 includes a channel 48 having a tunnel or passageway for receiving and holding an elastic drawstring 52”).
However, modified Croshaw does not appear to specifically disclose that the small pocket has Velcro.
Popp is in the field of a rapid access pouch system (Abstract) and teaches a small pocket with Velcro for the drawstring to be hidden (Para. [0057], “the retaining mechanisms adjacent to the openings 152 on the storage pockets 122 may include flaps, snaps, hook and loop fasteners, buttons, drawstrings, magnets, or the like”; as shown in fig. 4).
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 invention of Croshaw such that there was a small pocket with Velcro provided on the drawstring closure as taught by Popp, in order to keep the drawstring hidden and kept out of the way.
Regarding claim 14, Croshaw in view of Romero, Durnil, and Popp discloses the invention in claim 13, and further provides wherein the bottom seat cover slips on top of the seat like a cushion cover and is provided with a drawstring closure around the rim of the seat and at the back of the seat (Col. 3, lines 20-22, “the rear edge 34 of the sheet of material 33 includes a channel 48 having a tunnel or passageway for receiving and holding an elastic drawstring 52”; as shown in figs. 1 & 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm ET.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/Richard Green/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
1 Interpretation note: only one of the synthetic materials is required in order to meet the claimed limitation.