DETAILED ACTION
The following Final Office Action is in response to the RCE filed 8/31/2026.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are hereby examined below.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grat US 2007/0144688 in view of The Skeeter Beater Panel Screen and Gatham US 2009/0195014.
In regard to claim 1, Grat ‘688 discloses a screen assembly for covering an open window of a vehicle door, the screen assembly comprising: a screen unit having a panel (10, Fig. 1) made from a first material (paragraph [0014]) and a perimeter (20, Fig. 1) made from a second material (paragraph 90015]), the panel positioned (10) on an inside of the perimeter (20) and the perimeter comprising at least a top first side, a bottom second side, a left third side and a right fourth side (shown below); a plurality of magnets (40, left, bottom, right, Fig. 1) fixed within the perimeter (20) at at least the bottom second side, the left third side and the right fourth side (shown below); and a plurality of inserts (40, top) made from a third material and fixed inside or on the perimeter at the top first side; the plurality of magnets (40) magnetically securing the screen assembly to metal portion of the vehicle at least the bottom second side, the left third side and the right fourth side of the perimeter of the screen unit.
PNG
media_image1.png
549
923
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Grat ‘688 fails to disclose the window is a roll-down rear window and the vehicle is an SUV, and the screen unit is configured to correspond to the dimensions and shape of the rear window, the plurality of inserts sliding into a weather seal in the window of the vehicle to secure the screen assembly to the vehicle window at the top first side of the perimeter of the screen unit.
The Skeeter Beater discloses the window is a flip out rear window and the vehicle is a van, and the screen unit is configured to correspond to the dimension and shape of the rear window. (shown below)
PNG
media_image2.png
300
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gatham ‘014 discloses an insert (212) sliding into a weather seal in the window of the vehicle to secure the screen assembly to the vehicle window at the top first side of the perimeter of the screen unit. (paragraph [0113])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Grat ‘688 to make the screen configured to fit a rear window as taught by The Skeeter Beater as such teaches that it is known to use a screen at the rear open window of a vehicle for maximum airflow by using a large window.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known to have an SUV with a roll down window at the rear of a vehicle ( 2001 Toyota 4Runner, for example) and one having ordinary skill in the art would have known to substitute such an SUV with a roll down window for the van and flip out window taught by The Skeeter Beater for the purpose of having a vehicle with typically better offroad capabilities and higher towing capacity. Having a roll down window instead of a flip out window would provide a means to keep the window free from possible damage when in the open position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute a plurality of inserts (within the perimeter of the screen) to slide into a weather seal of the window was taught by Gatham ‘014 as such is shown to be a known means of affixing to an area around roll down window. Locating the inserts within the perimeter would protect them and help keep them protected and secured in place. Such would be useful for vehicles such as a 1979 Ford Bronco or 1984 Toyota 4Runner where the upper window opening is fiberglass and not metal. Pushing in the window seal area would provide a means to hold the top in place on such vehicles.
In regard to claim 2, Grat ‘688 fails to disclose a fifth perimeter side positioned between the bottom second side and left third side, and a sixth perimeter side positioned between bottom second side and right fourth side, the screen assembly configured in the shape of an irregular hexagon, and the fifth and sixth sides fixed with a plurality of magnets therein.
Gatham ‘014 discloses a window net may be dimensioned and configured to a wide range of window shapes. (paragraph [0111]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to make the screen of Grat ‘688 to include a fifth perimeter side between the bottom and left side and a sixth perimeter side positioned between the bottom side and the right side in the shape of an irregular hexagon as Gatham ‘014 discloses that man vehicles have windows which are not four sided and can be numerous irregular shapes. Such would allow the device to be used on a particular vehicle.
In regard to claim 3, Grat ‘688 disclose wherein the plurality of magnets (40) fixed inside the bottom second side, the left third side, the right fourth side, the fifth side (as obvious to modify above) and the sixth side (as obvious to modify above) magnetically secures the screen assembly to the metal portion of the vehicle.
In regard to claim 4, Grat ‘688 discloses the first material (10) is a flexible, semi-permeable mesh. (paragraph [0018] states that the material will stop bugs from getting in but allow ventilation)
In regard to claim 5, Grat ‘688 discloses the first material is a mosquito net. Grat ‘688 fails to specifically disclose the first material is a nylon fabric. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known to form mosquito nets out of soft nylon and one having ordinary skill in the art would know to use such for the purpose of its durability and flexibility.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s acceptance of examiner’s Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use a nylon fabric for mosquito nets. Applicant’s lack of arguments or traversal results in the Official Notice being acknowledged as admitted prior art. Per MPEP 2144.03 [R-1] (C) (emphasis by examiner):
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.
Thus the issues are considered admitted prior art.
In regard to claim 6, Grat ‘688 discloses wherein the second material is a woven fabric (abstract states canvas).
In regard to claim 7, Grat ‘688 as modified by Gatham ‘014 discloses the third material is a plastic polymer tubing (Gatham ‘014 paragraph [0112]). Gatham 014 fails to disclose the third material is foam. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the third material be foam, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Foam would provide a similar crushability while being durable and long lasting.
In regard to claim 8, Grat ‘688/Gatham ‘014 fail to disclose the screen assembly further comprises a carry bag for storing the screen assembly when not in use.
The Skeeter Beeter discloses the screen assembly further comprises a carry bag for storing the screen assembly when not in use (in Description). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Grat ‘688/Gatham ‘014 to include a carry bag as taught by The Skeeter Beeter for the purpose of convenient storing the device for carrying.
In regard to claims 10-11, Grat ‘688 discloses the perimeter (20) is flexible and durable enough to be folded and sewn or adhered to the panel (10) such that the perimeter houses the plurality of magnets (40, left, bottom, right) and the plurality of inserts (40, top). (Abstract)
In regard to claim 12, Grat ‘688/Gatham ‘014 disclose a method of installing the screen assembly comprising the steps of securing the plurality of magnets (40, Grat ‘688) fixed inside the perimeter at the bottom second side, the left third side, the right fourth side to the vehicle, and pushing or sliding the plurality of inserts (as modified by Gatham ‘014) within the top first side of the perimeter into a window seal to secure the screen assembly to the vehicle.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grat US 2007/0144688, The Skeeter Beater Magnetic Van Bug Screen and Gatham US 2009/0195014 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Munchin Brica Magnetic Stretch to Fit Sun Shade.
In regard to claim 13, Grat ‘688/The Skeeter Beater/Gatham ‘014 fail to disclose further comprising the step of pulling the perimeter at the bottom second side, the left third side, the right fourth side distally to tighten the screen assembly over the window.
Munchkin Brica Magnetic Stretch to Fit Sun Shade video, the step of pulling the perimeter at to tighten the screen assembly over the window. (video from :19-:25)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success to perform the pulling of the perimeter of the screen assembly as taught by Munchkin Brica Stretch to Fit Sun Shade for the purpose of maximizing the coverage and ensuring a tight fit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Newly applied reference The Skeeter Beater disclose a screen located at the rear opening of a van window. As stated above, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known to have a rear hatch or door with a roll down window and one having ordinary skill in the art would have known to use such.
In regard to applicant’s argument that Gatham does not disclose the inserts within the perimeter, Grat clearly discloses the magnets within the perimeter and it would have been obvious to locate the inserts within the perimeter as taught by Grat.
In response to applicant’s argument that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been required to ignore the teachings of Gatham for how to cover a rear window of an SUV. This argument is moot, as The Skeeter Beater clearly teaches using a magnetic screen to dover a rear window opening, while Gatham is used to teach the specifics of using an insert to mount within a weatherstrip channel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights