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 § 102
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) 1, 2, 3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cornitius-Cary(8556337). The reference to Cornitius-Cary teaches structure substantially as claimed including a seat cover system for detachably coupling to a seat, the seat cover system comprising: a main body (20) comprising a top end, a bottom end, a first side, and a second side, the first side comprising a first gusset (14) and the second side comprising a second gusset (15); and a cooling pack (40) carried in the main body; wherein the seat cover system is configurable from a rolled configuration to a seat configuration and vice versa (it is noted that the system can be rolled up and secured in the position by the straps), the first gusset and the second gusset being configured to inhibit the seat cover (due to the additional thickness) system from reconfiguring from the seat configuration to a flat configuration, a plurality of straps coupled (at least fig 5), the plurality of straps are configured to extend around the seat to couple the seat cover system to the seat, insulated pockets (at least paragraph 16)
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.
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) 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornitius-Cary(8556337). The reference to Cornitius-Cary teaches structure as claimed as discussed above including buckles. The use of different well known buckles, such as snap buckles, threaded buckle, quick disconnect buckles, swivel buckles would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success since such would have been conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed. The method would have been obvious in view of the structures.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornitius-Cary(8556337)as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Deluca (9549617). The reference to Cornitius-Cary teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including cover portions the only difference being that the portions do not include coverage for a back and seat structure. However, the reference to Deluca teaches the use of providing a seat and back portion for cooling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Cornitius-Cary with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a seat and back coverage, as taught by Deluca since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed. The particular angle would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary kill in the art and a reasonably predictable result and it is noted that the structure of Deluca can preform as such.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited teach structure similar to applicant’s including heat/cooling covers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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 Troy can be reached at 571 270 3742. 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.
/JOSE V CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637