July 9, 2026
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 1 of the specification, in paragraph [0001], under “CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS”, applicant needs to insert - - now U.S. Patent No. 12,409,763 B2 - - after “This application is a continuation-in-part of United States Patent Application Serial No. 17/834,670, filed June 7, 2022,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6-8, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-11, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,763 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of Claims 1, 6-8, and 17-20 of the present invention is claimed in claims 1, 8-11, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,763 B2..
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aliev (U.S. Patent No. 7,287,813 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
207
227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
207
261
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, Aliev teaches a vehicle protection system comprising:
a vehicle seat cover comprising a lower portion 54 that is configured to protect a seat portion of a vehicle seat and an upper portion 20 that is configured to protect a back portion of the vehicle seat (see Figures 1 and 3); and
a vehicle door guard comprising a cover portion 16 that is configured to be secured to the lower portion 54 of the vehicle seat cover and one or more fasteners 38, 44, 46, 50 that are configured to support the cover portion from a portion of the vehicle.
As for Claim 2, Aliev teaches that the coupler comprises a zipper (see the specification where it reads “ Side sheets 16 are releasably joined to base sheet 54, as shown in FIG. 4. Similarly to front sheet 18, the side sheets are releasably secured along their rear edges by hook and loop fasteners, zippers, buttons, snaps or any other suitable releasable fasteners.
As for Claim 3, if the side sheets or panels 16 are secured to the lower portion 54 with zippers 26,28 along the side edges and the bottom edges, as shown in Figures 1 and 3-4, the zipper comprises a continuous unit extending along a bottom and a side of the door guard.
As for Claim 5, Aliev teaches that the door guard is selectively removable from the vehicle seat cover.
As for Claim 11, Aliev teaches that the coupler is configured such that, when it is fastened, there are no substantial gaps between the coupler and the upper portion of the vehicle seat cover.
As for Claim 15, Aliev further comprises a hinge at an interface between the front portion of the vehicle seat cover and the door guard.
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 6-9, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliev (U.S. Patent No. 7,287,813 B2) in view of Godshaw et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0236874 A1 ).
Aliev teaches the structure substantially as claimed including straps coupled to a portion of the vehicle (See Fig. 1) but does not teach that an upper edge of the cover comprises a support member configured to prevent the upper edge from sagging.
PNG
media_image3.png
252
234
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Godshaw et al. teach the concept of an upper edge of a similar cover that comprises a support member 254 that is selectively removable form a pocket 250; wherein the support member maintains the upper edge in a horizontal orientation independently of a fastener. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover, as taught by Aliev, to include a support member in an upper edge of the cover, as taught by Godshaw et al., sine it would serve as a stiffener to the cover and prevent the cover form sagging.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliev (U.S. Patent No. 7,287,813 B2) in view of Ott et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0236874 A1 ) or Pettet (U.S. Patent No. 10,264,827 B1).
Aliev teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach that the zipper is configured to selectively open bidirectionally. However, Ott et al. and Pettit teach bidirectional zippers to e old It would advantageous to use bidirectional zippers in the Aliev cover since it allow one to open the cover from both ends
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the aforementioned patents and publications .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method of using a vehicle door guard, as recited as this would be the normal and logical manner of using a vehicle door guard, as taught by the combination of references discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts similar to those of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, David R. Dunn can be reached on (571) 272-6670. 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.
/Rodney B White/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights