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 . This action is in response to Application #19/183,675 and response filed on 03 June 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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, 3-4, 6-7, 20, 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2006/0191184 to Wisecup et al. (Wisecup).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, Wisecup discloses a scope cover (see at least Abstract, figures), comprising:
a flexible fabric shell (Abstract) having an interior surface defining an interior cavity, and an exterior surface opposite the interior surface (see fig.1, scope within cavity), the flexible fabric shell being adapted for placement of a scope within the interior cavity via an expandable and contractible opening in the flexible fabric shell (see fig.1, within cavity 22, see at least paragraph 60);
a strap coupled to the flexible fabric shell, said strap being configured to couple underneath a middle portion of the scope and secure the flexible fabric shell to the scope (24/26; coupled underneath a middle portion shown at figs.3 and 4a, at 28, the location of the strap emerging from the shell. 28 is on a centerline, which is the middle portion of the scope in a transverse direction); and
an area of the interior surface of the flexible fabric shell that minimizes or eliminates scratching of an objective lens and eyepiece of the scope (see at least paragraph 30, fig.1, shows covering both objective and eyepiece ends of the scope).
Regarding Claim 4, Wisecup discloses the scope cover of claim 3, wherein the area of the interior surface of the flexible fabric shell that minimizes or eliminates scratching of the objective lens of the scope comprises cotton (see at least paragraphs 29-30).
Regarding Claim 6, Wisecup discloses the scope cover of claim 1, wherein the area of the interior surface of the flexible fabric shell that minimizes or eliminates scratching of the objective lens of the scope covers the entire inner surface (see at least figures and paragraph 28).
Regarding Claim 7, Wisecup discloses the scope cover of claim 1, wherein the area of the interior surface of the flexible fabric shell that minimizes or eliminates scratching of the objective lens of the scope covers a portion of the interior surface configured to interface with the objective lens of the scope (see at least all figures and paragraph 28).
Regarding Claims 20, 24, Wisecup discloses a scope cover (see at least Abstract, figures), comprising:
a flexible fabric shell (Abstract) having an interior surface defining an interior cavity, and an exterior surface opposite the interior surface (see fig.1, scope within cavity 11), the flexible fabric shell being adapted for placement of a scope within the interior cavity via an expandable and contractible opening in the flexible fabric shell (see fig.1, within cavity 22, see at least paragraph 60);
a strap coupled to the flexible fabric shell, said strap being configured to couple underneath a middle portion of the scope and secure the flexible fabric shell to the scope (24/26; coupled underneath a middle portion shown at figs.3 and 4a, at 28, the location of the strap emerging from the shell. 28 is on a centerline, which is the middle portion of the scope in a transverse direction); and
an area of the interior surface of the flexible fabric shell that minimizes or eliminates scratching of an objective lens and eyepiece of the scope (see at least paragraph 30, fig.1, shows covering both objective and eyepiece ends of the scope);
wherein the expandable and contractible opening is at the bottom portion of the scope cover (see fig.1, 22/24 is at a bottom of scope cover portion 11);
wherein the expandable and contractible opening comprises an elastomeric band (24).
Regarding Claim 21, Wisecup discloses the scope cover of claim 20, wherein the flexible fabric shell comprises polyester and cotton (see at least paragraphs 29-30).
Regarding Claim 25, Wisecup discloses the scope cover of claim 20, wherein the strap comprises a plurality of straps (fig.4a, 54, 60/61).
Regarding Claim 26, Wisecup discloses the scope cover of claim 20, wherein the strap comprises at least one of the materials listed in the claim (see at least paragraph 77).
Regarding Claim 27, Wisecup discloses the cope cover of claim 20, wherein the strap comprises two strap segments that are connectable via a hook and loop fastener (see at least paragraph 77).
Regarding Claim28, Wisecup discloses the scope cover of claim 20, wherein the area of the interior surface of the flexible fabric shell that minimizes or eliminates scratching of the objective lens of the scope comprises cotton (see at least paragraphs 29-30).
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 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.
Claims 5, 14-15, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2006/0191184 to Wisecup et al. (Wisecup) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2009/0178218 to Jones.
Regarding Claims 5, 29-30, Wisecup discloses the cope cover of claim 4, but fails to specifically disclose a microfiber material. However, Wisecup discloses a cotton material to protect lenses of a scope. Jones discloses a material utilized to clean an optical surface such as a rifle scope made of a cotton or microfiber cloth (see at least paragraph 40). It would have been obvious to manufacturer the interior surface of the cover of Wisecup from a split microfiber split into multi-stranded filaments cloth as taught by Jones, since it is known in the art that a microfiber cloth is safe to use on optical surfaces.
Regarding Claim 14, Wisecup discloses the scope cover of claim 1, but fails to specifically disclose comprising a closeable storage pouch attached to the flexible fabric shell, said closeable storage pouch comprising a soft cleaning material attached to an interior surface of the closeable storage pouch, and an attachment feature configured to attach the closeable storage pouch to a user’s gear.
However, Jones discloses such a pouch with a retractable, soft cleaning material to clean a scope (see at least paragraphs 1, 4, 40), that has an attachment point (38) configured to attach or secure the accessory to an article or device such as a lens bearing device or storage case (see at least paragraph 25). It would have been an obvious modification to Wisecup to include a cloth accessory as taught by Jones since Jones teaches the cloth accessory is designed to be attached to an object with the specific purpose of cleaning lenses of a scope.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Wisecup and Jones disclose the scope cover of claim 14, wherein the closeable storage pouch is storable against either the interior surface or exterior surface of the flexible fabric shell via at least one of a snap, hook and loop fastener, buckle, clip, etc… (see Jones at least paragraph 39).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2006/0191184 to Wisecup et al. (Wisecup).
Regarding Claims 22-23, Wisecup discloses the scope cover of claim 20, further comprising a tab made of polyester/cotton (see at least paragraphs 29-30) coupled to the exterior surface, said tab being opposite the area of the interior surface of the flexible fabric shell that minimizes or eliminates scratching of the objective lens of the scope (see figure 2, element 70, see at least paragraphs 60, 62).
Wisecup fails to specifically disclose disposed proximate to the objective lens of the scope. However, the element 70 of Wisecup is disclosed as being pulled from an ocular end of the scope (paragraphs 60, 62, figure 2). The tab 70, however, in Figure 1 is shown surrounding the scope, so a portion of 70, in front of 22 could obviously be pulled in a direction towards the muzzle of the firearm as shown in Fig.1, as an obvious reversal of the steps to accomplish the same result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose a newly added limitation, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as explained in the rejection above. Further, though not relied on as an art rejection, the Examiner would ask the Applicant to review US Patent 4,865,191 issued to Easter, specifically Figure 3 element 24 as a pertinent piece of art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for pertinent art.
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 JOHN D COOPER whose telephone number is (571)270-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 - 4:30 MST.
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, TROY CHAMBERS can be reached at 571-272-6874. 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.
/JOHN COOPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights