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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2025 was considered by the examiner.
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 1-5, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ratliff US20190271189.
Claim 1. Ratliff discloses protecting a door window with a door window protector, the method comprising: mounting the door window protector (4) to a door, the door comprising the door window (10), wherein the door window protector comprises a mounting frame defining a frame opening (at 10, Fig.1), and wherein the door window is disposed within the frame opening; and covering the door window with a protective panel (12) of the door window protector, wherein covering the door window the protective panel comprises sliding the protective panel of the door window protector within the frame opening from an open position to a closed position (as illustrated in Fig.1 and 2 and discussed in P.0012).
Claim 2. Ratliff discloses covering the door window the protective panel further comprises engaging a locking member (28) of the protective panel with a lock opening (46) of the mounting frame in the closed position.
Claim 3. Ratliff discloses in the open position, the door window is at least partially uncovered by the protective panel, and the locking member is disengaged from the lock opening (Fig.4).
Claim 4. Ratliff discloses the mounting frame defines a first frame side (at 4) and a second frame side (at 6) opposite the first frame side; the frame opening (10) extends between the first frame side and the second frame side; and the lock opening (46) is formed through the mounting frame at the second frame side (Fig.4).
Claim 5. Ratliff discloses in the open position, the protective panel (12) is disposed proximate to the first frame side; and in the closed position, the protective panel is disposed proximate to the second frame side (Fig.4 and 5).
Claim 10. Ratliff discloses sliding the protective panel (12) of the door window protector within the frame opening comprising sliding the protective panel within an upper guide channel (20) and a lower guide channel (21) of the mounting frame (Fig.1).
Claim 11. Ratliff discloses the protective panel comprises a panel handle (54), and wherein sliding the protective panel of the door window protector within the frame opening further comprises manually engaging the panel handle to push or pull the protective panel to the closed position (P.0061).
Claim 15. Ratliff discloses the protective panel comprises a panel body, an upper channel tab (22) extending from an upper panel end of the panel body, and a lower channel tab (24) extending from a lower panel end of the panel body; the upper channel tab engages and slides within the upper guide channel (20); and the lower channel tab engages and slides within the lower guide channel (21 and P.0043).
Claim 16. Ratliff discloses the locking member (28) extends outward from a panel body of the protective panel (Fig.4).
Claim 17. Ratliff discloses the locking member (28) is a locking tab defining a tab leg (26) and a tab head (34) extending from the tab leg at a proximal end of the tab head, distal to the panel body; and engaging the locking member (28) of the protective panel with the lock opening (46) of the mounting frame comprises inserting the tab head through the lock opening (illustrated by the dashed line in Fig.5).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratliff US20190271189 as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 12. Ratliff discloses the panel handle (54) is formed monolithically with a panel body (12) of the protective panel (Fig.3); the panel body defines a first panel side (42) and a second panel side (44) opposite the first panel side; the panel handle (54) is bent forward relative to the panel body at the first panel side (42, Fig.3); but silent on the panel handle comprises a substantially planar handle ledge extending forward from the first panel side and a handle grip extending forward from the handle ledge distal to the panel body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the handle with a ledge to accommodate various hand sizes, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 13, 14, and 17 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest the combination of characteristics specified in the independent claim, especially the requirement of a substance concerning lock opening formed through the side plate, hence there is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to attached NOTICE OF REFERENCE CITED.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BABAJIDE A DEMUREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 5712726754. 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.
BABAJIDE A. DEMUREN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/BABAJIDE A DEMUREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
