15. Applicant's arguments, see appl

15. Applicant's arguments, see applicant's Remarks (pages 2-3directed to 102,and pages2-6 directed to 103), filed May 7 th, 2 020, with respect to the rejection(s)ofclaim(s) 1-13 under 102 (pages 2-3), a nd 103 (pages 3-6) have been fully considered and a re persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a newground(s) of rejection is made in view of Somes with Stump, Tursi, Mikkelsenand Howard as set forth in paragraph 9 a bove.Exa miner recognizes in light of a pplicant/s a mended ’’wherein the second cover covers the first mat a nd the second matand the second covers the first cover^7 no longer purely claims'the cover device further comprises a second cover which covers the first cover a nd the second cover is more air permeable than the first cover7 as claim 12 originally necessitated (to which Somes was provided to address). Where notably, Somes presented a sheet ofsleezy cloth (a n effective second cover) which is fastened (or otherwise coveringat least a portion to be sofa stened) to the first air-tight cover (the first cover) wherein sleezy cloth is known to be porous or breathable and possess a higher permeability than the air-tight material which by naturewould beairtightand be relatively impermeable.