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 March 2, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “prism-shaped lumber” as mentioned in claim 4 and “multiple pieces of lumber” as mentioned in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz (US 2017/0119121) in view of Porath (US 2013/0032557).
As to claim 1, Munoz discloses a dual-ended cup based lumber carrier (100) (with regards to the recitation “lumber” in the preamble, according to MPEP 2114 – A claim containing recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.), as illustrated in Figures 1-2, comprising two end cups (110,120) each with an open front side (1101,1201) and closed back side (1102,1202), wherein said open front sides face each other; a portal (156) on the closed back side (1202); a strap (150) passing through the portal of the closed back side (1202). However, Munoz doesn’t show the other closed back side (1102) to have a portal (156) to be connected to the strap (150). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to construct a second portal to the other closed back side (1102), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.
In addition, Munoz doesn’t show strap to be adjustable in length and a transverse flexible strap fixedly attached to the adjustable length flexible strap forming a loop equidistantly connected at two spaced apart locations between each of said two end cups.
Porath teaches an assembly (20) comprising an adjustable flexible length strap (22) and a transverse flexible strap (28) fixedly attached to the adjustable length strap (see Figure 1).
The substitution of one known element (adjustable flexible length strap and transverse flexible strap as shown in Porath) for another (strap shown in Munoz) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the combination of the adjustable length strap and transverse flexible strap shown in Porath would have yielded predictable results, namely, a positive interlocking of the two end cups together with the body (130) in Munoz to prevent accidental separation or disengagement of during transportation.
With claim 2, each of the open front sides has a circular cross-section.
With claim 3, as modified by Portah, the adjustable length flexible strap extends around oppositely disposed sides of a side wall of each said end cup.
As to claim 8, Munoz discloses a dual-ended cup based lumber carrier (100) (with regards to the recitation “lumber” in the preamble, according to MPEP 2114 – A claim containing recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.), as illustrated in Figures 1-2, comprising two identical end cups (110,120) with an open end (1101,1201) opposite a closed end (1102,1202); a loop (156) (see paragraph [0105]) on the closed end (1202) of a first end cup (120); and a strap (150) passing through the loop of the closed end (1202). However, Munoz does not disclose the strap to be two adjustable length straps fixedly attached at a center point of each said two adjustable length flexible straps in a transverse manner to each other; a second loop fixed to the closed end of a second end cup (110), wherein when one of the two adjustable length flexible straps is passed through each loop fixed to the closed end of each of the two identical cups.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to construct a second loop to the closed end of a second end cup (110), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.
Porath teaches an assembly (20) comprising an adjustable flexible length strap (22) and two transverse flexible straps (28) fixedly attached to the adjustable length strap (see Figure 1).
The substitution of one known element (adjustable flexible length strap and transverse flexible straps as shown in Porath) for another (strap shown in Munoz) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the combination of the adjustable length strap and transverse flexible strap shown in Porath would have yielded predictable results, namely, a positive interlocking of the two end cups together with the body (130) in Munoz to prevent accidental separation or disengagement of during transportation.
As to claim 16, Munoz discloses a dual-ended cup based lumber carrier (100) (with regards to the recitation “lumber” in the preamble, according to MPEP 2114 – A claim containing recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.), as illustrated in Figures 1-2, comprising two hollow cylinders (110,120) made of a material having a single open circular side (1101,1201), said single open circular side of each of said two hollow cylinders proximal and spaced apart from each other; a strap (150) extending around a distal side of each said two hollow cylinders. However, Munoz does not discuss the material to be flexible for the two hollow cylinders and the strap to be slidable or fixedly attached therefrom said strap forming and adjustably sized closed loop.
Munoz discloses that the main body (130) may be made of a flexible and foldable material (see paragraph [0106]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to construct the two hollow cylinders as a flexible material similar to the main body (130), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Porath teaches an assembly (20) comprising an adjustable flexible length strap (22) and a transverse flexible strap (28) fixedly attached to the adjustable length strap (see Figure 1).
The substitution of one known element (adjustable flexible length strap and transverse flexible strap as shown in Porath) for another (strap shown in Munoz) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the combination of the adjustable length strap and transverse flexible strap shown in Porath would have yielded predictable results, namely, a positive interlocking of the two end cups together with the body (130) in Munoz to prevent accidental separation or disengagement of during transportation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dehaven, Berezansky, Hancey, Huether, Tecca, and Pearce are cited as being relevant art, because each prior art discloses a dual-ended cup carrier comprising two end cups and a portal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 pm EST.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
STEPHEN VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/STEPHEN A VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654