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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because 37 CFR 1.72 requires the abstract be clear and concise. The sentence “The magnetic organizer system is further of side rings which allow for the clipping of attachment of other items including keychains, hooks, clips, or carabiners.” Is not clear. Correction is required. See MPEP §608.01
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stevens (US D887,712 S).
Regarding Claim 1, Stevens discloses an Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 1, comprising; a back wall; a front wall; a large compartment; a medium compartment; a beverage compartment; the back wall having an interior surface and an exterior surface; the front wall having a front surface and a rear surface; the large compartment extending between the interior surface of the back wall to the rear surface of the front wall; the medium compartment and the beverage compartment extending outward from the front surface of the front wall; the medium compartment being adjacent to a first end of the front wall; and the beverage compartment being adjacent to a second end of the front wall (see Fig. 1 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Stevens teaches an Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 1, comprising a first utensil compartment; a second utensil compartment; and the first utensil compartment and second utensil compartment extend outward from the medium compartment (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
457
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Stevens teaches an Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 1 comprising a leg; the leg being affixed to a bottom surface of the beverage compartment (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
678
667
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Stevens discloses the back wall further comprising a rigid panel (see Fig. 4 above).
Regarding Claim 10, Stevens discloses an Angled Organizer Bin comprising: a back wall; a front wall; a large compartment; a beverage compartment; the back wall having an interior surface and an exterior surface; the front wall having a front surface and a rear surface; the large compartment extending between the interior surface of the back wall to the rear surface of the front wall; and the beverage compartment extending outward from the front surface of the front wall (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Stevens discloses an Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 10, further comprising a leg; the leg being affixed to the bottom surface of the beverage compartment (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
678
667
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Stevens discloses an Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 10, comprising the back wall further comprises a rigid panel (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US D887,712 S) in view of Karas (US 2017/0129650 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Stevens discloses an Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 1.
Stevens fails to disclose a magnet; and the magnet being affixed to the exterior surface of the back wall.
However, Karas teaches a magnet (235); and the magnet being affixed to the exterior surface of the back wall.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a magnet; and the magnet being affixed to the exterior surface of the back wall on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Karas so that there is a strong magnetic attraction in one direction (0026).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US D887,712 S) in view of Karas (US 2017/0129650 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Stevens discloses an Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 1.
Stevens fails to disclose a magnet further comprising a rubber coating.
However, Karas teaches a magnet further comprising a rubber coating (0034).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a magnet further comprising a rubber coating on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Karas to not leave any scratches or permanent marks on the vertical surface (0034).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US D887,712 S) in view of Newton (Des. 248,803).
Regarding claim 5, Stevens discloses an Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 1.
Stevens fails to disclose a towel ring; and the towel ring being attached to the exterior surface of the back wall.
However, Newton teaches a towel ring; and the towel ring being attached to the exterior surface of the back wall (see annotated Fig. 1-3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
867
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a towel ring; and the towel ring being attached to the exterior surface of the back wall on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Newton to provide the Angled Organizer Bin with a towel ring holder.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US D887,712 S) in view of Carney (US 2021/0315343 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Stevens discloses the Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 1.
Stevens fails to disclose that the back wall further comprises a handle.
However, Carney teaches that the back wall further comprises a handle (30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a back wall that further comprises a handle on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Carney as this provides excellent control of the movement of the container (0030).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Stevens (US D887,712 S) in view of Uno (JP 3171028 U).
Regarding Claim 9, Stevens discloses the Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 1.
Stevens fails to disclose a set of side rings; and the set of side rings being attached to the exterior of the large compartment.
However, Uno (JP 3171028 U) teaches a set of side rings; and the set of side rings being attached to the exterior of the large compartment (1e).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a set of side rings; and the set of side rings being attached to the exterior of the large compartment on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Uno to be able to attach a shoulder strap for the ease of carrying a multi-functional organizer (0050).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US D887,712 S) in view of Karas (US 2017/0129650 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Stevens discloses the Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 10.
Stevens fails to disclose a magnet; and the magnet being affixed to the exterior surface of the back wall.
However, Karas teaches a magnet (235); and the magnet being affixed to the exterior surface of the back wall.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a magnet; and the magnet being affixed to the exterior surface of the back wall on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Karas so that there is a strong magnetic attraction in one direction (0026).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US D887,712 S) in view of Karas (US 2017/0129650 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Stevens discloses an Angled organizer Bin as claimed in claim 10.
Stevens fails to disclose a magnet further comprising a rubber coating.
However, Karas teaches a magnet further comprising a rubber coating (0034).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a magnet further comprising a rubber coating on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Karas to not leave any scratches or permanent marks on the vertical surface (0034).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US D887,712 S) in view of Carney (US 2021/0315343 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Stevens discloses the Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 10.
Stevens fails to disclose that the back wall further comprises a handle.
However, Carney teaches that the back wall further comprises a handle (30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a back wall that further comprises a handle on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Carney as this provides excellent control of the movement of the container (0030).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Stevens (US D887,712 S) in view of Uno (JP 3171028 U).
Regarding Claim 16, Stevens discloses the Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 10.
Stevens fails to disclose a set of side rings; and the set of side rings being attached to the exterior of the large compartment.
However, Uno (JP 3171028 U) teaches a set of side rings; and the set of side rings being attached to the exterior of the large compartment (1e).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a set of side rings; and the set of side rings being attached to the exterior of the large compartment on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Uno to be able to attach a shoulder strap for the ease of carrying a multi-functional organizer (0050).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US D887,712 S) in view of Karas (US 2017/0129650 A1), further in view of Hu (US D732294 S), and further in view of Uno (JP 3171028 U).
Regarding claim 17, Stevens discloses an Angled Organizer Bin comprising: a back wall; a front wall; a large compartment; a medium compartment; a beverage compartment; a first utensil compartment; a second utensil compartment the back wall having an interior surface and an exterior surface; the front wall having a front surface and a rear surface; the large compartment extending between the interior surface of the back wall to the rear surface of the front wall; the medium compartment and the beverage compartment extending outward from the front surface of the front wall; the medium compartment being adjacent to a first end of the front wall; and the beverage compartment being adjacent to a second end of the front wall; the first utensil compartment and second utensil compartment extend outward from the medium compartment; the back wall further comprises a rigid panel; the leg being affixed to a bottom surface of the beverage compartment (see annotated Fig. 1 and 3-4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
457
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
678
667
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Stevens fails to disclose a magnet; a set of side rings; the magnet being affixed to the exterior surface of the back wall; the set of side rings being attached to the exterior of the large compartment.
However, Karas teaches a magnet (235); and the magnet being affixed to the exterior surface of the back wall.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a magnet; and the magnet being affixed to the exterior surface of the back wall on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Karas so that there is a strong magnetic attraction in one direction (0026).
Further, Uno teaches a set of side rings; and the set of side rings being attached to the exterior of the large compartment (1e).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a set of side rings; and the set of side rings being attached to the exterior of the large compartment on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Uno to be able to attach a shoulder strap for the ease of carrying a multi-functional organizer (0050).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US D887,712 S) in view of Karas (US 2017/0129650 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Stevens discloses an Angled organizer Bin as claimed in claim 1.
Stevens fails to disclose a magnet further comprising a rubber coating.
However, Karas teaches a magnet further comprising a rubber coating (0034).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a magnet further comprising a rubber coating on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Karas to not leave any scratches or permanent marks on the vertical surface (0034).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US D887,712 S) in view of Newton (Des. 248,803).
Regarding claim 19, Stevens discloses an Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 1.
Stevens fails to disclose a towel ring; and the towel ring being attached to the exterior surface of the back wall.
However, Newton teaches a towel ring; and the towel ring being attached to the exterior surface of the back wall (see annotated Fig. 1-3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
867
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a towel ring; and the towel ring being attached to the exterior surface of the back wall on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Newton to provide the Angled Organizer Bin with a towel ring holder.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US D887,712 S) in view of Carney (US 2021/0315343 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Stevens discloses the Angled Organizer Bin as claimed in claim 1.
Stevens fails to disclose that the back wall further comprises a handle.
However, Carney teaches that the back wall further comprises a handle (30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a back wall that further comprises a handle on the Angled Organizer Bin of Stevens as taught by Carney as this provides excellent control of the movement of the container (0030).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHMAN A QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-6262. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 572-273-6911. 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.
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651