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 .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1 and 4-6 are pending in the application. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled.
Amendments to claims 1 and 4-6, filed on 9 December 2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicant's Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the response filed 9 December 2025, regarding the objections to the claims made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of applicant's arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments in the response filed 9 December 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections to claim 1 made of record, have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant's argue that the claims as amended provide sufficient interaction between the major components to no longer be considered or treated as a kit. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, the claims have been amended to show structural interaction between the ring, the removable collection carriage, and the adjustable assembly rod. However, the major parts [i.e., the panel surface, the first hook and loop fastener, the second hook and loop fastener, the rib assemblies, the compact storage carrier, and either the adjustable assembly rod, the ring, or the removable collection carriage] can all be un-connected (unassembled) or connected in any manner. As such, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant's argue that the claims as amended provide sufficient clarity so as to distinguish "a first suction cup" and "a second suction cup" from being counted as part of "a plurality of suction cups" as recited in the amended claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, while the first suction cup and the second suction cup are clearly differentiated from one another, there still remains no clear distinction to a person having ordinary skill in the art that said "first suction cup" and said "second suction cup" are not counted as part of the plurality of suction cups (e.g., that the plurality of suction cups comprises several first suction cups [for replacement], several second suction cups [for replacement], and several other suction cups for some other purpose). (Note: If said plurality of suction cups were considered separate and distinct from the first suction cup and the second suction cup. Then the basis for the argument of the claim being a kit would be further supported, as said plurality of suction cups would become another major component which can be un-connected (unassembled) or connected in any manner with the other major components.)
Therefore, in light of the applicant's arguments, the examiner contends that the rejections as re-presented below are still valid.
Applicant's arguments in the response filed 9 December 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections to claims 3, 5, and 6 made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicant's arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments in the response filed 9 December 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicant's arguments and amendment to the claims. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in further view of Swett (US 3,146,906 A), Stewart et al. (WO 2011/115756 A2), and Goldstein (US 2007/0284324 A1) as disclosed in the rejections below. In that some of the applicant's arguments still pertain to the new grounds of rejection presented herein, they have been addressed below in an effort to promote compact prosecution.
Applicant's argue that the prior art rejection constitutes impermissible hindsight due the extensive combinations of references. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In the instant case, the claim has been treated as a kit claim, wherein the combination of parts as relied upon by would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined or included in a kit.
Applicant also argues that the prior art fails to disclose a specific subsystem where the [adjustable assembly] rod provides vertical support via a threaded connection to the [removable collection] carriage, while the [removable collection] carriage is independently stabilized on a surface by its own [second] suction cup. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the [adjustable assembly] rod provides vertical support via a threaded connection to the [removable collection] carriage, while the [removable collection] carriage is independently stabilized on a surface by its own [second] suction cup; or ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). (Note: There is no recitation of any surface, nor is there any recitation of the second suction cup being connected in any manner to said surface in the claims.)
Applicant further argues that Marroitt teaches away from the configuration of the second hook and loop fastener being used to secure the panel surface to the highchair legs, wherein Marroitt discloses that the top which secured the baby food catcher is elastic to fit any highchair or chair while the VELCRO back is for easy cleaning, such that the securing function is assigned to component that is not the VELCO. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, Marroitt recites, "[I]n use the band, which may be formed of plastic to allow for washing, retracts and tightens around the legs to surround the base of the chair and may be held in place by way of a velcro (RTM) attachment" (abstract of Marroitt). As such, Marroitt in combination with Cohen and Jones (as disclosed below) clearly discloses a second hook and loop fastener as a strap configured to enwrap a portion of the panel surface around one of the plurality of highchair legs to secure the panel surface to the plurality of highchair legs when the plurality of highchair legs are installed in the plurality of apertures to receive a plurality of highchair legs, as claimed.
Therefore, in light of the applicant's arguments, the examiner contends that the rejections made of record are still valid.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Examiner’s Notes
In that the drawings and specification amendments filed 9 December 2025 were deemed to be improper and not entered (as explained below), the previous objects to the drawings and specification have been repeated below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9 December 2025. These drawings are unacceptable.
The marked-up copy of the replacement drawing for Figure 2 while showing the strike-through for "2b" does not show the addition of "2d" shown in the replacement drawing sheet. (NOTE: Only the individual Figures that have been amended need to be provided. It is not necessary to provide replacement sheets for figures that have no amendments thereon.)
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings submitted on 9 December 2025 have not been entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character "2b" has been used to designate both the second depiction and the fourth depiction.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character "4" has been used to designate "the suction cup mechanism", "ring", and "the collection carriage". (The filed instant specification recites --the collection carriage 4-- on [Pg. 7: li. 14-15], --a ring 4-- on [Pg. 7: li. 24], and --the suction cup mechanism 4-- on [Pg. 7: li. 30-31].)
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
The reference characters "10a", "10b", "10c", and "10d" for the "apertures" are not shown.
The reference character "8" for the "compact storage carrier" is not shown.
The reference character "2d" for the "image of how the apparatus can be secured in a stored position" is not shown.
The drawings are objected to because reference character "2g" is not directed towards the "rib" in figure 2B.
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.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 9 December 2025 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because:
The marked-up and clean copies of the specification reproduce entire pages of the specification, wherein the pages no longer retain their original numbering from the specification as originally filed. The response does not clarify specific paragraphs or sections being amended, and it is unclear if the replacement sheets are intended to replace the entire specification, specific sections, or specific paragraphs the specification as filed.
In the statement of the response, the applicant indicates changes that were made, but said changes are not shown in either marked-up or clean versions of the replacement specification.
The amendments made in the replacement sheets create new issues. Specifically, page 4 of the marked-up replacement sheet recites in line 1 "compact storage carrier [[8]] 2d." However, reference number "2d" is previously defined as "a stored position" in line 25 of the marked-up replacement sheet.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
With Regards to Claim 4: Instant claim 4 recites --an effective amount of antimicrobial material-- in line 2. The filed instant specification recites --is further coated with an effective antimicrobial material-- on [Pg. 7: li. 7], but is silent with regards to "an effective amount". (For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "an effective amount" will be any amount.)
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The filed instant specification recites --highchair base and or the floor-- on [Pg. 2: li. 26-27], which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "highchair base and/or
The filed instant specification recites --the collection carriage 4-- on [Pg. 7: li. 14-15], --a ring 4-- on [Pg. 7: li. 24], and --the suction cup mechanism 4-- on [Pg. 7: li. 30-31]. Appropriate correction is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term "Velcro®", which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Instant claim 1 recites --the collection carriage-- in line 11, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "the removable collection carriage".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With Regards to Claims 1-6: Instant claim 1 recites --An apparatus [...] comprising: a plurality of suction cups, [...]; an adjustable assembly rod, [...] and a removable collection carriage [...]; a ring; a panel surface, [...]; a first hook and loop fastener, wherein the first hook and loop fastener is used to retain the panel surface during storage; a second hook and loop fastener, [...]; and rib assemblies, and a compact storage carrier, wherein the compact storage carrier can receive the apparatus for storage-- in lines 1 to 22. As written, the claim is more directed towards a "kit claim" than an "apparatus", wherein the limitation claims a collection of un-assembled pieces. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., is the apparatus actually a kit comprising all the un-assembled pieces, or is the apparatus an assembled collection of the pieces along with a compact storage carrier). For the purposes of examination, the claimed invention will be treated as a "kit claim". Clarification and correction are requested. (In the instant case, the major parts [i.e., the panel surface, the first hook and loop fastener, the second hook and loop fastener, the rib assemblies, the compact storage carrier, and either the adjustable assembly rod, the ring, or the removable collection carriage] can all be un-connected (unassembled) or connected in any manner, whereas the subparts [i.e., the first suction cup, the second suction cup, the opposite threaded end, the plurality of apertures, and the threaded female portion] will be required to be connected to their respective major parts as recited to meet the limitation of the claim.)
Claims 2-6, which currently depends from claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons above.
With Regards to Claims 1-6: Instant claim recites --a plurality of suction cups-- in line 2, --a first suction cup-- in lines 5 to 6, and --a second suction cup-- in lines 13 to 14. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite, because it can have at least two conflicting interpretations: (1) that the "first suction cup" and the "second suction cup" are part of said "plurality of suction cups"; or (2) that the "first suction cup" and the "second suction cup" are separate from said "plurality of suction cups". The filed instant specification recites --includes a plurality of suction cups that can attach to the highchair base and or the floor-- on [Pg. 2: li. 26-27]. Therefore, the former interpretation will be considered to apply. (In the instant case, said "plurality of suction cups" will be considered to include the first suction cup and the second suction cup.)
Claims 2-6, which currently depends from claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 11,638,489 B2) in view of Jones (US 2,827,953 A), Marroitt (GB 2461241 A), Brill-Edwards (GB 2111379 A), Swett (US 3,146,906 A), Stewart et al. (WO 2011/115756 A2), Goldstein (US 2007/0284324 A1), Kanalas (GB 2559358 A), and Lagomarsino (US 5,378,522 A).
Regarding Claim 1: Cohen discloses an apparatus/tray comprising an upper peripheral edge above and surrounding a base, a sidewall extending between the peripheral edge and the base, the base having means defining spaced apart openings for spaced hair-chair legs, wherein the tray is made from a blank of thin sheet plastics, and wherein the tray is to be disposed below a high-char (figures 1 to 9, and [Col. 1: li. 51-64] of Cohen). Cohen also discloses that the tray can be made of a material comprising a sidewall section pulled behind an adjacent wall section and having a releasable hand insertable catch to secure the wall sections together, and that the tray can have any shape suited to capturing dropped food ([Col. 2: li. 11-21] of Cohen). Cohen further discloses that the spaced apart openings can be cut openings of any form so as to interface or accommodate a high-chair legs ([Col. 5: li. 61-65] and [Col. 6: li. 8-13] of Cohen). Cohen further discloses that the tray has a collapsed configuration (figure 8 and [Col: 9: li. 63 to Col. 10: li. 6] of Cohen). Specifically, Cohen provides for --an apparatus for catching food debris comprising: a panel surface, wherein the panel surface is placed beneath a highchair and further designed with a plurality of apertures to receive a plurality of highchair legs--.
Cohen fails to disclose --rib assemblies--.
Jones discloses a high chair attachment (ref. #6) comprising a central portion (ref. #17) and an integral diverging portion (ref. #18) extending from a lower edge of the central portion, wherein the central portion and the diverging portion are of a soft pliant material, and a stiffening means is provided by pockets (ref. #36, #37, #38, and #39), and wherein a wire (ref. #41; which are considered equivalent to the claimed "rib assemblies") is connected to the pliant material in the pockets (figures 1 to 4, and [Col. 1: li. 15 to Col. 2: li. 60] of Jones).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the attachment of Jones with the apparatus of Cohen in order to have --rib assemblies--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the attachment of Jones with the apparatus of Cohen, from the stand-point of facilitating installing and removing while still keeping portions in their extended form ([Col. 2: li. 55-60] of Jones).
Cohen in view of Jones fails to disclose --a second hook and loop fastener, wherein the second hook and loop fastener is a strap configured to enwrap a portion of the panel surface around one of the plurality of highchair legs to secure the panel surface to the plurality of highchair legs when the plurality of highchair legs are installed in the plurality of apertures to receive a plurality of highchair legs--.
Marroitt discloses an elastic band to be disposed around the legs of a highchair to hold the band in place, the band comprising a VELCRO® back (i.e., a strip) for easy removal (figure 1 and abstract of Marroitt).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the VELCRO® with the apparatus disclosed by Cohen in view of Jones in order to have --a second hook and loop fastener, wherein the second hook and loop fastener is a strap configured to enwrap a portion of the panel surface around one of the plurality of highchair legs to secure the panel surface to the plurality of highchair legs when the plurality of highchair legs are installed in the plurality of apertures to receive a plurality of highchair legs--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the VELCRO® with the apparatus disclosed by Cohen in view of Jones, from the stand-point of easy removal (figure 1 of Marroitt).
Cohen in view of Jones and Marroitt failed to disclose --an adjustable assembly rod, positioned vertically between the highchair and a removable collection carriage, the adjustable assembly rod including a first suction cup and an opposite threaded male end; a ring, wherein the adjustable assembly rod is insertable in the ring; the removable collection carriage, wherein the adjustable assembly rod is detachably mounted to the removable collection carriage, wherein the removable collection carriage is threadably coupled to the opposite threaded male end of the adjustable assembly rod, is designed to receive various debris while in use, and includes a second suction cup along a bottom surface of the removable collection carriage for providing stability separate from the adjustable assembly rod and a threaded female portion protruding from an inner surface of the removable collection carriage--.
Brill-Edwards discloses a vertical pillar including a plurality of vertical storage units or trays for holding articles that are supported on a vertical pillar, the vertical pillar includes at least a smooth rigid cylindrical pole (ref. #10) adapted to be mounted stably in an upright attitude, and that the pole can be free-standing on a suitable base structure or foot (figures 1, 3, 4, [Pg. 1: li. 3-8, 64-74, and 104-119], and [Pg. 2; li. 54-64] of Brill-Edwards). Brill-Edwards goes on to disclose that the teeth on the top end of the pole can be replaced by a suction cup, and that the pole is height adjustable ([Pg. 2: li. 120 to Pg. 3: li. 2] and [Pg. 3: li. 48-54] of Brill-Edwards). Brill-Edwards also discloses that the plurality of vertical storage units or shallow trays (ref. #18) each have a generally cylindrical hub (ref. #16; each being considered equivalent to the claimed "ring") at one end that are slack fit around the pole ([Pg. 2: li. 60-63] of Brill-Edwards). It is further disclosed by Brill-Edwards that the pole includes a base structure (ref. #12), by which the smooth cylindrical tubular pole is stabilized in the upright attitude, wherein the base structure can comprise a tray (figure 1 and [Pg. 2: li. 54-57 and 105-111] of Brill-Edwards). (In the instant case, since the pole of Brill-Edwards is capable of being secured between two opposing, relatively parallel surfaces, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the pole could also be disposed vertically between a highchair and a removable collection carriage.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined vertical storage units of Brill-Edwards with the apparatus of Cohen in view of Jones and Marroitt in order to have --an adjustable assembly rod, that can be positioned vertically between the highchair and a removable collection carriage, the adjustable assembly rod including a first suction cup and an opposite end; a ring, wherein the adjustable assembly rod is insertable in the ring; the removable collection carriage, wherein the adjustable assembly rod is detachably mounted to the removable collection carriage, is designed to receive various debris while in use--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined vertical storage units of Brill-Edwards with the apparatus of Cohen in view of Jones and Marroitt, from the stand-point of having trays for holding articles that can be adjustable at will ([Col. 1: li. 4-8] of Brill-Edwards). (In the instant case, since trays are well-known for being used to contain a multitude of articles, the limitation of being "designed to receive various debris while in use" is considered taught.)
Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, and Brill-Edwards failed to disclose --the adjustable assembly rod including an opposite threaded male end; the removable collection carriage, wherein the adjustable assembly rod is detachably mounted to the removable collection carriage, wherein the removable collection carriage is threadably coupled to the opposite threaded male end of the adjustable assembly rod, and includes a second suction cup along a bottom surface of the removable collection carriage for providing stability separate from the adjustable assembly rod and a threaded female portion protruding from an inner surface of the removable collection carriage--
Swett discloses a carrier tray, for food and beverages, comprising a lower tray that includes a substantially flat bottom wall (ref. #10) having an upstanding peripheral rim (ref. #11), the underside of the lower tray has an integral continuous, downwardly extending leg (ref. #14), a hollow post (ref. #15) integral with the center of the lower tray and extending upwardly from the tray, wherein the upper end of the pots has an internal integral thread (ref. #16) for receiving an attachment (figures 1, 3 to 6, [Col. 1: li. 9-11 and 50-52], and [Col. 1: li. 60 to Col. 2: li. 4] of Swett).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the tray of Swett as the removable collection carriage (i.e., suitable base as disclosed by Brill-Edwards) of the article disclosed by Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, and Brill-Edwards in order to have --the removable collection carriage that is designed to receive various debris while in use, and includes a threaded female portion protruding from an inner surface of the removable collection carriage--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the tray of Swett as the removable collection carriage of the article disclosed by Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, and Brill-Edwards, from the stand-point of having a detachable decorative serving dish or try ([Col. 1: li. 19-21). (In the instant case, using the tray of Swett as the base (tray) disclosed by Brill-Edwards merely amounts to a an aesthetic design choice ([Pg. 2: li. 105-111] of Brill-Edwards), and would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.)
Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, and Swett failed to disclose --a plurality of suction cups; the adjustable assembly rod including an opposite threaded male end; the removable collection carriage, wherein the adjustable assembly rod is detachably mounted to the removable collection carriage, wherein the removable collection carriage is threadably coupled to the opposite threaded male end of the adjustable assembly rod, and includes a second suction cup along a bottom surface of the removable collection carriage for providing stability separate from the adjustable assembly rod--
Stewart discloses an attachable pedestal that can be attached to the underside of a plate, serving platter, bowl, serving dish, or the like, wherein the attachable pedestal includes a pedestal with a base that can rest on a surface, a suction cup that can be attached to an object thereby adjoining it with the pedestal, and a support structure under the suction cup, wherein the support structure provides support to stabilize the attached object (abstract, figures 1 to 2, [0008], [0009], [0042]-[0051] of Stewart). Stewart also discloses that the attachable pedestal comprises a top section that includes a suction cup (ref. #530), and a base that includes a suction cup (figure 11 and [0060] of Stewart).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the pedestal of Stewart with the tray disclosed by Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, and Swett in order to have --a plurality of suction cups; a removable collection carriage that is designed to receive various debris while in use, and that includes a second suction cup along a bottom surface of the removable collection carriage for providing stability separate from the adjustable assembly rod--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the pedestal of Stewart with the tray disclosed by Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, and Swett, from the stand-point of having a decorative serving dish or object that can be more readily viewed or accessed ([0009] of Stewart). (In the instant case, the pedestal of Stewart would not only affix the tray of Swett to the floor, but would increase its accessibility by raising if upwards away from the floor. The combination of Swett in view of Stewart resulting in the removable collection carriage that can replace the base structure (removable collection carriage) disclosed by Brill-Edwards.)
Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, and Stewart failed to disclose --the adjustable assembly rod including an opposite threaded male end; wherein the adjustable assembly rod is detachably mounted to the removable collection carriage, and wherein the removable collection carriage is threadably coupled to the opposite threaded male end of the adjustable assembly rod--.
Goldstein discloses a telescoping rod or pipe having two or more sections slidably connected with respect to one another and sharing a common longitudinal axis, wherein each outer end of an outer section of the telescoping rod or pipe (ref. #33) is threaded on its outer cylindrical wall for enabling the end of the section to be threaded into a bore of a receiver, whereby the section can be fastened to the receiver by rotation about a mutual axis of the section and receiver (figures 4 to 6, [0018], [0021], and [0023] of Goldstein). It is also disclosed by Goldstein that the rod is mounted between facing walls by the secure mounting of opposite ends of the adjustable/telescoping rod (abstract, [0001], and [0002] of Goldstein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the telescoping rod disclosed by Goldstein with the adjustable assembly rod disclosed by Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, and Stewart in order to have --the adjustable assembly rod including a first suction cup and an opposite threaded male end; wherein the adjustable assembly rod is detachably mounted to the removable collection carriage, and wherein the removable collection carriage is threadably coupled to the opposite threaded male end of the adjustable assembly rod--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the telescoping rod disclosed by Goldstein with the adjustable assembly rod disclosed by Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, and Stewart, from the stand-point of having a rod with two telescoping sections slidably connected with respect to one another and sharing a common longitudinal axis, with one of the sections having a threaded connector and a receiver threaded connector being a female connector having a hollow bore ([0005] and [0023] of Goldstein). (In the instant case, Goldstein teaches that the opposing end of the adjustable assembly rod can comprise a threaded male end, which can be fit into the threaded female portion of the removable collection carriage disclosed by Swett; wherein sizing of the threaded connectors to fit amounts to a mere change in size obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.)
Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, Stewart, and Goldstein failed to disclose --a compact storage carrier, wherein the compact storage carrier can receive the apparatus for storage--.
Kanalas discloses a transport apparatus for the transport of infant furniture (figure 9 and [Pg. 1: li. 6-24] of Kanalas). Kanalas also discloses straps to wrap around components and provide a carrying handle, or parts can be stored in a bag ([Pg. 11: li. 4-5] of Kanalas).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the transport apparatus of Kanalas with the apparatus disclosed by Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, Stewart, and Goldstein in order to have --a compact storage carrier, wherein the compact storage carrier can receive the apparatus for storage--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the transport apparatus of Kanalas with the apparatus disclosed by Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, Stewart, and Goldstein, from the stand-point of having a collapsible or travel versions of items that can be transported ([Pg. 1: li. 6-24] of Kanalas).
Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, Stewart, Goldstein, and Kanalas further failed to disclose --a first hook and loop fastener, wherein the first hook and loop fastener is used to retain the panel surface during storage--.
Lagomarsino discloses a system of weatherproof protective material able to be joined together so that pieces may be added onto each other making one larger piece of the same material, and is capable of being folded to form a sealed envelope or tube that can bee attached to an item to be covered, wherein attachment is made with VELCRO® strips ([Col. 1: li. 5-15] of Lagomarsino). Lagomarsino also discloses that the envelopes or tubes can be of various sizes and shapes to make an endless array of bags or storage compartments ([Col. 1: li. 34-50] of Lagomarsino).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the system disclosed by Lagomarsino with the apparatus of Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, Stewart, Goldstein, and Kanalas in order to have --a first hook and loop fastener, wherein the first hook and loop fastener is used to retain the panel surface during storage--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the system disclosed by Lagomarsino with the apparatus of Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, Stewart, Goldstein, and Kanalas, from the stand-point of having envelopes or tubes that are virtually dust and waterproof ([Col. 1: li. 45-50] of Lagomarsino).
Regarding Claim 5: Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, Stewart, Goldstein, Kanalas, and Lagomarsino discloses that said plurality of apertures are designed as an elastic material to securely fit a diameter of said plurality of highchair legs (figure 1 of Marroitt). (In the instant case, Marroitt discloses an elastic edge to fit any highchair, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the plurality of apertured be elastic so as to fit the plurality of highchair legs regardless of their profile, as Cohen discloses that the openings interface or accommodate a highchairs legs ([Col. 5: li. 49-50] of Cohen).)
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 11,638,489 B2) in view of Jones (US 2,827,953 A), Marroitt (GB 2461241 A), Brill-Edwards (GB 2111379 A), Swett (US 3,146,906 A), Stewart et al. (WO 2011/115756 A2), Goldstein (US 2007/0284324 A1), Kanalas (GB 2559358 A), and Lagomarsino (US 5,378,522 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krishnan (US 2005/0003163 A1).
Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, Stewart, Goldstein, Kanalas, and Lagomarsino is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claims 4 and 6: Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, Stewart, Goldstein, Kanalas, and Lagomarsino failed to disclose --at least one or more layers of said panel surface has an effective amount of antimicrobial material incorporated throughout said layers-- {instant claim 4} or --said at least one or more layers are coated from the group consisting of: oligodynamic materials, such as silver, zinc, titanium and gold, triclosan, silane, fluorescent material, dextran sulfate, halogen releasing agents, extract of blue green algae, antimicrobial polymers, and any combinations thereof-- {instant claim 6}.
Krishnan discloses polymers having inherent antimicrobial or antistatic properties, that can be applied or used in conjunction with a wide variety of substrates to provide substrates with antimicrobial and/or antistatic properties ([0002] and [0012]-[0013] of Krishnan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the coating of Krishnan onto the panel surface of the apparatus disclosed by Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, Stewart, Goldstein, Kanalas, and Lagomarsino in order to have --at least one or more layers of said panel surface has an effective amount of antimicrobial material incorporated throughout said layers-- {instant claim 4} and --said at least one or more layers are coated from the group consisting of: antimicrobial polymers-- {instant claim 6}. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the coating of Krishnan onto the panel surface of the apparatus disclosed by Cohen in view of Jones, Marroitt, Brill-Edwards, Swett, Stewart, Goldstein, Kanalas, and Lagomarsino, from the stand-point of imparting antimicrobial and/or antistatic properties to substrates ([0002] of Krishnan).
Conclusion
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 Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781