Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 now recites “an internal storage area within the body accessible through a top wall of the body”. Looking to the originally filed specification, the internal storage compartment is set forth as element 138 in the drawings, the top wall as element 130, and the lid 134. These are all seen in Figure 3. The internal storage compartment is clearly accessible through the lid and not “through a top wall” as presently claimed. For the purpose of examination, prior art showing an internal storage area accessible through a lid near a top wall will be considered sufficient to satisfy this limitation. Applicant seemed to agree with Examiner’s logic when amending claim 9 to overcome this same rejection with respect to claim 9. See “It should now be clear that the storage area is accessible via the lid and not the top wall” on page 6 of the Amendment filed 12/15/25. Perhaps “top wall” in claim 1 was intended to read “a lid attached to a top wall” as was added to claim 9.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 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. Claim 1 now recites “an internal storage within the body accessible through a top wall of the body”. Looking to the originally filed specification, the internal storage compartment is set forth as element 138 in the drawings, the top wall as element 130, and the lid 134. These are all seen in Figure 3. The internal storage compartment is clearly accessible through the lid and not “through a top wall” as presently claimed. Because the top wall structure does not seem physically capable of providing access to the internal storage compartment, the scope of the limitation “accessible through” is unclear. For the purpose of examination, prior art showing an internal storage area accessible through a lid wall located near a top wall be considered sufficient to satisfy this limitation. Applicant seemed to agree with Examiner’s logic when amending claim 9 to overcome this same rejection with respect to claim 9. See “It should now be clear that the storage area is accessible via the lid and not the top wall” on page 6 of the Amendment filed 12/15/25. Perhaps “top wall” in claim 1 was intended to read “a lid attached to a top wall” as was added to claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, Jr (US 4,809,897 A) in view of Stanford (US 7,011,273 B1), Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (Paragraph [0027] of the Specification), Berggren (US 2005/0092793 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wright discloses a vehicle caddy device comprising: a body (20/24) comprised of a bottom wall (50/66); a recessed area (28 or 46) positioned on the body; an internal storage area (22) within the body and accessible through a top wall (24) of the body; an opening (38 or 40) positioned on the body; and a second internal storge area (42).
Wright fails to disclose the bottom wall comprising a clamp fastener for securing the body to a vehicle floor; the recessed area comprising a cord cutout configured to allow a charging cord to pass into the recessed area; and a door in a back wall of the body for accessing the second internal storage area.
Regarding the clamp fastener, Wright only discloses screw mounting (see col. 3 lines 38-41). Stanford teaches that it was already known in the art to provide a caddy (100) with a fastener such as hook and loop, bolts, or any other means which is known between the bottom wall and the vehicle floor to allow for removable attachment thereof (see col. 7 lines 4-14). Applicant’s own Specification discloses that known in the art fasteners include a clip, clamp, magnet, hook, loop, etc. (see [0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the bottom wall of the Wright caddy with a fastener, in order to removably attach the caddy to the vehicle floor in the manner taught by White. It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have chosen any known fastener type, as contemplated by Stanford, in this case a clamp, as disclosed by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, as mere design choice and selection between known fastener types.
Regarding the cord cutout, Berggren teaches that it was already known for the recessed area of a caddy to include a cord cutout (26) configured to allow a charging cord to pass into the recessed area (see [0018]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the recessed area of Wright with a cord cutout in order to allow a cord to pass therethrough in the manner taught by Berggren.
Regarding the door, Stanford teaches that it was already known for a caddy to include an end wall door (128) for accessing a storage area therein. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the back wall (72) of the Wright caddy with a door like that of Stanford, the motivation being to allow a user to access the second internal storage area (42) without having to lift the lid (24) - especially useful if the lid were loaded with a drink that might spill.
Regarding claim 4, Wright as modified above would include the vehicle caddy device of claim 1, wherein the bottom wall is comprised of a weighted bottom wall (the bottom wall of Wright inherently has its own weight and this claim limitation as currently written requires nothing more).
Regarding claim 6, Wright as modified above would include the vehicle caddy device of claim 1, wherein Wright discloses the internal storage area is covered by a lid (24).
Regarding claim 7, Wright as modified above would include the vehicle caddy device of claim 5, wherein Wright discloses the lid attaches to the body via a hinge (76).
Regarding claim 8, Wright as modified above would include the vehicle caddy device of claim 6, but so far fails to include wherein the lid (24) is comprised of a locking mechanism. Wright teaches a locking mechanism (86/88) for the upper lid (32) but not the lower lid (24) (although it could be argued that the upper lid is attached to and is part of the lower lid). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the lower lid (24) of Wright with a locking mechanism as well, the motivation being to provide the user with two secure storage compartments instead of only one. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
8. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, Jr (US 4,809,897 A) in view of Stanford (US 7,011,273 B1), Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (Paragraph [0027] of the Specification), Berggren (US 2005/0092793 A1) as applied above, further in view of DeLong et al. (US 2006/0022478 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wright as modified above would include the vehicle caddy device of claim 1 but fails to disclose a cargo storage net positioned on the body.
Regarding claim 3, Wright as modified above fails to disclose the vehicle caddy device of claim 2 and also fails to disclose wherein the cargo storage net is positioned on a side wall of the body.
DeLong teaches that it was already known in the art for a vehicle caddy device like that of Wright to include a side compartment (38) with a cargo storage net (56) on a side wall thereof in order to retain items therein. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a side compartment with cargo storage net like that of DeLong on the side wall of the Wright vehicle caddy device, the motivation being to allow a user to store and organize additional items.
9. Claims 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, Jr (US 4,809,897 A) in view of O’Dell (US 2012/0152994 A1), Berggren (US 2005/0092793 A1), and Stanford (US 7,011,273 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Wright discloses a vehicle caddy device comprising: a body (20/24) comprised of a bottom wall (50/66); a recessed area (46); an internal storage area (22) accessible through a lid (24) attached to a top wall (upper perimeter of the sidewalls forming an upper wall equal to the thickness of the sidewalls) of the body via a hinge (76); an opening in the top wall for retaining an item (item not currently being claimed in combination - though Wright discloses an item 54 being retained within this top wall opening - see Figure 3); and a second internal storage area (42).
Wright fails to disclose the bottom wall comprising a magnetic fastener for securing the body to a vehicle floor; the recessed area comprising a cord cutout configured to allow a charging cord to pass into the recessed area; a loop fastener positioned on a back wall of the body; a back door; and a back wall clip fastener.
Regarding the magnetic fastener, Wright only discloses screw mounting (see col. 3 lines 38-41). O’Dell teaches that it was already known in the to secure a vehicle accessory to a vehicle floor by providing a magnetic fastener (18 or 24) on the bottom wall of the accessory that allows a user to easily attach and remove the accessory as desired. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Wright caddy with a magnetic fastener on the bottom wall thereof in order to make the caddy removable in the manner taught by O’Dell.
Regarding the cord cutout, Berggren teaches that it was already known for the recessed area of a caddy like that of Wright to include a cord cutout (26) configured to allow a charging cord to pass into the recessed area (see [0018]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the recessed area of Wright with a cord cutout in order to allow a cord to pass therethrough in the manner taught by Berggren.
Regarding the loop fastener and clip fastener on the back wall, Stanford teaches that it was already known for a caddy to include hook fasteners, loop fasteners, or clip fasteners such that accessories can be attached to the caddy at any location thereon (see col. 11 lines 33-53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Wright caddy with a hook fastener, a loop fastener, and/or a clip fastener at any physically possible and suitable location thereon, in this case the back wall, the motivation being to allow a user to attach accessories to the caddy in the manner taught by Stanford. Regarding the back wall location, it has also been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding the door, Stanford teaches that it was already known for a caddy to include an end wall door (128) for accessing a storage area therein. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the back wall (72) of the Wright caddy with a door like that of Stanford, the motivation being to allow a user to access the second internal storage area (42) without having to lift the lid (24) - especially useful if the lid were loaded with a drink that might spill.
Regarding claim 15, Wright as modified above would include the vehicle caddy device of claim 9, but so far fails to include wherein the lid (24) is comprised of a locking mechanism. Wright teaches a locking mechanism (86/88) for the upper lid (32) but not the lower lid (24) (although it could be argued that the upper lid is attached to and is part of the lower lid). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the lower lid (24) of Wright with a locking mechanism as well, the motivation being to provide the user with two secure storage compartments instead of only one. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 20, the normal operation and use of the modified Wright caddy as set forth above would include a method of using a vehicle caddy device, the method comprising the following steps: providing a vehicle caddy device comprised of a body, as originally taught by Wright (20/24), comprised of a top access internal storage area, as originally taught by Wright (22), a recessed area, as originally taught by Wright (46), the recessed area comprising a cord cutout configured to allow a charging cord to pass into the recessed area, as taught by Berggren, and a bottom wall, as originally taught by Wright (50/66); magnetically securing, as taught by O’Dell, the vehicle caddy device on a vehicle floor of a handicap transportation vehicle between a first front seat and a second front seat, as originally taught by Wright (see “between the fronts seats of an automobile” in the Abstract as well as Figure 1); securing an object to the vehicle caddy device via a back wall hook, as taught by Stanford, and using the vehicle caddy device to store an item, as originally taught by Wright (44).
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, Jr (US 4,809,897 A) in view of O’Dell (US 2012/0152994 A1), Berggren (US 2005/0092793 A1), and Stanford (US 7,011,273 B1) as applied above, further in view of DeLong et al. (US 2006/0022478 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wright as modified above would include the vehicle caddy device of claim 9 but fails to disclose a cargo storage net.
DeLong teaches that it was already known in the art for a vehicle caddy device like that of Wright to include a side compartment (38) with a cargo storage net (56) on a side wall thereof in order to retain items therein. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a side compartment with cargo storage net
11. Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, Jr (US 4,809,897 A) in view of O’Dell (US 2012/0152994 A1), Berggren (US 2005/0092793 A1), and Stanford (US 7,011,273 B1) as applied above, further in view of Thom et al. (US 9,248,783 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Wright as modified above would include the vehicle caddy device of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the bottom wall is comprised of a non-slip material.
Regarding claim 18, Wright as modified above fails to include the vehicle caddy device of claim 17, and also fails to disclose wherein the non-slip material is comprised of a rubber material.
Regarding claim 19, Wright as modified above fails to include the vehicle caddy device of claim 18, and also fails to disclose wherein the rubber material is comprised of a textured rubber.
Thom discloses that it was already known for a vehicle floor mounted device to include textured rubber friction pad (306) on its bottom surface to prevent sliding along the floor (see “high coefficient of friction” and “rubber” in col. 3 lines 2-14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided textured rubber on the bottom wall of the modified Wright vehicle caddy device, the motivation being to increase friction and reduce sliding along the floor, as taught by Thom.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments filed 12/15/25 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
13. Applicant’s argument that Stanford does not teach a hook on the back wall for securing an object (see pages 9-10 of the Amendment) still applies to the current rejections. As set forth in paragraph 9 above, “Stanford teaches that it was already known for a caddy to include hook fasteners, loop fasteners, or clip fasteners such that accessories can be attached to the caddy at any location thereon (see col. 11 lines 33-53).”
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 2/12/26