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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Weckerly (US 2015/0159938) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Weckerly (US 2015/0159938) in view of Moses et al (US 12,012,179).
Regarding claim 1, Weckerly discloses a floating cooler device (MPEP 2111.02 “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation");”
comprising:
a body (10) comprised of:
a wheel (12);
an interior space (44);
a first lid (32);
a waterproof storage area comprised of a second lid (36; [0020]); and
a handle (14 or 52).
Further regarding “floating”, as stated above as the limitation appears only in the preamble and is not given life, meaning, and vitality in the body of the claim the statement does not structurally limit the claim.
Alternatively, regarding “floating”, the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art.
Still further, Moses discloses a floating cooler device comprising: a body (10) comprised of an interior space (16); a first lid (18); a waterproof storage area (30) comprised of a second lid (28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Weckerly with the floating arrangement of Moses to Weckerly in order to increase the utility for users engaged in water activities as explained by Moses at column 1.
Regarding claim 2, Weckerly and Moses discloses the floating cooler device of claim 1, wherein the body is comprised of a buoyant, insulated body (the coolers are insulated as is shown in the cross hatching of the figures and are buoyant as the float).
Regarding claim 3, Weckerly discloses the floating cooler device of claim 1, wherein the waterproof storage area is comprised of a charging port ([0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Weckerly and Moses disclose the floating cooler device of claim 3, wherein the charging port receives power from a solar panel of the floating cooler device (7:53-67 of Moses).
Regarding claim 5, Weckerly and Moses disclose the floating cooler device of claim 1, wherein the body is comprised of a cupholder (90 of Weckerly shown in figure 5 or 10 of Moses).
Regarding claim 6, Weckerly discloses the flloating cooler device of claim 1, wherein the handle attaches to the body via a pivot point (handles 52 are described as tether rings, pivots are shown in figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Weckerly discloses the floating cooler device of claim 1, wherein the interior space is comprised of a drainage valve (82).
Claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weckerly (US 2015/0159938), in view of Moses et al (US 12,012,179), and in further view of Doucette et al (US 4,871,079).
Regarding claims 8 and 12-13, Weckerly discloses a floating cooler device (MPEP 2111.02 “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation");”
comprising:
a body (10) comprised of:
a wheel (12);
an interior space (44);
a first lid (32);
a waterproof storage area comprised of a second lid (36; [0020]) and a charging port ([0022]), the second lid comprised of a second locking mechanism (68); and
a handle (52) attached to the body via a pivot point (handles 52 are described as tether rings, pivots are shown in figures 1-3).
Further regarding “floating”, as stated above as the limitation appears only in the preamble and is not given life, meaning, and vitality in the body of the claim the statement does not structurally limit the claim.
Alternatively, regarding “floating”, the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art.
Weckerly lacks a solar panel and a locking mechanism for the first lid.
Moses discloses a floating cooler device comprising: a body (10) comprised of an interior space (16); a first lid (18); a waterproof storage area (30) comprised of a second lid (28) and a solar panel (7:53-67).
Doucette discloses a floating cooler device comprising: a body (10) comprised of an interior space (18); a first lid (50) including a locking mechanism (54); a waterproof storage area (44) comprised of a second lid (58) and a second locking mechanism (60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Weckerly with the floating arrangement of Moses or Doucette to Weckerly in order to increase the utility for users engaged in water activities as explained by Moses and Doucette at column 1. Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the solar panel of Moses to Weckerly in order to charge the system and the first locking mechanism of Doucette to Weckerly in order to secure the interior space. Further regarding claim 12, as the solar panel is employed in a wet environment it follows that it can withstand the rigors of its environment and is waterproof.
Regarding claims 9-10, Weckerly, Moses, and Doucette disclose the floating cooler device of claim 8, wherein the body is comprised of a buoyant, insulated body (the coolers are insulated as is shown in the cross hatching of the figures and are buoyant as the float).
Regarding claim 11, Weckerly discloses the floating cooler device of claim 11, wherein the interior space is comprised of a drainage valve (82).
Regarding claim 14, Weckerly discloses the body is comprised of an attachment point (handle 14 is used as an attachment point for fan 22 and clip 28).
Regarding claim 15, Weckerly discloses the floating cooler device of claim 8, wherein the body is comprised of a light ([0021]).
Regarding claim 16, Weckerly discloses the floating cooler device of claim 8, wherein the handle can rotate at least 90 degrees around the pivot point (as the tethering handle 52 is disposed on the side of the cooler, which is planar, it is understood that the handle is able to rotate around 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 17, Weckerly discloses the floating cooler device of claim 8, wherein the first lid attaches to the body via a first hinge (34; [0019], note that as it appears in figure 2 that the hinges are erroneously labeled at 10).
Regarding claim 18, Weckerly discloses the floating cooler device of claim 8, wherein the second lid attaches to the body via a second hinge (38).
Regarding claims 19-20, Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02. Therefor the apparatus as presented, in claims 8-18 above, also reads on the method claim(s). However Weckerly does not discuss placing ice within the cooler, rather stating that the cooler has “the ability to cool about 50 or more cans of one’s favorite beverage.” It is understood in the art that coolers use ice to cool items therein, Moses and Doucette both discuss the use of ice to provide cooling. Thus to the extent that there is any doubt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Weckerly with ice as taught by Moses or Doucette in order to provide cooling to the cooler’s interior.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Papera (US 2022/0289462) rotating handle
Gibson (US 8,333,271) handle convertible into a stand
Bureau (US 5,730,282 or 5,551,558) handle convertible into a stand
Sandberg (US 7,722,204) cooler with solar panels and lights
Lubotta (US 9,732,550) cooler with storage compartments
Sloan (US 6,305,185) solar cooler.
Buck et al (US 6,253,950) floating cooler
Balam (US 7,195,132) floating cooler
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 5712724746. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799