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 .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because in the last line, “ino the opening.” should be “into the opening in the center console.” This avoids any potential confusion between the now two openings. Appropriate correction is required.
3. Claim 2 is objected to because in the last line, “the opening.” should be “the opening in the center console.” This avoids any potential confusion between the now two openings. Appropriate correction is required.
4. Claim 7 is objected to because in line 2, “passing” should be “passes”. Appropriate correction is required.
5. Claim 8 is objected to because in line 3, “counsel” should be “console”. Appropriate correction is required.
6. Claim 8 is objected to because line 11 should end “the second”. Appropriate correction is required.
7. Claim 20 is objected to because in line 3, “counsel” should be “console”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
8. Claims 8-12 and 15-19 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.
9. Claim 8 has been amended to remove the portion “an electronic device” from the original “an electronic device charger” language and also introduces a new charger earlier in the claim. The problem is that the end of the claim still recites “the charging cable extending between a power outlet in the environment structure and the electronic device charger to supply power to the electronic device charging device.” Because the language at the end of the claim no longer matches the language earlier in the claim and because there are now two chargers in the claim, it is unclear which charger this last limitation refers to. For the purpose of examination, prior art showing either charger configured as such will be considered sufficient to satisfy this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Emmons (US 2012/0285907 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Emmons discloses a holder (1) for an electronic device (electronic device not currently being claimed in combination) to be secured in a vehicle by insertion into an opening (see “cup holder” in [0061]) in a center console of the vehicle (none of the opening, center console, or vehicle are currently being claimed in combination) comprising: a base member (everything below line B above), the base member connectable to an environment structure (environment structure not currently being claimed in combination) via an insertion portion (everything below line C above), an extension member (everything between lines A and B above) connected to the base member, at least a portion of the extension member extending away from the base member (see Figures), a connector (2) connected to the extension member, the connector engageable with the electronic device to secure the electronic device in a convenient viewable position (see Figures), an electronic device charger (9), the electronic device charger supported by the connector (see Figures), a charging cable (10), the charging cable extending between a power outlet (power outlet not currently being claimed in combination - see “charging source” in [0064]) in the environment structure and the electronic device charger to supply power to the electronic device charger, wherein the shape of the insertion portion is complementary to the opening (has to be in order to fit therein, see Figures, and “Cup Holder Conforming Base 5” in [0061]), and wherein the charging cable extends through an opening in the insertion member (see Figure 5 where there has to be a hole in 5 for cable 10) when the insertion member is inserted into the opening in the center console.
Regarding claim 3, Emmons discloses the holder of claim 1, further including a passage through at least one of the base and extension member within which the charging cable passes (see Figure 5 where cable 10 is shown passing through both the base and the extension member).
Regarding claim 5, Emmons discloses the holder of claim 1, wherein the base further includes a tapered insertion portion (see tapered ribs on the insertion portion of the base in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Emmons discloses the holder of claim 5, wherein the insertion portion includes a plurality of downwardly extending ribs (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, Emmons discloses the holder of claim 1, wherein the charging cable passes through the base member (see Figure 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmons (US 2012/0285907 A1) in view of Jung et al. (KR 101461101 B1), hereafter referred to as “Jung ‘101”.
Regarding claim 2, Emmons discloses the holder of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the electronic device charger is a wireless charger and wherein a flange covers an interface between the insertion portion and the opening in the center console. Emmons only generically discloses the charger (9) such that it is not clear just what structure it has - whether it includes a plug/wire or if it is wireless. Jung ‘101 teaches that it was already known in the art for a holder like that of Emmons to include a wireless charger (130) and also a flange (167) between insertion portion and the opening (cup holder), the flange limiting the extent of insertion of the insertion member and overlapping the receptacle (see [0064] and [0069]). 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 holder of Emmons with a wireless charger, as taught by Jung ‘101, the motivation being to make it easier for a user to charge their device without the step of having to manually connect their device to a charger wire, as would be understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art through their own available knowledge and reasoning; and also a flange, the motivation being to limit the extent of insertion of the insertion member and overlapping the receptacle, as taught by Jung ‘101.
15. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmons (US 2012/0285907 A1) in view of Jung (US 2014/0176062 A1), hereafter referred to as “Jung ‘062”.
Regarding claim 4, Emmons discloses the holder of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the connector is pivotable relative to the extension member to secure an electronic device at various viewing angles. Jung ‘062 teaches that it was already known in the art for a holder like that of Emmons to have a connector (200) pivotable (via 112/217) relative to an extension member (110) in order to allow a user to adjust the angle of the connector (see [0081]). 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 pivotable connection between the connector and extension members of Emmons, the motivation being to allow a user to adjust the angle of the connector, as taught by Jung ‘062.
16. Claims 8, 10, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmons (US 2012/0285907 A1) in view of Jung et al. (KR 101461101 B1) and Tubbesing et al. (DE 102019215267 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Emmons discloses a holder (1) for an electronic device (electronic device not currently being claimed in combination) comprising: a holder (100) including a base member (everything below line B above), the base member connectable (i.e. capable of being connected) to a center console, an extension member (everything between lines A and B above) connected to the base member, at least a portion of the extension member extending away from the base member (see Figures), a connector (2) connected to the extension member, the connector engageable with the electronic device to secure the electronic device in a convenient viewable position (see Figures), a charger (9), the charger supported by the connector (see Figures), a charging cable (10), the charging cable extending between a power outlet an the environment structure (see “charging source” in [0064]) and the electronic device charger (see Figure 5) to supply power to the electronic device charging device.
Emmons fails to disclose a center console of a vehicle including a receptacle (see Figure 2 with receptacles C), the center console between and adjacent to vehicle front seats, the front seats disposed on both sides of a rest surface (see console surfaces around C in Figure 2), the rest surface further including a first wireless charger, for charging electronic devices placed flat on the rest surface. Emmons only discloses the holder being insertable into a vehicle cup holder, but does not specify the cup holder being part of a center console as claimed. Emmons also fails to disclose the charger (9) being a wireless charger. Emmons only generically discloses the charger (9) such that it is not clear just what structure it has - whether it includes a plug/wire or if it is wireless.
Regarding the center console, Jung ‘101 teaches that it was already known to insert a holder like that of Emmons into a cup holder that is located on a rest surface of a vehicle center console (see Figure 2). While Jung ‘101 does not specifically mention or show the vehicle seats disposed on both sides of the console, anyone of ordinary skill in the art would look at Figure 2 of Jung ‘101 and assume this to be the case, or at least know that such arrangement of vehicle seats is so well known it would have been obvious to have included them. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have used the Emmons holder in combination with a cup holder that is part of a center console between two vehicle seats, where such location of use was already known in the art, as shown by Jung ‘101.
Regarding the holder charger being wireless, Jung ‘101 teaches that it was already known in the art for a holder like that of Emmons to include a wireless charger (130). 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 holder of Emmons with a wireless charger, as taught by Jung ‘101, the motivation being to make it easier for a user to charge their device without the step of having to manually connect their device to a charger wire, as would be understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art through their own available knowledge and reasoning.
Regarding the rest surface of the center console including a second wireless charger,
Tubbesing teaches that it was already known in the art to provide a wireless charger (3) disposed under a rest surface (2) of a vehicle center console. 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 wireless charger under a rest surface of the modified Emmons vehicle console, the motivation being to allow a user to charge an additional electronic device in the manner taught by Tubbesing.
Regarding claim 10, Emmons as modified above would include the combination of claim 8, wherein Jung ‘101, whose center console has been added to Emmons, shows the receptacle defines a closed pocket with inward facing walls and an opening at a top thereof capable of holding items placed in the opening for a user’s convenience (see Figures).
Regarding claim 12, Emmons as modified above would include the combination of claim 8, wherein the center console as taught by Jung ‘101, now part of Emmons, further includes a cupholder (one of two C’s), the cupholder disposed forward and/or lower than the receptacle (the other of the two C’s) so as not to interfere with a cup being placed in the cupholder (see Figure 2 of Jung ‘101).
Regarding claim 15, Emmons as modified above would include the combination of claim 10, wherein the opening is in the same plane as the rest surface, as taught by Jung ‘101 (see Figure 2 or Jung ‘101).
Regarding claim 16, Emmons as modified above would include the combination of claim 8, wherein Emmons discloses the holder further includes an insertion member (everything below line C above) and the insertion member is received in the receptacle.
Regarding claim 17, Emmons as modified above would the combination of claim 15, but so far fails to include wherein the holder further includes a flange member that extends laterally from an end of the insertion member, the flange member limiting the extent of insertion of the insertion member and overlapping the receptacle. Jung ‘101 teaches that it was already known in the art for a holder like that of Emmons to a flange (167) between the insertion portion and the opening (cup holder), the flange limiting the extent of insertion of the insertion member and overlapping the receptacle (see [0064] and [0069]). 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 holder of modified Emmons with a flange, the motivation being to limiting the extent of insertion of the insertion member and overlapping the receptacle, as taught by Jung ‘101.
17. Claims 9, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmons (US 2012/0285907 A1) in view of Jung et al. (KR 101461101 B1) and Tubbesing et al. (DE 102019215267 A1) as applied above, further in view of Stahmer et al. (US 6,908,135 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Emmons as modified above would include the combination of claim 8, but so far fails to disclose wherein the receptacle is an elongate receptacle. Emmons appears to show a typical circular cup holder shape as does Jung ‘101 whose center console has been added to Emmons. Stahmer shows that it was already known in the art for a center console like that of Jung ‘101 to include an elongated receptacle (34) wherein a length of the receptacle is at least three times a width of the receptacle (see Figures 4 and 5) into which a holder (20) like that of Emmons is inserted (see Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have either modified the shape of one or both of the receptacles of the modified Emmons console to be elongated in the manner shown by Stahmer, or to have provided an additional elongated receptacle in addition to the receptacles of the modified Emmons console so that a user could still place two cups in the cup holders while also having an elongated receptacle for mounting the holder to.
Regarding claim 11, Emmons as modified above would include the combination of claim 8, wherein a length of the receptacle is at least three times a width of the receptacle, as taught by Stahmer.
Regarding claim 19, Emmons as modified above would include the combination of claim 9, wherein Emmons discloses the charging cable passes through at least one passage in the holder (see Figure 5) and once inserted into a cup holder of the vehicle center console as taught by Jung ‘101, the cable would inherently have to pass through the center console to a power supply receptacle.
Regarding claim 20, Emmons as modified above would include, in combination, a vehicle center console (as taught by Jung ‘101) and a holder for an electronic device (as taught by Emmons) comprising: a center console of a vehicle including a receptacle (as taught by Jung ‘101), the center console between and adjacent to vehicle front seats (as would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art), the front seats disposed on both sides of a rest surface, the rest surface further including a first wireless charger (as taught by Tubbesing), for charging electronic devices placed flat on the rest surface, a holder including a base member, (as taught by Emmons) the base member connectable to the center console (as taught by Emmons), an extension member connected to the base member (as taught by Emmons), at least a portion of the extension member extending away from the base member (as taught by Emmons), a connector connected to the extension member (as taught by Emmons), the connector engageable with the electronic device to secure the electronic device in a convenient viewable position (as taught by Emmons), an electronic device charger (as taught by Emmons), the electronic device charger supported by the connector (as taught by Emmons), a charging cable (as taught by Emmons), the charging cable extending between a power outlet in the center console and the electronic device charger to supply power to the electronic device charging device (as collectively taught by Emmons and Jung ‘101), wherein the receptacle is an elongate receptacle (as taught by Stahmer), the receptacle defining a closed pocket with inward facing walls and an opening at a top thereof capable of holding items placed in the opening for a user’s convenience (as taught by Jung ‘101), wherein a length of the receptacle is at least three times a width of the receptacle (as taught by Stahmer).
18. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmons (US 2012/0285907 A1) in view of Jung et al. (KR 101461101 B1) and Tubbesing et al. (DE 102019215267 A1) as applied above, further in view of Jung (US 2014/0176062 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Emmons as modified above would include the combination of claim 8, but so far fails to include wherein the connector is pivotable relative to the extension member to secure an electronic device at various viewing angles. Jung ‘062 teaches that it was already known in the art for a holder like that of modified Emmons to have a connector (200) pivotable (via 112/217) relative to an extension member (110) in order to allow a user to adjust the angle of the connector (see [0081]). 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 pivotable connection between the connector and extension members of modified Emmons, the motivation being to allow a user to adjust the angle of the connector, as taught by Jung ‘062.
Response to Arguments
19. Applicant’s remarks filed 11/21/25 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
20. 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.
21. 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 1/7/26