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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okamoto (US 20110000925 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 7, Okamoto teaches a multi-functional container comprising: a first container having a bottom wall and one or more side walls, the bottom wall and the one or more side walls defining a first void configured to hold a cup; and a bag holder having a second void configured to hold a plurality of bags and having one or more coupling structures configured to removably couple the bag holder to the first container at one or more of the bottom wall and one or more side walls of the first container; wherein one of the plurality of bags is removable from the bag holder when the cup is positioned within the first void [Okamoto Figs. 3 and 4, Reference Characters A, B, DC, and TB; Okamoto Paragraph 0009: “the storage member may be a molded plastic structure that has two hollow sections, one for storing the disposable cups and the other for storing the trash bags.”; Okamoto Paragraph 0044: “The second section B, which is adapted to store a roll of trash bags TB, includes an aperture AA in the sidewall SW2 of the second section B, enabling an individual bag to be withdrawn through the aperture from the second section.”].
Regarding Claim 8, Okamoto teaches the multi-functional container of claim 7, wherein the bag holder is configured to removably couple to the bottom wall [Okamoto Figs 3 and 4].
Regarding Claim 9, Okamoto teaches the multi-functional container of claim 7, wherein the first container comprises one or more coupling elements extending from the bottom wall and defining a slot for receiving the one or more coupling structures of the bag holder [Okamoto Fig. 4; Okamoto Paragraph 0045: “Sections A and B are detachably connected together at their adjacent ends E2 and E3 so that, upon manually engaging external tabs T in closed end E2 with slots SS along an inner ledge 11 (FIG. 4) in open end E3, relative rotation in one direction interlocks the tabs and slots. Disconnection is achieved upon rotation in the opposite direction, disengaging the tabs T and slots SS so the sections A and B can be manually separated.”; Alternatively, Okamoto Figs. 17 and 17A; Okamoto Paragraph 0045: “As illustrated in FIGS. 17 and 17A instead of Sections A and B being detachably connected together using the interlocking tabs T and slots SS, a latch 59 is used.”].
Regarding Claim 10, Okamoto teaches the multi-functional container of claim 7, wherein the one or more side walls of the first container comprises a container coupling element configured to removably couple the first container to a juvenile wheeled carrier [Okamoto Fig. 3, Reference Character 16].
Regarding Claim 11, Okamoto teaches the multi-functional container of claim 7, wherein the first void of the first container is sized to receive a cup [Okamoto Fig. 3, Reference Characters A and DC].
Regarding Claim 12, Okamoto teaches the multi-functional container of claim 7, wherein the bag holder comprises a body having a first side wall at a first side and a second side wall at a second side, wherein at least one of the first side wall and the second side wall has a coupling structure configured to removably couple the bag holder to the container [Okamoto Fig. 4; Okamoto Paragraph 0045: “Sections A and B are detachably connected together at their adjacent ends E2 and E3 so that, upon manually engaging external tabs T in closed end E2 with slots SS along an inner ledge 11 (FIG. 4) in open end E3, relative rotation in one direction interlocks the tabs and slots. Disconnection is achieved upon rotation in the opposite direction, disengaging the tabs T and slots SS so the sections A and B can be manually separated.”; Alternatively, Okamoto Figs. 17 and 17A; Okamoto Paragraph 0045: “As illustrated in FIGS. 17 and 17A instead of Sections A and B being detachably connected together using the interlocking tabs T and slots SS, a latch 59 is used.”].
Regarding Claim 13, Okamoto teaches the multi-functional container of claim 12, wherein both the first side wall and the second side wall have coupling structures configured to removably couple the bag holder to the container [Okamoto Fig. 4; Okamoto Paragraph 0045: “Sections A and B are detachably connected together at their adjacent ends E2 and E3 so that, upon manually engaging external tabs T in closed end E2 with slots SS along an inner ledge 11 (FIG. 4) in open end E3, relative rotation in one direction interlocks the tabs and slots. Disconnection is achieved upon rotation in the opposite direction, disengaging the tabs T and slots SS so the sections A and B can be manually separated.”; Alternatively, Okamoto Figs. 17 and 17A; Okamoto Paragraph 0045: “As illustrated in FIGS. 17 and 17A instead of Sections A and B being detachably connected together using the interlocking tabs T and slots SS, a latch 59 is used.”].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartenstine et al. (US 9428207 B2) (hereinafter “Hartenstine”) in view of Okamoto (US 20110000925 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Hartenstine teaches a juvenile wheeled good system comprising: a juvenile wheeled good comprising a frame coupled to one or more wheels; a cup holder configured to be removably coupled to the frame [Hartenstine Figs. 8 and 9, Reference Characters 306 and 10; Hartenstine Paragraph 2: “The present invention relates to a cup holder module, a tray and a stroller thereof, and more specifically, to a cup holder module detachably mounted on a mount of a stroller”]; but does not teach a bag holder.
Okamoto teaches a bag holder configured to be removably coupled to a surface of the cup holder, wherein a bag housed within the bag holder is removable while a cup is held by the cup holder [Okamoto Figs. 3 and 4; Okamoto Paragraph 0044: “As shown in FIG. 3, a removable cup retainer/cover CR seated within the first section A beneath a closed lid L covers a stack of nested disposable paper or plastic cups DC. The second section B, which is adapted to store a roll of trash bags TB, includes an aperture AA in the sidewall SW2 of the second section B, enabling an individual bag to be withdrawn through the aperture from the second section.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the juvenile wheeled good system, comprising a cup holder, of Hartenstine to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a bag holder in view of Okamoto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hartenstine and Okamoto because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing easy access to trash bags for users of the juvenile wheeled good system, as recognized by Okamoto [Okamoto Paragraph 0006: “keep storage bags for trash and cleanser for washing the hands and face of children or adults riding in the vehicle.”]. It should also be noted that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 2, Hartenstine teaches the juvenile wheeled good of claim 1, wherein the juvenile wheeled good is a stroller [Hartenstine Paragraph 2: “The present invention relates to a cup holder module, a tray and a stroller thereof”].
Regarding Claim 5, Hartenstine teaches a juvenile wheeled good system comprising a cup holder but does not teach a bag holder. Okamoto teaches the juvenile wheeled good system of claim 1, wherein the bag holder is sized to receive a roll of waste disposal bags [Okamoto Fig. 3; Okamoto Paragraph 0044: “The second section B, which is adapted to store a roll of trash bags TB, includes an aperture AA in the sidewall SW2 of the second section B, enabling an individual bag to be withdrawn through the aperture from the second section.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the juvenile wheeled good system of Hartenstine to specify a bag holder sized to receive bags, in view of Okamoto. Note that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Note further that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 6, Hartenstine teaches a juvenile wheeled good system comprising a cup holder but does not teach a bag holder. Okamoto teaches the juvenile wheeled good system of claim 5, further comprising a bag opening at a bottom side of the bag holder through which one or more waste disposal bags are removed from a void while the bag holder is coupled to the surface of the cup holder, the bag opening being smaller than the roll of waste disposal bags [Okamoto Fig. 3]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the juvenile wheeled good system of Hartenstine to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a bag opening being smaller than a roll of bags in view of Okamoto. It should be noted that while Okamoto does not explicitly teach a motivation for this feature, such feature would be necessary in order to secure the roll of waste disposal bags within the bag holder. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hartenstine and Okamoto because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing easy access to trash bags for users of the juvenile wheeled good system, as recognized by Okamoto [Okamoto Paragraph 0006: “keep storage bags for trash and cleanser for washing the hands and face of children or adults riding in the vehicle.”]. It should be further noted that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.). It is noted that Okamoto’s bag opening is positioned at the bottom of the bag holder but not actually on the bottom side of the bag holder. It should be noted however that, as a reason for positioning the bag opening at a bottom side of the bag holder has not been provided in the instant application, a change in form or shape, as a matter of design choice without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartenstine et al. (US 9428207 B2) (hereinafter “Hartenstine”) in view of Okamoto (US 20110000925 A1) and further in view of Horowitz (US 10040470 B1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hartenstine and Okamoto teaches a juvenile wheeled good system comprising a frame but does not teach a wagon. Horowitz teaches The juvenile wheeled good system of claim 1, wherein the frame is a wagon [Horowitz Figs. 2, 7, and 9, Reference Character 90; Horowitz Paragraph 32: “The cup holder 90 is removably connected to a corner of the frame of the folding wagon 1 at a corner bracket 64 thereof”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the juvenile wheeled good system of the combination of Hartenstine and Okamoto to specify, with a reasonable expectation of success, a wagon comprising a cup holder in view of Horowitz. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hartenstine, Okamoto, and Horowitz because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the removable installation of multiple other accessories, as recognized by Horowitz [Horowitz Paragraph 7: “A variety of useful articles may then be substituted for the canopy mounting posts. By way of example only, such useful articles include, but are not limited to, a cup holder, a fishing rod carrying sleeve and a frame at which a utility basket is carried.”].
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US 8353603 B2) in view of Okamoto (US 20110000925 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 14, Berry teaches a bag holder [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Character 82; Paragraph 23: “A plurality of bags 22 are disposed in the second housing 82”] comprising: a first structure comprising a body having a first side wall at a first side and a second side wall at a second side, the first side wall and the second side wall each having an edge extending along a third side, the edge of the first side wall and the edge of the second side wall being spaced apart [Berry Figs. 3, 9, and 10, Reference Character 16 (comprising Reference Characters 82 and 86) constitutes the body; wall edges defined by lines connecting coupling elements 42 (typ)]; a first coupling element on the edge of the first side wall and a second coupling element on the edge of the second side wall [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Characters 42 (typ): first and second coupling elements; and 44 (typ): third and fourth coupling elements], but does not teach a cup holder.
Okamoto teaches that both the first coupling element and the second coupling element configured to removably couple the bag holder to a cup holder comprising a third coupling element and a fourth coupling element and the body defining a void for holding a plurality of bags and having a bag opening through which one or more bags of the plurality of bags are removed from the void while the cup holder is holding a cup [Okamoto Figs. 3, 17, and 17A, wherein the first coupling element is represented by Reference Character 59b, and the second coupling element is identical but hidden on the opposite side of the bag holder; and wherein the third coupling element is represented by Reference Character 59a, and the fourth coupling element is identical but hidden on the opposite side of the bag holder]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bag holder of Berry to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a cup holder in view of Okamoto. While Okamoto does not explicitly teach a motivation for including a cup holder, cup holders and cup holder couplers are common in the art. Coupling a cup holder to a particular item, e.g., a bag holder, can improve access to the cup, can obviate the need for two different item connection points i.e., one connection point for the bag holder and an additional connection point for the cup holder (thereby saving space and reducing load on a bag holder/cup holder supporting element), and can enable one-handed access to either a bag or a cup when one of the user’s hands is occupied, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be noted that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 15, Berry teaches the bag holder of claim 14, wherein the first coupling element and the second coupling element each comprise a hook [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Character 42 (typ)].
Regarding Claim 16, Berry teaches the bag holder of claim 14, wherein the first coupling element and the second coupling element are each integrally formed with the body [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Characters 42 (typ): coupling structures; and 82: body].
Regarding Claim 17, Berry teaches the bag holder of claim 14, further comprising the body having a curved wall at a fourth side joining the first side wall and the second side wall, wherein the bag opening is in the curved wall [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Character 86].
Regarding Claim 18, Berry teaches the bag holder of claim 17, wherein the body is configured to flex at the curved wall so that the first side wall and the second side wall are capable of being moved closer together [Berry Figs. 3, 9, and 10, Reference Characters 16 (comprising Reference Characters 82 and 86); Berry Paragraph 6: A second portion includes a second compartment having an at least partially flexible portion with a slot disposed therethrough and being removably connected with the first portion.”].
Regarding Claim 19, Berry teaches the bag holder of claim 14, wherein the body is a flexible body [Berry Figs. 3, 9, and 10, Reference Characters 16 (comprising Reference Characters 82 and 86); Berry Paragraph 6: “A second portion includes a second compartment having an at least partially flexible portion with a slot disposed therethrough and being removably connected with the first portion.; Berry Paragraph 23: a pliable cover 86 (FIG. 9) is disposed over the second housing 82 securing the bags 22 inside the second housing 82.”].
Regarding Claim 20, Berry teaches the bag holder of claim 14, wherein the bag holder is sized to receive pet waste disposal bags [Berry Paragraph 2: “bags for picking up and disposing of pet feces in common areas.”].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7-13 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments necessitated the new grounds 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 MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights