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 § 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.
Claims 4-7 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.
Claims 4-7 depend from claim 3. However, claim 3 is now cancelled. It is therefore unclear what claim claims 4-7 now depend from. For purposes of examination, claims 4-7 are interpreted as being dependent upon claim 1 as the limitations of the previous claim 3 have been incorporated into the present claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina et al. (US 20180208094 A1) (previously cited) in view of Thomas et al. (US 20020043603 A1) (previously cited) and Blattmeier et al. (DE 102010062875 A1; herein English machine translation used for all citations) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Medina teaches an object receiving device (moveable tray assembly) for a vehicle that is formed of flexible material, said device comprising a lower portion (cup portion) shaped to fit securely into a cup holder support of the vehicle and an upper portion (tray portion) formed on said lower portion, said upper portion being configured to receive and hold at least one object (Medina Abstract, Par. 0002-0005, 0009-0013, 0016, and Figs 2-3). Medina teaches the flexible material is thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (Medina, Par. 0016). Medina further teaches that the upper portion comprises a frame surrounding a central portion, said central portion being configured to receive and hold at least one object (Medina, Par. 0016-0018 and Figs 2-3). Medina teaches the upper portion comprises a solid bottom separating the upper portion from the lower portion (Medina, Abstract and Figs. 2-3).
Medina is silent regarding the frame portion having a rigidity that is greater than the rigidity of said central portion.
Thomas teaches an object receiving device to be inserted into a cupholder of a vehicle, wherein the object receiving device comprises a lower portion that is inserted into the cupholder and an upper portion, wherein the upper portion comprises a central portion configured to receive an object and a frame (rim) surrounding the central portion (Thomas, Abstract, Par. 0002, 0005, 0039-0042, and Figs. 1-2). Thomas teaches the frame is a multi-faceted rim including an outer lip to increase the rigidity (i.e. rigidity) (Thomas, Par. 0042 and Figs 1-2).
Medina and Thomas are analogous art as they both teach object receiving devices to be inserted into a cupholder of a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the multi-faceted rim including an outer lip of Thomas in the upper portion of modified Medina. This would allow for improved rigidity of the outer edges of the device (Thomas, Par. 0042). This would further result in the frame portion having a rigidity that is greater than the central portion.
Modified Medina is silent regarding the device being obtained by powder bed fusion additive manufacturing.
Blattmeier teaches a process for forming a TPU component for use in vehicles, wherein the process involves laser sintering a TPU powder that has been applied to a bed (substrate) to build up the component layer by layer, and thus satisfies the limitation of being obtained by powder bed fusion additive manufacturing (Blattmeier, Par. 0001-0002, 0005, 0006, 0008, 0010-0011, 0014, and 0016).
Modified Medina and Blattmeier are analogous art as they both teach TPU components for use in vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the process of Blattmeier to manufacture the device of modified Medina. This would allow for tailoring of the mechanical properties as well as a high degree of flexibility, ductility, and strength (Blattmeier, Par. 0012, 0014, and 0018).
Regarding claim 2, modified Medina teaches the flexible material is thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (Medina, Par. 0016).
Regarding claim 5, modified Medina teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1-2. Modified Medina is silent regarding the central portion comprising a plurality of compartments of different sizes and/or shapes.
Thomas teaches an object receiving device to be inserted into a cupholder of a vehicle, wherein the object receiving device comprises a lower portion that is inserted into the cupholder and an upper portion, wherein the upper portion comprises a central portion configured to receive an object (Thomas, Abstract, Par. 0002, 0005, 0039-0042, and Figs. 1-2). Thomas teaches a plurality of compartments of different sizes and shapes to receive different objects (Thomas, Par. 0037-0039 and Figs 1-13).
Modified Medina and Thomas are analogous art as they both teach object receiving devices to be inserted into a cupholder of a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have create the central portion of modified Medina to have a plurality of compartments of different sizes and shapes as taught by Thomas. This would allow for compartments for different objects (Thomas, Par. 0037-0039 and Figs. 1-13).
Regarding claim 6, modified Medina teaches the central portion has a cylindrical shape that fits into the cup holder and thus has a diameter that is smaller than the diameter of the cup holder (Medina, Abstract and Figs 2-3; Thomas, Par. 0037-0039 and Figs 1-13).
Regarding claim 10, modified Medina teaches a vehicle comprising the object receiving device (Medina, Abstract, Par. 0001, and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Medina teaches the frame includes a wall outside the central portion and thus teaches the frame extends outwardly from the perimeter of the central portion and defines an upper surface (Medina, Abstract, Par. 0001 and Fig. 1). Modified Medina further teaches the frame comprises an outer lip and thus extends down from the perimeter of the upper surface (Thomas, Par. 0042 and Figs 1-2). Furthermore, as the upper lip would thus have a bottom surface that is capable of resting on an object, such as said cup support holder of said vehicle, modified medina satisfies the limitation of being configured to rest upon a surface surrounding said cup support holder of said vehicle (Medina, Abstract, Par. 0001 and Fig. 1; Thomas, Par. 0042 and Figs 1-2).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina et al. in view of Thomas et al. and Blattmeier et al. and Thomas et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Min (KR 0128080 Y1; herein English machine translation used for all citations) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, modified Medina teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Medina further teaches that the device may receive coins in the central portion (Medina, Par. 0002 and Figs 2-3).
Modified Medina is silent regarding the central portion comprising a set of striations formed parallel to one another.
Min teaches an object receiving device to be inserted into a cupholder of a vehicle, wherein the device comprises a set of striations (coin landing grooves) formed parallel to one another to receive coins (Min, Abstract, Pages 1-2, and Fig. 2).
Modified Medina and Min are analogous art as they both teach object receiving devices to be inserted into a cupholder of a vehicle, wherein the object is a coin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a set of parallel striations in the central portion of modified Medina. This would allow for grooves to set coins into (Min, Pages 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, modified Medina teaches the object receiving device as stated above for claim 4, wherein the central portion has a lattice (Grid) structure of the grooves (Min, Pages 1-2 and Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered.
On pages 7-9 of the remarks, Applicant first argues that Medina does not teach a solid bottom separating the upper portion from the lower portion. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Medina teaches an object receiving device comprising a lower portion (the portion that enters the cup holder) and an upper portion (the tray) as stated above for claim 1 (Medina, Fig. 3). The upper portion of Medina comprises a solid bottom (the bottom of the tray) (Medina, Fig. 3). The solid bottom indicates the transition from the lower portion to the upper portion (tray) and therefore separates the upper portion from the lower portion. Therefore, Medina satisfies the limitation of the upper portion comprising a solid bottom separating the upper portion from the lower portion and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Secondly, on page 10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the striations of claim 4 and the lattice structure of claim 7 are distinct elements and that Min does not teach such a construction. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Min teaches an object receiving device to be inserted into a cupholder of a vehicle, wherein the device comprises a set of striations (coin landing grooves) formed parallel to one another to receive coins (Min, Abstract, Pages 1-2, and Fig. 2). Min teaches the striations (Grooves) are in a lattice (Grid) structure and thus satisfies the limitation of the central portion having a lattice structure (Min, Pages 1-2 and Fig. 2). 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 lattice and the striations are different features and that coins can fall through the lattice structure) 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). Therefore, Min teaches a construction that comprises striations in a lattice structure, satisfying the claimed limitation and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Thirdly, on pages 10-11, Applicant argues that modified Medina does not teach new claim 11. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Modified Medina teaches the frame includes a wall outside the central portion and thus teaches the frame extends outwardly from the perimeter of the central portion and defines an upper surface (Medina, Abstract, Par. 0001 and Fig. 1). Modified Medina further teaches the frame comprises an outer lip and thus extends down from the perimeter of the upper surface (Thomas, Par. 0042 and Figs 1-2). Furthermore, as the upper lip would thus have a bottom surface that is capable of resting on an object, such as said cup support holder of said vehicle, modified medina satisfies the limitation of being configured to rest upon a surface surrounding said cup support holder of said vehicle (Medina, Abstract, Par. 0001 and Fig. 1; Thomas, Par. 0042 and Figs 1-2). Therefore, modified Medina renders obvious the instant claim 11 and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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 THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782