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 Objections
Claims 2 & 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Re: claim 2 & 9, “the flared portion together defining” should read “the flared sidewall together defining”. For purposes of examination, the examiner has made these changes in the office action.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 8 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kain (Patent No. 6,467,839).
Re: claim 8, Kain teaches a removable holder (Fig. 3) for mounting, comprising: a mount (Fig. 3 - 22) having a rear portion (30), a bottom portion (33), and a ramp (32) formed in the rear portion, comprising: a back plate (40) having a front portion (Annotated Fig. 3 – front portion) and a rear portion (Annotated Fig. 3 – rear portion), a sidewall (Annotated Fig. 3 - sidewall), the sidewall and the front portion of the back plate together defining a receptacle (36); a projection (44, 70) extending outward from the rear portion of the back plate (40); a cantilever (72, 73) extending from the rear portion of the back plate (40), the cantilever (72, 73) having a securement projection catch (72), the securement projection catch being located at a distal portion of the cantilever (72, 73 – See Fig. 3), wherein, when the removable holder (Fig. 3) is mounted, the projection (44, 70) of the removable holder engages the ramp (32) of the mount (22), and the securement projection catch (72) of the cantilever (72, 73) engages the bottom portion (33) of the mount (22).
It is noted by the examiner that the interior of a work machine operator cab is considered to be part of the preamble of the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 10, Kain teaches wherein the sidewall (Annotated Fig. 3- sidewall) includes at least one stiffening projection (Annotated Fig. 6 - projection).
PNG
media_image2.png
360
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabel et al. (Patent No. 10,814,791) in view of Kain (Patent No. 6,467,839).
Re: claim 1, Dabel et al. teaches a system for mounting a removeable holder (Fig. 2) an interior of a work machine operator cab (Fig. 1 - 10), comprising: an interior panel (Fig. 1 & 2) including: a panel face (Annotated Fig. 1 – panel face) configured to be exposed when the interior panel is mounted within the work machine operator cab (See Fig. 1); a first recess (Fig. 1 - 37) having a first recess face (Fig. 2 - 47), at least a portion of the first recess face being located further from the interior of the work machine operator cab than the panel face when the interior panel is mounted within the work machine operator cab (See Fig. 1); a second recess (Annotated Fig. 2 – 2nd recess) having a second recess face (42); at least a portion of the second recess face being located further from the interior of the work machine operator cab than the portion of the first recess face (See Fig. 1 – 2nd face is located deeper/further than the 1st recess) when the interior panel is mounted within the work machine operator cab (See Fig. 1); a mount (Fig. 6c - 130) being disposed within the second recess (Annotated Fig. 2 – 2nd recess); a removable holder (Fig. 8), including: a back plate (Annotated Fig. 9 – back plate) having a front portion (Annotated Fig. 8 – front portion) and a rear portion (Annotated Fig. 9 – back portion), a sidewall (Annotated Fig. 8 – lower sidewall, upper sidewall, flared sidewall), the sidewall and the front portion of the back plate together defining a receptacle (Fig. 8 – 114); a cantilever, the cantilever having a securement projection catch, the securement projection catch being located at a distal portion of the cantilever. Dabel et al. fails to teach a mount having a rear portion, a bottom portion, and a ramp formed in the rear portion; and an access relief located below the bottom portion of the mount and configured to permit manual access; and a removable holder, comprising: a projection extending outward from the rear portion of the back plate; a cantilever extending from the rear portion of the back plate, wherein, when the removable holder is mounted, the projection of the removable holder engages the ramp of the mount, and the securement projection catch of the cantilever engages the bottom portion of the mount.
However, Kain teaches a removable holder (Fig. 3), comprising: a mount (Fig. 3 - 22) having a rear portion (30), a bottom portion (33), and a ramp (32) formed in the rear portion; and an access relief (Annotated Fig. 1 – gap) located below the bottom portion (Fig. 3 - 33) of the mount (22) and configured to permit manual access; a removable holder (Fig. 3), including: a projection (44, 70) extending outward from the rear portion of the back plate (40); a cantilever (72, 73) extending from the rear portion of the back plate (40), the cantilever (72, 73) having a securement projection catch (72), the securement projection catch being located at a distal portion of the cantilever (72, 73 – See Fig. 3), wherein, when the removable holder (Fig. 3) is mounted, the projection (44, 70) of the removable holder engages the ramp (32) of the mount (22), and the securement projection catch (72) of the cantilever (72, 73) engages the bottom portion (33) of the mount (22).
Dabel et al. and Kain are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of receptacle holders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Dabel et al.’s apparatus and cantilever with those of Kain’s mount and cantilever in order to provide the advantage of a system that has more positive engagement with the cabin, while also still being easily removed by a user.
PNG
media_image3.png
168
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
322
413
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
586
670
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
676
548
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
634
500
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Dabel et al. teaches wherein the sidewall (Annotated Fig. 8 – lower sidewall, upper sidewall, flared sidewall) includes a lower sidewall (lower sidewall), an upper sidewall (upper sidewall), and a flared sidewall (flared sidewall), the lower sidewall, the upper sidewall, and the flared [sidewall]
Re: claim 3, Dabel et al. teaches wherein the sidewall (Annotated Fig. 8 – lower sidewall, upper sidewall, flared sidewall) includes at least one stiffening projection (Fig. 8 - 116).
Re: claim 4, Dabel et al. teaches wherein the back plate (Fig. 13 – Area of 150) includes a plurality of ribs (152).
Re: claim 5, Dabel et al. teaches wherein the plurality of ribs (Fig. 13 - 152) are disposed on a rear side (See Fig. 13) of the back plate (Area of 150).
Claim(s) 9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kain (Patent No. 6,467,839) in view of Dabel et al. (Patent No. 10,814,791). Re: claim 9, Kain teaches a sidewall (Annotated Fig. 3 – sidewall).
However, Dabel et al. teaches wherein the sidewall (Annotated Fig. 8 – lower sidewall, upper sidewall, flared sidewall) includes a lower sidewall (lower sidewall), an upper sidewall (upper sidewall), and a flared sidewall (flared sidewall), the lower sidewall, the upper sidewall, and the flared [sidewall]
Kain and Dabel et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of receptacle holders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Kain’s sidewall with those of Dabel et al.’s sidewall in order to provide the advantage of a system that can secure different sized and shaped objects in the receptacle.
Re: claim 11, Dabel et al. teaches wherein the back plate (Fig. 13 – Area of 150) includes a plurality of ribs (152).
Kain and Dabel et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of receptacle holders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Kain’s holder with those of Dabel et al.’s ribs in order to provide the advantage of a reinforced system.
Re: claim 12, Dabel et al. teaches wherein the plurality of ribs (Fig. 13 - 152) are disposed on a rear side (See Fig. 13) of the back plate (Area of 150).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabel et al. (Patent No. 10,814,791) in view of Kain (Patent No. 6,467,839) in further view of Rogers (US 2020/0324681 A1).
Re: claim 6, Rogers teaches wherein the removable holder (Fig. 1 – 100) includes a drain opening (190).
Dabel et al., Kain, and Rogers are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of receptacle holders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Dabel et al.’s holder with those of Rogers’ drain in order to provide the advantage of being able to keep fluid from pooling in the receptacle and allowing for air to enter the bottom of the receptacle so that anything put into the receptacle is easier to remove.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabel et al. (Patent No. 10,814,791) in view of Kain (Patent No. 6,467,839) in further view of Selvasekar et al. (US 2019/0143903 A1).
Re: claim 7, Selvasekar et al. teaches wherein at least one of the mount (Fig. 1 - 22) and removable holder (32) comprise three-dimensionally printed material (Paragraph 0030 & claim 9).
Dabel et al., Kain, and Selvasekar et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of receptacle holders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Kain’s mount and holder with those of Selvasekar et al.’s material in order to provide the advantage of a cost-productive system.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kain (Patent No. 6,467,839) in view of Rogers (US 2020/0324681 A1).
Re: claim 13, Rogers teaches wherein the removable holder (Fig. 1 – 100) includes a drain opening (190).
Kain and Rogers are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of receptacle holders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Kain’s holder with those of Rogers’ drain in order to provide the advantage of being able to keep fluid from pooling in the receptacle and allowing for air to enter the bottom of the receptacle so that anything put into the receptacle is easier to remove.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kain (Patent No. 6,467,839) in view of Selvasekar et al. (US 2019/0143903 A1).
Re: claim 7, Selvasekar et al. teaches wherein at least one of the mount (Fig. 1 - 22) and removable holder (32) comprise three-dimensionally printed material (Paragraph 0030 & claim 9).
Kain and Selvasekar et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of receptacle holders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Kain’s mount and holder with those of Selvasekar et al.’s material in order to provide the advantage of a cost-productive system.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP C ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights