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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there are two reference character 124 (in Fig. 4) pointing the same structure. Therefore, examiner suggests deleting one of them.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference characters 121 and 122 have lead lines pointing to the same structure (in Fig. 6)
reference characters 121 and 124 have lead lines pointing to the same structure (in Fig. 6)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: as noted in the drawing objections above. 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.
Claims 2-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 2, ln. 3, the phrase, “…said U-brackets…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…said plurality of U-brackets…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 2, ln. 6, the phrase, “…the vertical members…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…the plurality of vertical members…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 2, ln. 8-10, the phrases in each instance, “…the U-bracket…” and “the U-brackets…” both lack antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 3, ln. 2, the phrase, “…said fasteners…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…said plurality of fasteners…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 3, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the U-bracket…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 6, ln. 2, the phrase, “…said supports…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…said plurality of supports…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 7, ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…said L-brackets…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…said plurality of L-brackets…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 10, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the U-brackets…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…the plurality of U-brackets…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 10, ln. 4, the phrase, “…the vertical members…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…the plurality of vertical members…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 12, ln. 6, the phrase, “…said drink cavity…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant established “at least one drink cavity” (claim 12, ln. 5) which suggests more than one “drink cavity.” Therefore, it is unclear as to which specific “drink cavity” is being encompassed in this occurrence. To avoid confusion, examiner suggests the following change, “…said at least one drink cavity…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 13, ln. 8, the phrase, “…the U-brackets…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…the plurality of U-brackets…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 14, ln. 2, the phrase, “…said fasteners…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…said plurality of fasteners…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 14, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the U-bracket…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 15, ln. 7, the phrase, “…the U-brackets…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…the plurality of U-brackets…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 17, ln. 6, the phrase, “…said drink cavity…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant established “at least one drink cavity” (claim 17, ln. 5) which suggests more than one “drink cavity.” Therefore, it is unclear as to which specific “drink cavity” is being encompassed in this occurrence. To avoid confusion, examiner suggests the following change, “…said at least one drink cavity…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 18, ln. 11, the phrase, “…said drink cavity…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant established “at least one drink cavity” (claim 18, ln. 10-11) which suggests more than one “drink cavity.” Therefore, it is unclear as to which specific “drink cavity” is being encompassed in this occurrence. To avoid confusion, examiner suggests the following change, “…said at least one drink cavity…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 19, ln. 3, the phrase, “…said U-brackets…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…said plurality of U-brackets…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 19, ln. 6, the phrase, “…the vertical members…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…the plurality of vertical members…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 19, ln. 8-10, the phrases in each instance, “…the U-bracket…” and “the U-brackets…” both lack antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 20, ln. 2, the phrase, “…said fasteners…” lacks antecedent basis; therefore, it should be change to “…said plurality of fasteners…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 20, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the U-bracket…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
As for claims 3-12, 14-17 and 19-20, due to their dependencies from claims 2, 13 and 18 (respectively), they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon (US 20190358889 A1; hereinafter Moon).
Regarding claim 1, Moon discloses an insulation system for mobile delivery robots comprising:
a container (i.e. in the form of a multi-layered cooler body (60) having an inner layer (46), an intermediate insulating layer (501) and an exterior layer (202) – as shown in Fig. 5); and
a thermal shield (i.e. in the form of exterior layer (21));
wherein:
the thermal shield is coupled to the outwardly facing surface of the container (see Moon Fig. 5);
the container is composed of a thermoformed acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic (ABS plastic hereinafter); and
the thermal shield is a polycarbonate (PC hereinafter) panel (Moon [0024-0025]).
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 of this title, 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 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20190358889 A1; hereinafter Moon) in view of Perrins (US 6851276 B2; hereinafter Perrins).
Regarding claim 18, Moon teaches an insulation system for mobile delivery robots comprising:
a container (i.e. in the form of a multi-layered cooler body (60) having an inner layer (46), an intermediate insulating layer (501) and an exterior layer (202) – as shown in Fig. 5);
a thermal shield (i.e. in the form of exterior layer (21));
wherein:
the thermal shield is coupled to the outwardly facing surface of the container; and
the container is composed of a thermoformed acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic (ABS plastic hereinafter); and
the thermal shield is a polycarbonate (PC hereinafter) panel (Moon [0024-0025]).
However, Moon fails to teach a drink holder; said drink holder being positioned within an internal cavity of the container; and said drink holder comprising a body and an at least one drink cavity wherein said drink cavity is an extrusion within the body.
Perrins is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Moon, which is an insulated container or cooler. Perrins teaches an insulated container or cooler embodiment (as shown in Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a container or body (2; made from ABS) having an internal cavity; and
a drink holder (i.e. in the form of sleeves (10)); said drink holder being positioned within the internal cavity of the container or body; and said drink holder comprising a body and at least one drink cavity wherein said [at least one] drink cavity is an extrusion within the body (Perrins Col. 4 ln. 30 – Col. 5 ln. 10).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal cavity (of Moon) to have a similar drink holder with at least one drink cavity (as taught by Perrins) to prevent the contents (i.e. either water bottles, beverages cans and so on) from moving around during transport.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12, 19 and 20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (in particular claims 1 and 18, respectively), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and/or rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 13-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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 ttps://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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736