DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 15 and 17 have been amended. Claims 7, 8, 19 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-6 and 9-18 remain pending in the application.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-12, 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wernz (US 4,883,675 A) in view of Davidson et al. (US 11,140,979 B2, hereinafter Davidson), Chamberlin, Jr. (US 3,069,060 A, hereinafter Chamberlin) and Yu et al. (US 2024/0401330 A1, hereinafter Yu).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Wernz teaches a bottle carrier, comprising:
a bag defining an interior (Fig. 2, 4, 5, 7); and
a divider assembly removably disposed in the interior of the bag, the divider assembly dividing the interior into multiple compartments to receive bottles (Fig. 6), the divider assembly including:
a base plate (21) disposed in a bottom of the interior (Fig. 7);
a first divider plate (20) extending perpendicular from the base plate (Fig. 6) having a (third) slot (column 4 lines 39-45); and
a second divider plate (20) extending perpendicular from the base plate (Fig. 6), the second divider plate having a (fourth) slot, the first and second divider plates interlocked via the (third and fourth) slots (column 4 lines 39-45) (column 3 lines 12-23, column 4 lines 13-61).
Wernz fails to teach the base plate having a first slot and a second slot that intersect each other, the first divider plate having a first tab extending into the first slot in the base plate to support and arrange the first divider plate in a vertical orientation relative to the base plate in the interior, and the second divider plate having a second tab extending into the second slot in the base plate to support and arrange the second divider plate in a vertical orientation relative to the base plate in the interior.
Davidson teaches an analogous divider assembly including a base plate (26b), a first divider plate (46a) having a slot (40a), and a second divider plate (46b) having a slot (40b) that interlocks with the slot of the first divider plate. Davidson further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the base plate with slots (52a-52d), the first divider plate with tabs (36, 38), and the second divider plate with tabs (32, 34), wherein the tabs of the first divider plate and the tabs in the second divider plate are configured to extend into the slots of the base plate in order to support and stabilize the first and second divider plates in a vertical orientation (column 4 line 10-column 7 line 61 and Fig. 1-16). Davidson additionally teaches that the invention alternatively contemplates that as few as one pair of cooperating tabs and slots can be utilized (column 6 lines 11-20).
Chamberlin similarly teaches an analogous divider assembly including a base plate (14/80), a first divider plate (62) having a slot (66), and a second divider plate (60) having a slot (64) that interlocks with the slot of the first divider plate. Chamberlin further teaches a configuration having one pair of cooperating tabs and slots, wherein the base plates comprises a pair (first and second) of intersecting center slots (86), and the first and second divider plates comprise a central pair (first and second) of tabs (79), respectively, configured to extend into the pair of intersecting center slots (column 2 line 67-column 3 line 49 and Fig. 1-4, 7, 8, 10).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Wernz by alternatively configuring the base plate to include slots and by configuring the first and second divider plates to include tabs configured to extend into the slots of the base plate thereby arranging the first and second divider plates in a vertical orientation with respect to the base plate, as taught by Davidson, in order to stabilize and better support the divider plates on the base plate. It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the slots to include first and second intersecting center slots and to configure the tabs to include first and second center tabs configured to extend into the first and second intersecting center slots, as taught by Chamberlin, as it has been shown in the prior art that divider assemblies are known in the prior art to have various alternative configurations for assembling, supporting and stabilizing the divider assembly and thus, the substitution of one known slot and tab configuration for an alternative known slot and tab configuration to achieve the equivalent result of supporting and arranging the divider plates in a vertical orientation would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Wernz also fails to teach the first divider plate including the first tab having a first constant thickness, wherein the first slot has a first width that is less than the first constant thickness of the first divider plate (or wherein the first constant thickness is greater than the first width) such that the first tab is compressed when inserted into the first slot, and the second divider plate including the second tab having a second constant thickness, wherein the second slot has a second width that is less than the second thickness of the second divider plate (or wherein the second constant thickness is greater than the second width) such that the second tab is compressed when inserted into the second slot.
Yu teaches interlocking pieces having a constant thickness and analogous tabs (206, 214) and respective slots (204, 212) for receiving the tabs. Yu further teaches that it is known and desirable to configure the tabs and the slots to form a compression fit relation so that the tab can be snuggly fit and retained within the slot while also facilitating easier assembly and disassembly without the use of special tools (paragraphs 37, 41, 46, 47, 55).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Wernz, as modified by Davidson and Chamberlin, by configuring the first divider plate including the first tab with a first constant thickness, wherein the first slot has a first width that is less than the first constant thickness of the first divider plate (or wherein the first constant thickness is greater than the first width) such that the first tab is compressed when inserted into the first slot, and by configuring the second divider plate including the second tab with a second constant thickness, wherein the second slot has a second width that is less than the second thickness of the second divider plate (or wherein the second constant thickness is greater than the second width) such that the second tab is compressed when inserted into the second slot, as taught by Yu, so that the tab can be snuggly fit and retained within the slot while also facilitating easier assembly and disassembly without the use of special tools.
Regarding claim 2, Wernz as modified by Davidson, Chamberlin and Yu teaches the carrier of claim 1 above, wherein the first and second slots in the base plate intersect each other (Chamberlin: column 2 line 67-column 3 line 49 and Fig. 2, 10).
Regarding claim 3, Wernz as modified by Davidson, Chamberlin and Yu teaches the carrier of claim 1 above, wherein the first and second slots are perpendicular to each other (Chamberlin: column 2 line 67-column 3 line 49 and Fig. 2, 10).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Wernz as modified by Davidson, Chamberlin and Yu teaches the carrier of claims 1 and 15 above, wherein the first and second slots extend through the base plate from a top side to a bottom side of the base plate (Davidson: column 5 line 50-column 6 line 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Wernz as modified by Davidson, Chamberlin and Yu teaches the carrier of claims 1 and 15 above, wherein heights of the first and second tabs are equal to or less than a thickness of the base plate (Davidson: column 5 line 50-column 6 line 2).
Regarding claim 9, Wernz as modified by Davidson, Chamberlin and Yu teaches the carrier of claim 1 above, wherein the third slot has a third width that is greater than or equal to the second constant thickness of the second divider plate (Wernz: column 4 lines 39-45, Davidson: column 5 lines 9-20, Chamberlin: column 2 line 60-column 3 line 6). Although Wernz, Davidson and Chamberlin fail to expressly teach the third slot having a third width that is greater than or equal to the second constant thickness of the second divider plate, one skilled in the art would expect the third width of the third slot to be greater than or equal to the second constant thickness of the second divider plate in order for the third slot to be able to clear the second divider plate when the first and second divider plates are interlocked.
Regarding claim 10, Wernz as modified by Davidson, Chamberlin and Yu teaches the carrier of claim 9 above, wherein the fourth slot has a fourth width that is greater than or equal to the first constant thickness of the first divider plate (Wernz: column 4 lines 39-45, Davidson: column 5 lines 9-20, Chamberlin: column 2 line 60-column 3 line 6). Although Wernz, Davidson and Chamberlin fail to expressly teach the fourth slot having a fourth width that is greater than or equal to the first constant thickness of the first divider plate, one skilled in the art would expect the fourth width of the fourth slot to be greater than or equal to the first constant thickness of the first divider plate in order for the fourth slot to be able to clear the first divider plate when the first and second divider plates are interlocked.
Regarding claim 11, Wernz as modified by Davidson, Chamberlin and Yu teaches the carrier of claim 1 above, wherein the third slot of the first divider plate extends through the first tab (Chamberlin: Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Wernz as modified by Davidson, Chamberlin and Yu teaches the carrier of claim 1 above, wherein top edges of the first and second divider plates are substantially aligned (Wernz: Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Wernz as modified by Davidson, Chamberlin and Yu teaches the carrier of claim 1 above, wherein the bag has two handles (18) (Wernz: column 5 lines 51-53 and Fig. 2, 4, 7).
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wernz in view of Davidson, Chamberlin and Yu, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Ng (US 8,316,780 B2).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Wernz as modified by Davidson, Chamberlin and Yu teaches the carrier of claims 1 and 15 above, but fails to teach the base plate having a thickness that is double the first constant thickness of the first divider plate.
Ng teaches interlocking plates having analogous tabs and respective slots for receiving the tabs. Ng further teaches that the plate including the slots for receiving the tabs is known in the prior art to be reinforced with a double thickness in order to stiffen the plate and strengthen the engagement with the tabs (column 6 lines 53-65 and Fig. 18).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the respective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Wernz, as modified by Davidson and Chamberlin, by configuring the base plate to with a thickness that is double a thickness of the first divider plate, as suggested by Ng, in order to stiffen the base plate and strengthen the engagement of the base plate with the tabs.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wernz in view of Davidson, Chamberlin and Yu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ben Shalom (US 2016/0136536 A1, hereinafter Shalom).
Regarding claim 13, Wernz as modified by Davidson, Chamberlin and Yu teaches the carrier of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the base plate, the first divider plate and the second divider plate being constructed of ethylene vinyl acetate.
Shalom teaches plates having analogous assembly tabs and slots, wherein the slots are configured to receive the tabs. Shalom further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to form the plates of ethylene vinyl acetate such that the tabs and slots are compressible and thus, expand when interlocked to form a tight fit (paragraphs 30-55).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Wernz, as modified by Davidson and Chamberlin, by constructing the base plate, the first divider panel, and the second divider panel of ethylene vinyl acetate, as taught by Shalom, so that the tabs and slots can be tightly interlocked and as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground 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 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 NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM EST.
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.
/NINA K ATTEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734