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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention 1, Species B in the reply filed on 9/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-7, 12, and 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/25/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarnowsky et al. (US 2008/0079388, hereinafter ‘Sarnowsky’).
Sarnowsky discloses a system comprising: a cupholder (12) of a vehicle configured to receive and provide power to an accessory device (30), the cupholder comprising electrical contacts (64) configured to engage electrical contacts (66) of the accessory device; and control circuitry capable of determining whether to provide power to the electrical contacts of the cupholder (power supplies, para 0028).
Sarnowsky further discloses the cupholder further comprises: a retaining frame forming a cup well to secure sides of the accessory device (14s, Fig. 7); and a movable base to support the bottom of the accessory device (16), wherein: the movable base is movable in relation to the retaining frame (functional recitation, base 16 slides, arms 14 pivot); and the electrical contacts of the cupholder are disposed in the movable base (see Fig. 7); the control circuitry is capable of providing the power to the electrical contacts of the cupholder for a predetermined amount of time (functional recitation); and the control circuitry is configured to provide the power to the electrical contacts of the cupholder until the accessory device is fully charged (functional recitation); and the control circuitry of the system is communicatively coupled to vehicle control circuitry that performs vehicle functions; and the vehicle control circuitry provides the power from the vehicle to the electrical contacts.
Regarding claim 15, in light of the claims failing to require the accessory device itself as part of the structural limitations of the claims, further details as to what the accessory device is are not patentably defining.
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) 9-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarnowsky et al. (US 2008/0079388, hereinafter ‘Sarnowsky’) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Marcusen (US 5171061).
Sarnowsky discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the base moving towards and away from the retaining frame as claimed.
However, Marcusen teaches a retractable cup holder wherein the movable base (70)is configured to: move towards the retaining frame (20) when the cupholder is retracted into a compartment of the vehicle; and move away from the retaining frame when the cupholder is extended from the compartment; and the movable base is configured to stow inside the retaining frame when stowed in the compartment (Fig. 3; col. 3, ll. 45 – col. 4, ll. 6).
Because Sarnowsky and Marcusen both teach retractable cup holders, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the retractable base cupholder structure taught by Marcusen for the pivotable retaining frame cupholder structure taught by Sarnowsky to achieve the predictable result of allowing the cupholder to retract and stow within a compartment as taught by both references.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarnowsky et al. (US 2008/0079388, hereinafter ‘Sarnowsky’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowles et al. (US 2023/0411998, hereinafter ‘Bowles’).
Sarnowsky discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the sealing element as claimed.
However, Bowles teaches providing a similar device with a sealing element (24) surrounding at least one electrical contact of the cupholder, wherein the sealing element is configured to form a seal between the cupholder and the accessory device when the accessory device is retained.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the seal taught by Bowles to the cupholder taught by Sarnowsky, in order to provide a water-tight seal around the charging element as taught by Bowles (para 0033).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
November 22, 2025
Prosecution Insights