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 3-5, 11-12, 14-15 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.
Claim 3, lines 2-3, states “the divider comprises a first side that faces the first end of the receptacle and a second side that faces the second end of the receptacle” but first side as stated in the specification refers to 112 which is perpendicular to the divider and second side as stated in the specification refers to 114 which is perpendicular to the divider and faces the first side. Thus, this claim is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 4 and 5 have dependencies on Claim 3 and therefore, are also, rejected under the 112(b) rejection. Claim 11, lines 3 and 5 also states “a first diameter between a first side of a divider and a first end of the receptacle” and “a second diameter between a second side of the divider and a second end of the receptacle”. Claims 12, 14, and 15 have dependencies on Claim 11 and therefore, are also, rejected under the 112(b) rejection. For the purposes of examination below, the Office interprets “a first side” and “a second side” as “a front side” and “a rear side”, respectively, as stated in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-5, 16, 19-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terry et al. (US 7510158 B1).
Re Claim 1, Terry et al discloses, an adjustable cup holder assembly (Abstract, Fig. 1: 10), comprising:
a receptacle (Fig. 5: 14; Para 14) extending along a first axis (Fig. 5: as seen annotated);
a first rail (Fig. 4A: 34; Para 15) arranged in the receptacle and parallel to the first axis;
a divider (Fig. 5: 20; Para 15) arranged in the receptacle and movable along the first axis, the divider defining a first compartment (Fig. 5: 15A; Para 14) and a second compartment (Fig. 5: 15B; Para 14) in the receptacle;
a second rail (Fig. 4A: 32; Para 15) arranged in the divider along a second axis (Fig. 5: as seen annotated) that is perpendicular to the first axis;
a base (Fig. 4A: 80; Para 18) arranged in the receptacle and movable with respect to the second axis;
a first mechanism (Fig. 4A: 58; Para 16) coupled to the divider and the first rail (as seen in Fig. 4A), the first mechanism being configured to adjust the divider with respect to the first axis (the first mechanism slides along the first rail with respect to the longitudinal axis to move the divider); and
a second mechanism (Fig. 4A: 72; Para 17) coupled to the base and the second rail (as seen in Fig. 4A), the second mechanism being configured to adjust the base with respect to the second axis (the knob moves up and down along the second rail with respect to the vertical axis).
Re Claim 2, Terry et al. discloses, the receptacle comprises a floor (Fig. 5: as seen annotated) and a continuous wall defining a first end (Fig. 5: 14A; Para 14) and a second end (Fig. 5: 14B; Para 14), the first end being opposite the second end with respect to the first axis (as seen in Fig. 5).
Re Claim 3, Terry et al. discloses, the divider comprises a first side (“a front side” – Fig. 5: as seen annotated) that faces the first end of the receptacle and a second side (“a rear side” – Fig. 5: as seen annotated) that faces the second end of the receptacle (The examiner is interpreting “a first side” as “a front side” and “a second side” as “a rear side” in accordance with the specification).
Re Claim 4, Terry et al. discloses, the first compartment (Fig. 5: 15A; Para 14) is defined between the first side (the front side) and the first end and the second compartment (Fig. 5: 15B; Para 14) is defined between the second side (the rear side) and the second end.
Re Claim 5, Terry et al. discloses, the divider is movable so that a first diameter (Fig. 5: as seen annotated; Para 16) of the first compartment is larger than, smaller than, or the same size as a second diameter (Fig. 5: as seen annotated; Para 16 – size of the compartments can be adjusted thereby changing the diameter) of the second compartment.
Re Claim 16, Terry et al. discloses, a method for adjusting a depth and a width within a cup holder (base 80 along with the second mechanism 72 adjusts the depth while first rail 34 along with first mechanism 58 adjusts the width within a cup holder), comprising:
actuating a first interface (Fig. 4A: 22; Para 15) to adjust a diameter of a first compartment (Fig. 5: 15A; Para 14) and a second compartment (Fig. 5: 15B; Para 14);
actuating a second interface (Fig. 4A: as seen annotated; Para 15) to adjust a depth of a first compartment (Fig. 5: 15A; Para 14) and a second compartment (Fig. 5: 15B; Para 14); and
positioning a container (Para 18) within the first compartment or the second compartment.
Re Claim 19, Terry et al. discloses, actuating the first interface (Fig. 4A: 22; Para 15) further comprises axially moving a divider with respect to a longitudinal axis (as seen in Fig. 4A and 5).
Re Claim 20, Terry et al. discloses, actuating the second interface (Fig. 4A: as seen annotated; Para 15) further comprises axially moving a base with respect to a vertical axis (as seen in Fig. 4A).
PNG
media_image1.png
859
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Terry et al. (US 7510158 B1)
PNG
media_image2.png
870
1043
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 4A of Terry et al. (US 7510158 B1)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10, 13 and 17-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-5, 11-12, 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 6-7 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to the dials mechanism configured to adjust the divider and the base. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, Terry et al, do not teach or suggest the dials as claimed. There is no suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make such a modification to the device of Terry et al.
The reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 8-9 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to a third axis and mechanisms containing two bevel gears and a worm gear coupled to the bevel gear. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. While the closest prior art of record, Terry et al, disclose gears, Terry et al. do not teach or suggest the third axis or gears in conjunction with the mechanisms as claimed. There is no suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make such a modification to the device of Terry et al.
The reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 10 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to the pads comprised within the base. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, Terry et al, do not teach or suggest the pads as claimed. There is no suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make such a modification to the device of Terry et al.
The reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 11-15 & 17-18 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to the dial openings and dials. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, Terry et al, do not teach or suggest the dial openings and dials as claimed. There is no suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make such a modification to the device of Terry et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The cited references all disclose an adjustable vehicle cup holder:
Pabalate (US 11260785 B1) discloses an adjustable cup holder that is disposed in the front as well as in the rear of the vehicle between the seats.
Clark (US 20210309138 A1) discloses a cup holder that can be adjusted in the upward and downward direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASMINE J THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JASMINE JAMES THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612 July 28, 2026
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights