DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed 5/8/2024.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-12 are hereby examined below.
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
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4, lines 2-3 recites “a rod providing with”. Examiner presumes this should read – a rod provided with – .
Claim 12, lines 1-2 recite “comprising a multi slot compartment for accommodating a plurality of containers according to claim 8”. Examiner presumes this should this read -- comprising the multi slot compartment for accommodating a plurality of containers according to claim 8 --.
Claim 12 recites “comprises at least one separating element and an operating element” in lines 3-4. Examiner presumes this should read -- comprises the at least one separating element and the operating element—
Claim 12, lines 5-6 recites “adapted to move from a first condition to a second condition”. Examiner presumes this should read – adapted to moved from the first condition to the second condition --.
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 6, 8 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 6 states that the second engagement element is an engagement axis. It is unclear how an axis can be a physical element as an axis is an imaginary line about which something rotates.
Claim 8 recites “a plurality of containers” and “respective containers”. It is unclear if these are referring to the same or different elements.
Claims are being examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1,3-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)as being anticipated by Marley US 2024/0253785.
In regard to claim 1, Marley ‘785 discloses a removable T-divider (200, Fig. 2B) for separating spaces in a multi-slot compartment for accommodating a plurality of containers, the T-divider comprising at least one separating element (208, Fig.2B) and an operating element (220, Fig. 2B), wherein the at least one separating element (208) is coupled to the operating element (220) and is adapted to move from a first condition (down, Fig. 1E) to a second condition (down, Fig. 1F), wherein the at least one separating element is adapted to (functional language) prevent transverse movements of at least one of the containers, when the at least one separating element is in the first condition, and wherein the at least one separating element is adapted to allow transverse movement of at least one of the containers, when the at least one separating element is in the second condition, and wherein the at least one separating element is removed in the second condition. (per applicant’s definition in paragraph [0012] the separating element is removed when up so that the trolley will not contact it)
In regard to claim 3, Marley ‘785 disclose wherein the at least one separating element (208) is coupled to the operating element (220) such that the operating element (218) is translationally moving while the at least one separating element is rotationally moving. (Figs. 5A and 5B show 220 moving linearly while being rotated. (paragraph [0048])
In regard to claim 4, Marley ‘785 discloses wherein the operating element (220) is a rod providing with a first engagement element (218) and wherein the separating element (208) is pivotable about a rotation axis and comprises a second engagement element (216).
In regard to claim 5, Marley ‘785 discloses wherein the first engagement element (218) is a protrusion and the second engagement (216) element is a recess, wherein the protrusion is configured to be received in the recess.
As best understood, in regard to claim 6, Marley ‘785 disclose wherein the first engagement element (218) is a lever and the second engagement element (218) is an engagement axis, wherein the engagement axis is at the separating element at a distance to the rotation axis (201) of the separating element and wherein the lever (fomed by 218) engages the engagement axis (of 218).
In regard to claim 7, Marley ‘785 discloses wherein the operating element (220) is coupled to the separating element (208) at an engagement axis (201, Fig. 2C) and wherein a fixed abutment element (202) is adapted to cause a rotational movement (within the hole where 218 is mounted) of the separating element (208) about the engagement axis.
In regard to claim 8, Marley ‘785 discloses a multi-slot compartment (100, Fig. 1C) for accommodating a plurality of containers (106,108 Fig. 1C), wherein the multi-slot compartment comprises a plate (shown below) defining an upper limit of the multi-slot compartment, and a removable T-divider (200) arranged at a lower surface of the plate so that the T-divider separates spaces for respective containers (106,108), the removable T-divider comprising at least one separating element (208) and an operating element (220), wherein the at least one separating element (208) is coupled to the operating element (220) and is adapted to move from a first condition (down) to a second condition (up), wherein the at least one separating element (208) is adapted to prevent transverse movements of at least one of the containers (106,108) when the at least one separating element (208) is in the first condition (down), and wherein the at least one separating element is adapted to allow transverse movement of at least one of the containers (106,108), when the at least one separating element (208) is in the second condition (up), and wherein the at least one separating element is removed in the second condition (per applicant’s definition in paragraph [0012] the separating element is removed when up so that the trolley will not contact it).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
371
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 9, Marley ‘785 discloses wherein the removable T-divider (200) is arranged at the plate such that an end portion of the operating element (220) 9 is located at an edge portion of the plate.
In regard to claim 11, Marley ‘785 discloses an extension element provided at the lower surface of the plate in extension of a longitudinal direction of the operating element, wherein the extension element is configured to separate spaces for respective containers.
PNG
media_image2.png
426
384
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.
Claims 2, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marley US 2024/0253785.
In regard to claim 2, Marley ‘785 discloses wherein the T-divider comprises a single separating element (208). Marley ‘785 fails to disclose a plurality of separating elements, wherein each of the plurality of separating elements is coupled to the operating element and is adapted to move simultaneously from the first condition to the second condition.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Marley ‘785 to make the single separating element be formed as a plurality of separating elements for the purpose of using less material to save weight or lower cost. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
In regard to claim 10, Marley ‘785 fails to disclose wherein the multi-slot compartment comprises a plurality of removable T-dividers.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Marley ‘785 to include a plurality of T-dividers for the purpose of providing more storage capabilities. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regard to claim 12, Marley ‘785 discloses an aircraft (paragraph [0001]) comprising a multi-slot compartment (100) for accommodating a plurality of containers according to claim 8, wherein the removable T-divider of the multi-slot compartment comprises at least one separating element (208) and an operating element (220), wherein the at least one separating element (208) is coupled to the operating element (220) and is adapted to move from a first condition (down) to a second condition (up), wherein the at least one separating element (208) is adapted to prevent transverse movements of at least one of the containers (106,108), when the at least one separating element (208) is in the first condition (down), and wherein the at least one separating element (208) is adapted to allow transverse movement of at least one of the containers (106,108), when the at least one separating element (208) is in the second condition (up0, wherein the at least one separating element is removed in the second condition.
Marley ‘785 fails to disclose wherein the T-divider comprises a plurality of separating elements, wherein each of the plurality of separating elements is coupled to the operating element and is adapted to move simultaneously from the first condition to the second condition. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Marley ‘785 to make the single separating element be formed as a plurality of separating elements for the purpose of using less material to save weight or lower cost. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
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 JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634