DETAILED ACTION
The following Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 5/18/2026.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-12 are hereby examined below.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 has the word ‘removed’ in quotation marks. It is unclear what is meant by placing quotation marks around this word.
Claims are 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 1,3-4,8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vlaming US 10,974,901.
In regard to claim 1, Vlaming ‘901 discloses a removable T-divider for separating spaces in a multi-slot compartment for accommodating a plurality of containers, the T-divider comprising at least one separating element (14, Fig.1) and an operating element (20,16 Fig. 1) that extends along a longitudinal axis (left to right in the Figures) of the removable T-divider, wherein the at least one separating element (14) is coupled to the operating element (20,16) and is adapted to pivot between a first condition (down, Fig. 2) and a second condition (up, Fig. 4), wherein the at least one separating element (14) 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, wherein the at least one separating element (14) is adapted to allow transverse movement of at least one container of the plurality of containers, when the at least one separating element is in the second condition, wherein the at least one separating element is removed (up) 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), and wherein the at least one separating element (14) pivots, relative to the operating element about an axis (of hinge pin 38, Fig. 8) perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the removable T-divider.
In regard to claim 3, Vlaming ‘901 disclose wherein the at least one separating element (14) is coupled to the operating element (20,16) such that the operating element (20,16) is translationally moving while the at least one separating element (16) is rotationally moving (shown in Figs. 5 and 6).
In regard to claim 4, Vlaming ‘901discloses wherein the operating element (20,16) is a rod providing with a first engagement element (which engages 36b when 16 is pulled) and wherein the separating element (14) is pivotable about a rotation axis (at 38) and comprises a second engagement element (36b).
In regard to claim 8, Vlaming ‘901 discloses a multi-slot compartment (106, Fig. 3) for (functional language) accommodating a plurality of containers, the multi-slot compartment comprising a plate (44, Fig. 3) defining an upper limit of the multi-slot compartment, and a removable T-divider (10) arranged at a lower surface of the plate so that the removable T-divider separates spaces for respective containers of the plurality of containers, the removable T-divider comprising at least one separating element (14) and an operating element (20,16) that extends along a longitudinal axis of the removable T-divider, wherein the at least one separating element (14) is coupled to the operating element (20,16) and is adapted to pivot between a first condition (down) and a second condition (up), wherein the at least one separating element (14) is adapted to prevent transverse movements of the at least one of the container of the plurality of containers when the at least one separating element (14) is in the first condition (down), and wherein the at least one separating element (14) is adapted to allow transverse movement of the at least one of the containers when the at least one separating element (14) is in the second condition (up), wherein the at least one separating element (14) is removed in the second condition such that a trolley can move transverse to the removable T-divider without contacting the removable T-divider (per applicant’s definition in paragraph [0012] the separating element is removed when up so that the trolley will not contact it), and wherein the at least one separating element (14) pivots, relative to the operating elements, about an axis (at 38) that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the removable T-divider.
In regard to claim 9, Vlaming ‘901 discloses wherein the removable T-divider is arranged at the plate (44) such that an end portion (at 20) of the operating element (20,16) is located at an edge portion of the plate (shown in Fig. 3).
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, 5-7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlaming US 10,974,901.
In regard to claim 2, Vlaming ‘901 discloses wherein the T-divider comprises a single separating element (14). Vlaming ‘901 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, to modify the device of Vlaming ‘901 to make include a plurality of separating elements for the purpose of providing multiple holding elements for multiple containers. 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 claims 5,6 and 7 Vlaming ‘901 fails to specifically disclose wherein the first engagement element is a protrusion and the second engagement element is a recess, wherein the protrusion is configured to be received in the recess, wherein the first engagement element is a lever and the second engagement element is an engagement axis, wherein the engagement axis is at the separating element at a distance to the rotation axis of the separating element and wherein the lever engages the engagement axis, or wherein the operating element is coupled to the separating element at an engagement axis and wherein a fixed abutment element is adapted to cause a rotational movement of the separating element about the engagement axis, however, the Examiner takes Official Notice that such mechanisms are old and well known for the purpose of converting a linear motion into a rotation, and one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would known to use such based on a desired size or strength of the device desired.
In regard to claim 10, Vlaming ‘901 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, to modify the device of Vlaming ‘901 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, Vlaming ‘901 discloses an aircraft (column 1, lines 15-16) comprising the multi-slot compartment (as taught above in claim 8) for accommodating a plurality of containers according to claim 8, wherein the at least one separating element (14) is coupled to the operating element (16,20) and is adapted to move between the first condition (down) and the second condition (up), wherein the one separating element (14) is adapted to prevent transverse movements of at least one container, when in the first condition (down), and wherein the at least one separating element (14) is adapted to allow transverse movement of at least one container, when in the second condition (up), wherein the at least one separating element is removed in the second condition.
Vlaming ‘901 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, to modify the device of Vlaming ‘901 to make include a plurality of separating elements for the purpose of providing multiple holding elements for multiple containers. 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlaming US 10,974,901 in view of Marley US 2024/0253785.
In regard to claim 11, Vlaming ‘901 fails to disclose 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.
Marley ‘785 discloses an extension element (shown below) 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_image1.png
426
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an extension element as taught by Marley ‘785 for the purpose of diving the storage area for more containers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Newly applied reference Vlaming ‘901 teaches the claimed limitations as now amended.
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.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights