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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He CN 207,106,284 U in view of Bosma et al. US 9,428,092 B2..
Regarding claim 1, He discloses: a receiving body (He Fig. 3 Annotated A) … for delimiting a receiving volume for at least one beverage container (He Fig. 3 Annotated A Receiving Volume), wherein the receiving body has a first fastener acting away from the receiving volume in a first direction (He Fig. 3 Annotated A First Fastener) … and a second fastener acting away from the receiving volume in a second direction opposite to the first direction (He Fig. 3 Annotated A Second Fastener) … , and wherein the first fastener and the second fastener are positioned at different heights in a Z-direction (He Fig. 3 Annotated A) and are substantially uniformly shaped (The examiner takes “substantially uniformly shaped” to mean that each individual fastener is uniform. A definition of “uniform” is having always has the same form, manner or degree: not varying or variable. Since the first fastener and the second fastener both have a consistent form, they are uniform).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, He fails to disclose a receiving body configured to be inserted in a recess of the central console, a first fastener … for fastening to the central console, and a second fastener … for fastening to the central console.
Bosma et al. discloses a receiving body configured to be inserted in a recess of the central console (Bosma et al. Figure 4 Annotated), a first fastener … for fastening to the central console (Bosma et al. Figure 4 Annotated), and a second fastener … for fastening to the central console (Bosma et al. Figure 4 Annotated).
PNG
media_image2.png
597
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Bosma et al. reference is considered to be relevant art, relative to the He reference and the examined application, because all three references are part of the same field of endeavor, the design of cupholders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first fastener and second fastener, as disclosed by He, to interface with a central console via a fastening method, as taught by Bosma et al. This modification to the fasteners would necessarily modify the receiving body, as disclosed by He, into a receiving body that is configured to interface with the central console, as taught by Bosma et al. The modification is obvious because replacing the simple fasteners of He with fasteners optimized for interfacing with a central console would make it easier to use the receiving body of He as a cupholder in a vehicle or another location where it would be convenient to easily attach and detach a cupholder.
Regarding claim 2, He, as modified by Bosma et al., discloses all of the limitations of claim 2: The cup holder according to claim 1, wherein the first fastener and the second fastener are shaped as fastening projections projecting substantially in an X-direction (He Figure 1 Annotated. There is nothing stopping the cupholder from assuming an arbitrary orientation relative to the vehicle. Therefore, the examiner establishes that the two fasteners follow the X direction defined in the specification) for insertion into a corresponding fastening opening of the central console (Bosma et al. Figure 4 Annotated).
PNG
media_image3.png
377
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, He, as modified by Bosma et al., discloses all of the limitations of claim 3: The cup holder according to claim 1, wherein the first fastener and the second fastener are positioned laterally offset in a plan view in the Z-direction relative to a center line of the receiving volume (He Figure 3 Annotated B).
PNG
media_image4.png
537
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, He, as modified by Bosma et al., discloses all of the limitations of claim 11: The cup holder according to claim 3, wherein the first fastener and the second fastener are positioned point-symmetrically in the plan view in the Z-direction relative to the center line of the receiving volume (He Figure 3 Annotated B).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He CN 207,106,284 U and Bosma as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
The limitations of claim 4 are as follows: The cup holder according to claim 1, wherein the receiving volume is shaped to receive at least two beverage containers provided one behind the other in an X-direction. The receiving volume of He is shaped to receive only one beverage container instead of the two claimed. However, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) indicates that the mere duplication parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Modifying the receiving volume to form a shape that can accommodate at least two beverage containers arranged behind each other produces an expected result, two cylindrical volumes arranged in a line. It is well known that cupholders in cars often have two cylindrical volumes placed one after another in various directions. Therefore, the required modification to He is not new and unexpected as it is a mere duplication of parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement for reasons for allowance:
Claim 5 defines a cup holder arrangement for a motor vehicle, comprising: a central console forming a recess; and the cup holder according to claim 1 detachably inserted in the recess, wherein the central console comprises a fastening mechanism as well as a lower fastening contour and a higher fastening contour, wherein, in a lowered position of the cup holder, the first fastener cooperates with the fastening mechanism and the second fastener cooperates with the lower fastening contour, and wherein, in a raised position of the cup holder, the second fastener cooperates with the fastening mechanism and the first fastener cooperates with the higher fastening contour. This material is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, while the combination of He CN 207,106,284 U and Bosma et al. US 9,428,092 B2 teach a cupholder with an upper and lower fastener, they do not teach a center console with the required fastening mechanism, the required upper and lower contours or the separate raised and lowered positions. Furthermore, after a thorough search the examiner did not find any center console containing a mechanism that could have acted as prior art either alone or in combination with the aforementioned references.
Claims 6-10 are allowed because they depend on claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL R SACKINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-0840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. 6 p.m. ET..
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/G.R.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights