DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions. 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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the reverse crowned surface being formed of a removable rim component affixed to the top side of the tray as recited in claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5 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 5 recites “the top side of the tray comprising a reversed crowned surface [via parent claim 1] . . . wherein the reverse crowned surface is formed of a removable rim component affixed to the top side of the tray.” It is unclear as to whether the reversed crown surface is formed on the top side of the tray or on the removable rim. As such, the limitation renders the claim as indefinite.
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 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) 1-5, 7, 8, 11-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2013/0307470 A1; “Watanabe”).
Regarding claim 1:
An ergonomic device (assembly depicted in FIG. 8A) comprising:
a tray (C) that comprises a top side (side opposite surface at reference number 82 in FIG. 8A), a bottom side (surface at 82 in FIG. 8A), a front side (left surface of tray C as seen in FIG. 7), a rear side (right surface of tray C as seen in FIG. 7), a left side (C1 in FIG. A below), and a right side (C2 in FIG. A below), the top side of the tray comprises a reverse crowned surface (vertical side walls of lid 81 as seen in at least FIG. 8A form a type of reverse crown surface; FIG. A below depicts at least a left side C1 right side C2 upturned to form a reverse crown surface; alternatively, FIG. A below depicts at least a left side C3 right side C4 upturned to form a reverse crown surface),
PNG
media_image1.png
593
1128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIGURE A: Annotated view of Watanabe
an inductive charging plate (56; FIG. 5);
a mount assembly (47 in FIG. 3; 130-133, 40 in FIG. 21) configured to attach to a handlebar (10; see attachment means in FIG. 3-4) of a bicycle (intended use); and
an interface element (102, 103, 63, 64 in FIG. 8A; 137, 138 in FIG. 21) that comprises a locking mechanism (102, 103, 63, 64, 137, 138) to attach the tray to the mount assembly via the locking mechanism (¶ 99, ¶ 136).
Regarding claim 2:
The ergonomic device of claim 1, wherein the inductive charging plate is affixed to the bottom side of the tray (FIG. 8A depicts the inductive charging plate to be connected to the bottom side of the tray so as to effect wireless charging via receiving element 160 which is mounted within the bottoms side of the tray; see ¶ 98).
Regarding claim 3:
The ergonomic device of claim 1, wherein the inductive charging plate is integrated within the interface element (depicted in FIG. 8B).
Regarding claim 4:
The ergonomic device of claim 1, wherein one or more of the front side, the left side, and the right side are upturned to form the reversed crowned surface (vertical side walls of lid 81 as seen in at least FIG. 8A form a type of reverse crown surface; FIG. A below depicts at least a left side C1 right side C2 upturned to form a reverse crown surface; alternatively, FIG. A below depicts at least a left side C3 right side C4 upturned to form a reverse crown surface).
Regarding claim 5:
The ergonomic device of claim 1, wherein the reverse crowned surface is formed of a removable rim component affixed to the top side of the tray (FIG. A below depicts at least a left side C3 right side C4 upturned to form a reverse crown surface, both of which are located on a removable rim component 81; see ¶ 85).
Regarding claim 7:
The ergonomic device of claim 1, wherein the interface element is formed of a cylindrical structure (FIG. 4 reasonably depicts/discloses the portion at 62 being cylindrical; see MPEP § 2125) that includes one or more tab elements (63, 64).
Regarding claim 8:
The ergonomic device of claim 1, wherein the interface element is affixed upon the bottom side of the tray (via engagement between elements 63, 64 and locking slots 102, 103, respectively, see FIG. 8A; ¶ 98).
Regarding claim 11:
The ergonomic device of claim 1, wherein the mount assembly comprises a first end (upper end/side) and a second end (lower end/side), and wherein the first end is configured to attach to the interface element of the tray (via elements 63, 64), and the second end comprises a retention element (40, 45, see in FIG. 3) to attach the mount assembly to the handlebar of the bicycle (¶ 59).
Regarding claim 12:
The ergonomic device of claim 11, wherein the retention element comprises a clamping mechanism (FIG. 3 depicts clamp portions 41L, 42L to be clamped by bolts 45).
Regarding claim 13:
The ergonomic device of claim 1, further comprising a riser structure (40) that comprises a first end and a second end, the first end configured to attach to the interface element of the tray (depicted in FIG. 4, 8A), and the second end configured to attach to the mount assembly (via bolts 45; ¶ 60).
Regarding claim 15:
The ergonomic device of claim 1, further comprising a backstop element (vertical portion on the right-hand side of the left-hand as seen in FIG. 8A) mounted proximate to the rear side of the tray and extending upwards to form a backboard (said vertical portion can serve as a backwall/backboard).
Regarding claim 16:
The ergonomic device of claim 15, wherein the backstop element comprises a mounting tab that comprises a series of mounting holes that align with a corresponding set of mounting holes dispersed along the bottom side of the tray (holes that accommodate hinge shaft 85, see ¶ 85).
Regarding claim 17:
The ergonomic device of claim 1, wherein the interface element comprises an interface (60B) to receive a charging cable (68) to supply power to the inductive charging plate (¶ 77).
Regarding claim 18:
The ergonomic device of claim 1, wherein the interface element comprises a rotatable mount (60a) that enables rotation of the ergonomic device when installed on the mount assembly (¶64).
Regarding claim 19:
The ergonomic device of claim 1, wherein the top side of the tray comprises a planar surface (FIG. 8A reasonably depicts/discloses the upper surface of body 80 being planar; see MPEP § 2125) is that includes provisions to attach a removable rim (FIG. 15 depicts hole structure that accommodates hinge 85 to attached the removable rim 81; FIG. 16 depicts structures 89, 90 that accommodate locked piece 92 of the removable rim 81).
Regarding claim 20:
The ergonomic device of claim 1, wherein the interface element is affixed to the bottom side of the tray by one or more mounting pins (140; ¶ 136), and further comprises a protrusion configured to lock into a coupling of the mount assembly (135 into portion 134 of mount assembly 130-133, 40).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Yun (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 20190154190 A1; “Yun”).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 1, see above, including more than one type of locking mechanism (FIG. 21 depicts a locking mechanism different from that of FIG. 22) but does not expressly disclose that the locking mechanism includes a quarter turn locking mechanism.
Yun teaches a locking mechanism including a quarter turn locking mechanism as being one among several suitable attachment mechanisms (¶ [0015], “a plurality of different types of attachment portions 108 (e.g., utilizing quarter turn mount, eighth tum mount, rotational mount, screw mount, sliding mount, or any other suitable attachment mechanism) may be coupled to support portion 106 for attachment of two or more accessories to accessory mount 102.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Watanabe such that the locking mechanism includes a quarter turn locking mechanism, as taught by Yun, as it is one among several suitable attachment mechanisms.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Fang (U.S. P.G. Publication No. 2022/0142336); “Fang”).
Regarding claims 9-10, Watanabe discloses the limitations of claim 1, see above, but does not expressly disclose an elastic strap element affixed above the top side of the tray and disposed between the left side and the right side of the tray, wherein the elastic strap element is bonded to the top surface of the tray.
Fang teaches an elastic strap element (26) affixed above the top side of the crowned surface of the tray and disposed between the left side and the right side of the tray (¶ [0027], “An elastic fixing strap 26 for a mobile phone is respectively fused to two sides, which correspond to the mobile phone screen window 201, at the lower end of the bag cover 20, and the hook and loop 261 (e.g., a hook-and-loop fastener) which are adhered to each other are arranged at the ends of the two elastic fixing straps 26 for the mobile phone.”) wherein the elastic strap element is bonded to the top surface of the tray ((¶ [0027], “An elastic fixing strap 26 for a mobile phone is respectively fused to two sides, which correspond to the mobile phone screen window 201” the term “fused” indicating bonding) as a means to fix a device such as a mobile device to the tray (¶ 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Watanabe to include an elastic strap element affixed above the top side of the tray and disposed between the left side and the right side of the tray, wherein the elastic strap element is bonded to the top surface of the tray, as taught by Fang, as a means to fix a device such as a mobile device to the tray.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe.
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe discloses the ergonomic device of claim 1, see above, and further including an elastic pad (95) applied upon the top side of the tray (depicted in FIG. 15). However, it does not expressly disclose the elastic pad being made from a foam material. In certain circumstances where appropriate, an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on "common knowledge" in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). Here, the Examiner takes official notice that an elastic pad being made from a foam material is instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad to be made from a foam material as such combination of elements are instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide elastic pad being made from a foam material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that FIG. 10 depicts the subject matter of claim 5 and therefore the drawing objection thereto should be withdrawn. Remarks at 5. In response, FIG. 10 does not depict that the reverse crown is formed of a removable component affixed to the top of the tray as recited in claim 5. As such, Applicant’s argument is not deemed as persuasive.
Applicant argues that Watanabe does not expressly disclose a “reversed crowned surface” as claimed. Remarks at 7, 8-9. In response, FIG. A above depicts that vertical side walls of lid 81 form a type of reverse crown surface. In particular, FIG. A below depicts at least a left side C1 right side C2 upturned to form a reverse crown surface; or alternatively FIG. A below depicts at least a left side C3 right side C4 upturned to form a reverse crown surface. As such, Applicant’s argument is not deemed as persuasive.
Applicant argues that Watanabe does not disclose the claimed reverse crowned surface. Remarks at 7. Specifically, Applicant argues that “Applicant's reverse crowned surface is specifically designed for bicycle tray functionality - containing and securing objects during movement, vibration, and stationary bicycle training, while Watanabe's lid walls 81 function solely as a phone case protective cover with no containment functionality whatsoever.” Remarks at 7. In response, these claimed functions are functionally inherent features of the device taught in Watanabe. Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP § 2112 and 2114. In this case, Watanabe discloses upturned portions C1, C2, C3, and C4 as seen in FIG. A above which are capable of containing objects such as a phone. See also MPEP § 2114 regarding functionally inherent features in the prior art. Accordingly, Watanabe indeed discloses a “reversed crowned surface” as claimed. Applicant’s argument is not deemed persuasive.
Applicant argues that Watanabe does not expressly disclose that Watanabe discloses an information terminal case being an enclosing container designed to house and protect a single specific device and not a platform structure to hold or support objects upon its surface. Remarks at 8. In response, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., capable of holding multiple objects rather than a single specific device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP § 2112 and 2114. In this case, one of ordinary skill would understand that Watanabe’s device is capable of acting as a tray to hold smaller items, e.g. different from a smartphone, that fit within it (e.g. credit card, money, ID, coins etc). As such, Applicant’s argument is not deemed persuasive.
Applicant argues that Watanabe’s device is directed to motorcycle applications and not bicycles. . In response, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., use with a motorcycle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP § 2112 and 2114. In this case, one of ordinary skill would understand that Watanabe’s device is capable of being mounted on a bicycle handlebar. As such, Applicant’s argument is not deemed persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)270-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 John Olszewski can be reached on (571) 272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656