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 .
This is a final Office Action for serial number 18/822,247, Object Holding Device, filed on September 1, 2024. (Provisional – September 2, 2023).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,402,974 to Adams.
Regarding claim 1, Adams ‘974 discloses an object holding device (Fig. 8) comprising: a base (16) having a holder side (front) and an attachment side (back); an attachment feature (suction cup) on the attachment side; a holder (24) protruding from the holder side; wherein the holder forms a retention area (28) configured to hold an object, and wherein the holder includes two or more petals (26) protruding from the holder side of the base, and wherein the petals are spaced apart from one another to define the retention area (28).
However, Adams ‘974 (Fig. 8) fails to disclose wherein each of the two or more petals has a gripping feature configured to contact and aid in retaining an object in place when positioned in the retention area. Nevertheless, Adams ‘974 – different embodiment, Fig. 10, discloses a gripping feature comprises a plurality of protrusions (38) that protrude from an inward facing surface of a part of the holder. Accordingly, 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 holder of Adams ‘974 – Fig. 8 to include the protrusions (Fig. 10) because one would have a motivation to provide the petals to mate to further secure when the holder is in the closed position as taught by Adams ‘974 – Fig. 10.
Regarding claim 2, Adams ‘974 discloses wherein the attachment feature is a suction cup (16) configured to retain the base attached to a surface via suction,
Regarding claims 5-6, Adams ‘974 discloses wherein the petals are two or four with spaced equidistant apart from one another on the holder side of the base and wherein each petal has an inward facing surface facing toward the other petals, but not exactly three petals. Accordingly, 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 petals of Adams ‘974 with three petals since applicant has not disclosed that three petals solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the three or four petals.
Regarding claim 7, Adams ‘974 discloses wherein at least part of the inward facing surface of each petal is concave (cross-section - see Fig. 3) in a direction toward the other petals.
Regarding claim 9, Adams ‘974 – different embodiment, Fig. 10, discloses wherein the gripping feature comprises a plurality of protrusions (38) that protrude from an inward facing surface of a part of the holder.
Regarding claim 10, Adams ‘974 discloses wherein the petals are two or four with spaced equidistant apart from one another on the holder side of the base and wherein each petal has an inward facing surface facing toward the other petals, but not exactly three petals. Accordingly, 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 petals of Adams ‘974 with three petals since applicant has not disclosed that three petals solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the three or four petals.
Regarding claim 11, Adams ‘974 discloses wherein the base and holder are an integral one-piece molded structure (spec. col. 3, lns 40-42).
Regarding claim 12, Adams ‘974 discloses wherein the object holding device is made from a resilient material (spec. col. 3, lns 40-42).
Regarding claim 13, Adams ‘974 discloses wherein the base is a circular shape (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, Adams ‘974 discloses wherein the base is configured to define a suction cup (16) as the attachment feature.
Regarding claim 15, Adams ‘974 discloses wherein the retention area (28) of the holder is configured to hold an object like a luffa.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams ‘974 in view of U.S. Design Patent No. D886,489 to Prommel et al. (Prommel).
Regarding claim 3, Adams ‘974 fails to disclose wherein the attachment side comprises a release tab. Nevertheless, Prommel ‘489 discloses suction tooth brush holder with a release tab (Fig. 1). Accordingly, 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 attachment side of Adams ‘974 with a release tab as taught by Prommel ‘489 because one would have motivation to removing the suction with the fingers at ease.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Adams ‘974 (Fig. 8) fails to disclose wherein each of the two or more petals has a gripping feature configured to contact and aid in retaining an object in place when positioned in the retention area. Nevertheless, Adams ‘974 – different embodiment, Fig. 10, discloses a gripping feature comprises a plurality of protrusions (38) that protrude from an inward facing surface of a part of the holder. Accordingly, 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 holder of Adams ‘974 – Fig. 8 to include the protrusions (Fig. 10) because one would have a motivation to provide the petals to mate to further secure when the holder is in the closed position as taught by Adams ‘974 – Fig. 10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M. EPPS whose telephone number is (571) 272-8282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am - 5pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/TODD M EPPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 March 3, 2026