DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Multiple instances where the word “rising” should be corrected to “raising” to avoid grammatical errors.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (CN 112918354 B).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches “A smart cup holder, comprising:
a sensing assembly, the sensing assembly comprising a first sensor and a controller, wherein the first sensor is provided in a cockpit (sensor is placed on cup holder cover, therefore with the device in the cockpit, see paragraph 10), and an output end of the first sensor is connected to a receiving end of the controller (sensor is connected to controller, see paragraph 11);
an accommodating cavity, wherein the accommodating cavity is provided in a target area in the cockpit (see paragraph 9), and the accommodating cavity is provided with an opening oriented vertically upward (opening is placed at top of housing body, see paragraph 9), wherein the opening is provided in a sensing area of the first sensor (sensor is disposed at top opening of housing body, see paragraph 11);
a lifting device, the lifting device comprising a support member and a driving member, wherein the support member is adapted to the opening and is positioned in a same plane as the opening in an initial state (cup is supported by clamping jaw structure, aligned with opening in deployed position, see Wu, Figure 2), and the driving member is configured to drive the support member to move vertically in the accommodating cavity (tray lifting driving structure including motor, see paragraph 10); and
the controller, wherein the controller is configured to control an operation of the driving member (driving motor is connected to controller, paragraph 10).”
PNG
media_image1.png
522
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wu, Figure 3
Regarding claim 3, Wu teaches “The smart cup holder according to claim 1, wherein the first sensor is a pressure sensor, and the first sensor is provided on the support member. (Stress-strain sensor is disposed on clamping jaw, see paragraph 43)”
Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches “The smart cup holder according to claim 3, wherein the pressure sensor is configured to convert a pressure signal into an electrical signal, send the electrical signal to the controller for processing (pressure or gravity sensor feeds signal to controller for processing, see paragraph 53), and determine that a cup is placed on the support member in response to detecting that a sustained pressure is present and a value of the sustained pressure is greater than a pressure threshold (signal is received from pressure or gravity sensor and informs controller that a cup is present, see paragraph 50).”
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches “The smart cup holder according to claim 4, wherein the controller is further configured to generate a signal to control other components to perform an operation of accommodating the cup in response to determining that the cup is placed on the support member (controller is configured to send a signal to drive motor to raise or lower lifting tray to accommodate the cup, see paragraph 50).”
Regarding claim 6, Wu teaches “The smart cup holder according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second sensor, wherein the second sensor is provided on a bottom portion of the accommodating cavity, and the second sensor is connected to the controller (tray lowering sensor is provided at the bottom of the accommodating cavity and is connected to controller, see paragraph 40).”
Regarding claim 8, Wu teaches “The smart cup holder according to claim 1, wherein the driving member comprises:
a driving motor and a transmission assembly, wherein the driving motor is connected to the controller (tray lifting drive structure comprises a motor and is connected to the controller, see paragraph 40), and the driving motor is configured to drive the transmission assembly to perform a transmission under a control of the controller, to drive the support member to move vertically (tray lifting drive structure is directed by the controller to raise and lower supporting tray, see paragraph 40).”
Regarding claim 10, Wu teaches “The smart cup holder according to claim 8, wherein
the accommodating cavity is provided with a limiting mechanism, wherein the limiting mechanism is configured to cooperate with a vertical movement of a connection component between the transmission assembly and the support member (tray lower sensor functions by physical contact with bottom of tray, and thus also acts a physical limiting stop, see paragraph 53).”
Regarding claim 11, Wu teaches “The smart cup holder according to claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to control the transmission assembly to drive the support member to move vertically upward in response to the first sensor detecting that a cup is placed on the support member; or
wherein the controller is configured to control the transmission assembly to drive the support member to move vertically downward in response to the first sensor detecting that a cup is taken out from the support member (when the sensor detects that the cup is removed, the controller responds by lowering the support tray, see paragraph 53).”
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches “The smart cup holder according to claim 1, wherein the target area comprises a smart driving panel, and/or an accommodating area of a driving door, and/or an instrument panel (cup holder assembly is provided on an instrument panel, see paragraph 17).”
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 112918354 B), in view of Rudi et al. (US 20210078499 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1 above, except “wherein the first sensor is a light sensor or an image sensor, and the first sensor is provided on a top portion in the cockpit.”
However, Rudi teaches “wherein the first sensor is a light sensor or an image sensor, and the first sensor is provided on a top portion in the cockpit (see Rudi, Figure 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the image sensor configuration taught by Rudi, with the vehicle cup holder sensor array taught by Wu, to provide a clear line of sight by which to track the motion of the cup when it is removed from the holder, so that the controller may better anticipate when the cup holder should be activated, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image2.png
894
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rudi, Figure 1
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 112918354 B), in view of Han (KR 19980050586 U).
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 6 above, except “wherein the controller is configured to, after the support member is lowered to a lowest height, receive information sent by the second sensor, generate a stop signal, and send the stop signal to the driving member.”
However, Han teaches “wherein the controller is configured to, after the support member is lowered to a lowest height, receive information sent by the second sensor, generate a stop signal, and send the stop signal to the driving member (pressure sensor detects when cup is at the lowest height and controller sends a signal for the motor to stop, see paragraph 24).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a pressure sensor in combination with a controller designed to limit the motion of a driving member when the cup has been lowered to its lowest point as taught by Han, into the cup holder assembly control system as taught by Wu, to provide a redundant means of determining that the cup has reached its lower limit, preventing damage to the assembly even if the primary light based position sensor is interfered with, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 112918354 B), in view of Kim et al. (US 20210316649 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Wu teaches “The smart cup holder according to claim 8, wherein the transmission assembly is a transmission screw rod;
wherein an output end of the driving motor is connected to a screw rod, a transmission nut is screwed to the screw rod, and a transmission rod is fixed on the transmission nut (drive motor is connected to a worm gear and transmission sleeve, see Wu, paragraph 41); and
wherein one side of the accommodating cavity is provided with a limiting mechanism, wherein the limiting mechanism is configured to cooperate with a vertical movement of the transmission rod, and the transmission rod is fixedly connected to the support member (tray lower sensor functions by physical contact with bottom of tray, and thus also acts a physical limiting stop, see Wu, paragraph 53).”
Wu does not teach “wherein an output end of the driving motor is connected to a first bevel gear, the first bevel gear is meshed with a second bevel gear, the second bevel gear is fixed on a screw rod.”
However, Kim teaches “wherein an output end of the driving motor is connected to a first bevel gear, the first bevel gear is meshed with a second bevel gear, the second bevel gear is fixed on a screw rod (bevel gears may be used to drive rotation motion in cup holder assembly, see Kim, paragraph 0017).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the rotational motion transmission assembly comprising a set of bevel gears as taught by Kim, with the worm gear and transmission sleeve as taught by Wu, to more effectively arrange the drive motor horizontally within the cup holder assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 112918354 B), in view of Killeen et al. (US 20250108746 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1 above, except “a waste tank, wherein a bottom portion of the accommodating cavity is provided with a drain hole, and the drain hole is connected to the waste tank through a flow duct.”
However, Killeen teaches “a waste tank, wherein a bottom portion of the accommodating cavity is provided with a drain hole, and the drain hole is connected to the waste tank through a flow duct (a hole is provided in the bottom of the cup holder that drains to the waste tank, see Killeen, paragraph 0005).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the liquid collection receptacle as taught by Killeen, with the cup accommodation cavity as taught by Wu, to more effectively contain the spillage of liquids in the cup holder, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 112918354 B), in view of Rudi et al. (US 20210078499 A1), Han (KR 19980050586 U), Kim et al. (US 20210316649 A1), and Killeen et al. (US 20250108746 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wu, in view of, Rudi, Han, Kim, and Killeen, teaches “A vehicle, comprising the smart cup holder according to any one of claims 1 to 13 (cup holder is disposed in an automobile, see Wu, paragraph 8).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the image sensor configuration taught by Rudi, with the vehicle cup holder sensor array taught by Wu, to provide a clear line of sight by which to track the motion of the cup when it is removed from the holder, so that the controller may better anticipate when the cup holder should be activated, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a pressure sensor in combination with a controller designed to limit the motion of a driving member when the cup has been lowered to its lowest point as taught by Han, into the cup holder assembly control system as taught by Wu, to provide a redundant means of determining that the cup has reached its lower limit, preventing damage to the assembly even if the primary light based position sensor is interfered with, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the rotational motion transmission assembly comprising a set of bevel gears as taught by Kim, with the worm gear and transmission sleeve as taught by Wu, to more effectively arrange the drive motor horizontally within the cup holder assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the liquid collection receptacle as taught by Killeen, with the cup accommodation cavity as taught by Wu, to more effectively contain the spillage of liquids in the cup holder, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Wu, in view of, Rudi, Han, Kim, and Killeen, teaches “The vehicle according to claim 14, wherein the first sensor is provided on a top portion in a cockpit of the vehicle (see Rudi, Figure 1), and an acquisition end of the first sensor is aligned with at least one of a smart driving panel, an accommodating area of a driving door, or an instrument panel (camera views active surface, which is disposed in center console or dashboard, see Rudi paragraphs 0023 and 0068).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the image sensor configuration directed at a vehicle instrument panel taught by Rudi, with the vehicle cup holder sensor array taught by Wu, to provide a clear line of sight by which to track the motion of the cup in relation to the, so that the controller may better anticipate when the cup holder should be activated, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references disclose smart movable cup holders for a vehicle.
Fang et al. (CN 120716559 A) discloses similar features to the claimed invention but is not prior art.
Qin et al. (CN 215552769 U) discloses a camera system associated with a smart cup holder, but fails to mention a camera located on an upper portion of the vehicle cabin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JRC/
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights