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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final action for application #18/898830, Cup Holder For A Juvenile Seat, filed 9/27/24. Claims 2-8, and 10-22 are pending. This Final Office Action is in response to applicant's reply dated 9/8/2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Specification
New paragraphs were added via the amendment of 9/8/2026. The Examiner notes that new paragraph numbers were not included in the amendment, nor were subsequent paragraphs renumbered. In the event that any of these new paragraphs need to further be amended, paragraph numbers will need to be added and amended so that the paragraphs could be properly identified and clarity retained in the record.
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.
Claims 3-8, 10-16, 18-21 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 3:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the vertical axis of the cupholder base”. In Claim 2 the vertical axis that is claimed is of the cupholder, not the cupholder base.
-The entirety of the claim is unclear. First, a first diameter is claimed along a first plane extending through a vertical axis. Since the specification did not disclose a first plane, it is not clear what the location of the first plane is. By viewing Figure 4, since only the lower end of the base (at numeral 76) has a full diameter, the Examiner assumed this as the location of a horizontal plane that would intersect the vertical axis. However, then it is claimed “the first diameter along a second plane perpendicular to the first plane and extending through the vertical axis”. It is unclear how the same first diameter can be along a second plane that is perpendicular to the first plane.
*The Examiner notes that this rejection was previously made, and while the subject matter was added to the specification, this does not clarify the claim language. The Applicant did not specifically address this rejection.
Regarding Claim 4:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the vertical axis of the cupholder base”. In Claim 2 the vertical axis that is claimed is of the cupholder, not the cupholder base.
Regarding Claim 5:
-It is unclear which element is considered to be a first base sidewall segment and a second base sidewall segment. While the Applicant added these phrases to the specification, they were not added in the Detailed Description. It is unclear if the sidewall segments are referring to the same element as the at least one sidewall panel, such as claimed in Claim 4. If so, then it is unclear why the same element is being referred to by two different phrases.
-There is no antecedent basis for “the vertical axis of the cupholder base”. In Claim 2 the vertical axis that is claimed is of the cupholder, not the cupholder base. Claim 6 also refers to the vertical axis of the cupholder base.
Regarding Claim 7:
-It is unclear which element is considered to be each base sidewall segment. While the Applicant added the base sidewall segments to the specification, they were not added in the Detailed Description. It is unclear if the sidewall segments are referring to the same element as the at least one sidewall panel, such as claimed in Claim 4. If so, then it is unclear why the same element is being referred to by two different phrases.
Regarding Claim 10:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the vertical axis of the cupholder”. The vertical axis previously claimed was not specifically claimed as part of any one particular element. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims refer to the vertical axis of the cupholder base.
-The entirety of the last wherein clause is unclear. First, a first diameter is claimed along a first plane extending through a vertical axis. Since the specification did not disclose a first plane, it is not clear what the location of the first plane is. By viewing Figure 4, since only the lower end of the base (at numeral 76) has a full diameter, the Examiner assumed this as the location of a horizontal plane that would intersect the vertical axis. However, then it is claimed “the first diameter along a second plane perpendicular to the first plane and extending through the vertical axis”. It is unclear how the same first diameter can be along a second plane that is perpendicular to the first plane. *The Examiner notes that this rejection was previously made, and while the subject matter was added to the specification, this does not clarify the claim language. The Applicant did not specifically address this rejection.
Regarding Claim 12:
-It is unclear which element is considered to be the first and second base sidewall segments. While the Applicant added the base sidewall segments to the specification, they were not added in the Detailed Description. It is unclear if the sidewall segments are referring to the same element as the at least one sidewall panel. If so, then it is unclear why the same element is being referred to by two different phrases.
-There is no antecedent basis for “the vertical axis of the cupholder base”.
Regarding Claims 18-20:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the vertical axis of the cupholder base” is Claim 18. Claim 17 claimed a vertical axis of the cupholder.
Regarding Claim 19:
-It is unclear which element is considered to be the first and second base sidewall segments. While the Applicant added the base sidewall segments to the specification, they were not added in the Detailed Description. It is unclear if the sidewall segments are referring to the same element as the at least one sidewall panel. If so, then it is unclear why the same element is being referred to by two different phrases.
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.
(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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 5,285,953 (Smith).
Regarding Claim 17, Smith teaches a cupholder for a juvenile seat, the cupholder (10) comprising:
(i) a cupholder base (14) and (ii) a cupholder mode-changer (16) fixed to the cupholder base (via 42/49) and configured to rotate relative to the cupholder base (14) while being coupled to the cupholder base (within channels 45/46) to change the cupholder from a volume-maximizing mode (Figure 2), in which the cupholder base (14) and the cupholder mode-changer (16) cooperate with one another to establish a cupholder sidewall that extends circumferentially around a vertical axis of the cupholder, and a handle-receiving mode (Figure 1), in which a handle-receiving space (50) is formed in the cupholder sidewall (Figure 1; col 3, ln 33-40; col 3, ln 6-11; col 3, ln 25-28),
wherein the cupholder has a first circumference in both the volume-maximizing mode and the handle-receiving mode (the circumference of the cupholder in the area where numeral “48” is pointing to in Figure 2 stays the same regardless of the mode as depicted in Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 18, as best understood, Smith teaches the cupholder of Claim 17, wherein the cupholder base (14) includes a base floor (30), a base rim (upper edge of 36, a lower sidewall ring (lower annular horizontal portion directly below the slot 50 that numeral 48 is pointing to in Figure 2) coupled to the base floor (30) and extending annularly around the vertical axis of the cupholder base (14), and at least one sidewall panel (36) extending between and interconnecting the base rim (upper end of 36) and the lower sidewall ring (Figure 2).
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 of this title, 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 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,315,153 (Osborn).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Osborn teaches a cupholder for a juvenile seat, the cupholder (10) comprising:
(i) a cupholder base (12; Figure 1) at least partially defining an interior container receiving space (for receiving 14; Figure 1) and (ii) a cupholder mode-changer (14; Figure 1) fixed to the cupholder base (12; Figure 2B, via friction col 4, ln 46-57) and configured to pivot about a vertical axis relative to the cupholder base (since only frictionally fit, the circumferential positioning may be varied by the user) to change the cupholder from a volume-maximizing mode (when the side wall of 14 overlaps the slots 38 of the base) to a handle-receiving mode (when slots 38 and 62 are aligned),
wherein the cupholder base (12) and the cupholder mode-changer (14) are configured to cooperate with one another to establish a cupholder sidewall that extends circumferentially around the vertical axis of the cupholder when the cupholder is in the volume-maximizing mode (if the sidewall of 14 overlaps the slots 38) and to establish a handle-receiving space (if the slots 62/38 align) in the cupholder sidewall after movement of the cupholder mode-changer relative to the cupholder base to arrange the cupholder in the handle-receiving mode (col 4, ln 21-26),
wherein, when the cupholder is in the handle-receiving mode, the cupholder base has (i) a first diameter along a first plane (horizontal) extending through a vertical axis of the cupholder base and (ii) the first diameter along a second plane perpendicular to the first plane and extending through the vertical axis of the cupholder base (as best understood a vertically orientated plane that passes through the axis would be perpendicular to the horizontal plane that the diameter lies upon and the diameter direction within the horizontal plane would be determined by the angle of the vertically oriented plane).
Osborn does not specifically teach pivoting the cupholder mode-changer within the interior container-receiving space.
However, Osborn teaches that the mode-changer (14) is positioned within the cupholder base and frictionally retained therein (col 4, ln 46-57). Since the mode-changer is only frictionally engaged, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that the mode-changer, even when frictionally engaged, would be capable of being pivoted while in contact within the cupholder base since the pivoting force only needs to exceed the friction force. Additionally, since the mode-changer is configured to be removable, it would be well within routine experimentation and design for one of skill in the art to determine the amount of friction needed to securely retain the mode-changer and inserted cup, but that would be easy for removal (and therefore pivoting) thereof.
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Osborn teaches the cupholder of Claim 10, wherein the cupholder base (12) includes a base floor (35; Figure 3A), a base rim (42; Figure 1), a lower sidewall ring (lower annular horizontal portion directly below the slot 38) coupled to the base floor (35) and extending annularly around a vertical axis of the cupholder base (12) and at least one sidewall panel (20) extending between and interconnecting the base rim (42) and the lower sidewall ring.
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, Osborn teaches the cupholder of Claim 10, wherein the cupholder base (12) includes a first base sidewall segment and a second base sidewall segment (20 has two segments on opposite sides of slots 38) to define a first slot (38) and a third slot (38) between the first and second base sidewall segments (Figure 1), and wherein each base sidewall segment extends less than halfway circumferentially about the vertical axis of the cupholder base (as best depicted in Figure 2B, the sidewall segments of 20 begin and end at the slots).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood, Osborn teaches the cupholder of Claim 12, wherein the cupholder mode-changer (14) includes an insert side wall (48) having a first insert sidewall segment and a second insert sidewall segment (48 has two segments created by the opposing slots 62; Figure 1) to define a second slot (62) and a fourth slot (62) between the first and second insert sidewall segments, and wherein each insert sidewall segment extends less than halfway circumferentially about the vertical axis of the cupholder base (as best depicted in Figure 2B, the sidewall segments of 14 begin and end at the slots).
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood, Osborn teaches the cupholder of Claim 13, wherein each insert sidewall segment (of 48) has a first circumferential length (at an upper end) and each base sidewall segment (of 20) has a second circumferential length (at an upper end) greater than the first circumferential length (as best depicted in Figure 2B, the sidewall segments are separated by the opposing slots which are substantially equal in size, and since the diameter of the base is larger than the diameter of the insert, the length of the base segments are larger.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is allowed.
Claims 3-8, 15, 16, and 19-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
**The Examiner notes that any amendments should be made with the parent application claims in mind so as to avoid double patenting. Filing a terminal disclaimer is also recommended.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 2, 16, and 22, the prior art does not specifically teach the cupholder mode-changer including an insert rim, an insert sidewall extending downwardly from the insert rim, with the insert rim rolled to extend downwardly along an exterior surface of the cupholder base at least when the cupholder is in the handle-receiving mode, in combination with the remaining claimed elements and relationships.
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art does not specifically teach the second and fourth slots having a width greater than the first and third slots, in combination with the remaining claimed elements and relationships.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art does not specifically teach the first and second base sidewall segments defining the first and third slots therebetween with each sidewall extending less than halfway circumferentially, in combination with the remaining claimed elements and relationships.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Osborn teaches away from the adaptor being “fixed to a cupholder base” and configured to pivot within the cupholder base because Osborn desires the insert to be removable: The Examiner has fully considered this argument but it is not persuasive. Since the adaptor is taught to be frictionally engaged, the adapter meets the claim language of being “fixed to a cupholder base”. There is no claim limitation that the adapter has to be permanently fixed. And since Osborn teaches that the adaptor is removable, it would be obvious that the frictional engagement would be enough to retain the adapter without making it difficult to remove. Pivoting of the adapter only involves providing a rotational force that overcomes the friction.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitating amendment.
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 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 INGRID WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Tuesday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 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.
/INGRID M WEINHOLD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
