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 first action for application #18/898830, Cup Holder For A Juvenile Seat, filed 9/27/24. Claims 2-21 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “18” is not pointing to the cup holder support in Figure 1.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 13.
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. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The following phrases are not found in the specification but are claimed: “a first diameter”, “a first plane”, “a second plane”, “a first base sidewall segment”, “a second base sidewall segment”, “a first insert sidewall segment”, “a second insert sidewall segment”, “a first circumferential length”, “a second circumferential length”, and “a first circumference”. Additionally, the second circumferential length being greater than the first circumferential length, or the first and third slots having a first width and the second and fourth slots having a second width greater than the first width is not in the specification.
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 2-21 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 2:
-The phrase “the cupholder mode-changer rotatable relative” is unclear. The term “is” needs to be added before the term “rotatable”.
-It is claimed that the cupholder base and the cupholder mode-changer cooperate with one another to establish a “continuous cupholder sidewall”. This is unclear since while the cupholder mode-changer is slidable to block the slots of the cupholder sidewall and create an enclosed space, the cupholder will not have a “continuous” sidewall since the mode-changer sidewall does not lie in the same arc, but rather is offset radially inwardly to allow the mode-changer to fit within the cupholder.
Regarding Claim 3:
-The phrase “when cupholder base” is unclear. First, the term “when” doesn’t make sense in the context of the rest of the claim, making the claim a fragment. Secondly, the term “the” should be inserted before “cupholder”.
-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.
Regarding Claim 10:
-The phrase “when cupholder base” is unclear. First, the term “when” doesn’t make sense in the context of the rest of the claim, making the wherein clause a fragment. Secondly, the term “the” should be inserted before “cupholder”.
-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.
Regarding Claim 11:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the base floor”, or “the base rim”.
-It is unclear if “a vertical axis” is referring to the same vertical axis previously claimed or a different vertical axis.
Regarding Claim 12:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the first slot”.
-It is unclear if “a vertical axis” is referring to the same vertical axis previously claimed or a different vertical axis.
Regarding Claim 13:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the second slot”.
Regarding Claim 17:
-It is claimed that the cup-holder has a first circumference in the volume-maximizing mode. This is unclear since in the volume-maximining mode the mode changer and the cupholder base lie one two different arcs. While collectively they form a wall, the wall is not continuous and therefore does not create a first circumference which must be continuous.
-Section ii does not make sense. First, there is no antecedent basis for “the hand-receiving mode”. Assuming this was intended to be the “handle-receiving mode”, the first circumference cannot also be defined in the handle-receiving mode, especially since in the handle-receiving mode there are slots.
Regarding Claim 18:
-It is unclear if “a vertical axis” is referring to the same vertical axis previously claimed or a different vertical axis.
Regarding Claim 19:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the first slot”.
-It is unclear if “a vertical axis” is referring to the same vertical axis previously claimed or a different vertical axis.
Regarding Claim 20:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the second slot”.
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 2-7, 10-14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,023,092 to Denbo et al. (hereinafter ‘Denbo’) in view of US 6,315,153 (Osborn).
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, Denbo teaches a juvenile seat comprising:
a cupholder support (50) formed to include a mount aperture (56; lines 3-9 of claim 1; col 6, ln 40-63), and
a cupholder (20; Figure 1) coupled to the cupholder support (50; col 2, ln 37-49), the cupholder (20) including: (i) a cupholder mount (30; Figure 1,4C; col 5, ln 37-49; col 6, ln 11-65) arranged to extend into the mount aperture (56) to interlock with the cupholder support (50) and retain the cupholder (20) to the cupholder support (col 6, ln 11-65), (ii) a cupholder base (40; col 5, ln 64-col 6, ln 10) having a base rim (upper rim; Figure 4C), a base sidewall (42) extending downwardly from the base rim, and a base floor (44) coupled to a lower end of the base sidewall (42) and an upper end of the cupholder mount (30; Figure 4C), the base sidewall (42) at least partially defining an interior container- receiving space located radially inward from the base rim and the base side wall and above the base floor (col 5, ln 37-39).
Denbo does not teach the base sidewall formed to include a first slot, (iii) a cupholder mode-changer coupled to the cupholder base and formed to include a second slot, wherein, when the cupholder mode-changer is coupled to the cupholder base, the cupholder mode-change rotatable relative to the cupholder base to change the cupholder from a volume-maximizing mode, in which the second slot of the cupholder mode-changer is offset circumferentially from the first slot so that the cupholder base and the cupholder mode-changer cooperate with one another to establish a continuous cupholder sidewall that extends circumferentially around a vertical axis of the cupholder, and a handle-receiving mode, in which the first slot is aligned circumferentially with the second slot so that a container having a handle can be received within the interior container-receiving space while the handle of the container extends radially outward past the cupholder sidewall and into first and second slots.
However, Osborn, which is also drawn to a cupholder (10) comprising a cupholder mount (18) for attaching to the cupholder support (C1; Figure 3A), and a cupholder base (12; Figure 1) defining an interior container receiving space (for receiving 14; Figure 1) further teaches the base sidewall formed to include a first slot (38), (iii) a cupholder mode-changer (14; Figure 1) coupled to the cupholder base (12) and formed to include a second slot (62), wherein, when the cupholder mode-changer (14) is coupled to the cupholder base (12), the cupholder mode-change rotatable relative to the cupholder base (col 4, ln 37-43,ln 51-57; since only frictionally fit, the circumferential positioning may be varied by the user) to change the cupholder from a volume-maximizing mode (if 14 is placed within base 12 and the sidewall of 14 overlaps the slots 38), in which the second slot of the cupholder mode-changer is offset circumferentially from the first slot so that the cupholder base and the cupholder mode-changer cooperate with one another to establish a continuous cupholder sidewall that extends circumferentially around a vertical axis of the cupholder, and a handle-receiving mode (if 14 is placed within base 12 and the slots 62/38 align), in which the first slot is aligned circumferentially with the second slot so that a container having a handle can be received within the interior container-receiving space while the handle of the container extends radially outward past the cupholder sidewall and into first and second slots (col 4, ln 21-26).
Therefore, 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 to use a cupholder mode-changer and complimentary slots on the cupholder base as taught by Osborn on the cupholder of Denbo, since this would allow larger cylindrical cups or baby bottles to be fully surrounded and secured in the cup holder, as well as toddler sippy cups that typically have handles.
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Denbo teaches a juvenile seat comprising
a cupholder support (50) and
a cupholder (20; Figure 1) coupled to the cupholder support (50; col 2, ln 37-49), the cupholder (20) including: (i) a cupholder base (40; col 5, ln 64-col 6, ln 10) at least partially defining an interior container- receiving space (col 5, ln 37-39), wherein, when cupholder base (40) 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 and would bisect the diameter).
Denbo does not teach (ii) a cupholder mode-changer fixed to the cupholder base and configured to pivot relative to the cupholder base within the interior container-receiving space to change the cupholder from a volume-maximizing mode to a handle-receiving mode, wherein the cupholder base and the cupholder mode-changer are configured to cooperate with one another to establish a cupholder sidewall that extends circumferentially around a vertical axis of the cupholder when the cupholder is in the volume-maximizing mode and to establish a handle-receiving space 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.
However, Osborn, which is also drawn to a cupholder (10) comprising a cupholder mount (18) for attaching to the cupholder support (C1; Figure 3A), and a cupholder base (12; Figure 1) defining an interior container receiving space (for receiving 14; Figure 1) further teaches (ii) a cupholder mode-changer (14; Figure 1) fixed to the cupholder base (12) and configured to pivot relative to the cupholder base (col 4, ln 37-43,ln 51-57; since only frictionally fit, the circumferential positioning may be varied by the user) within the interior container-receiving space 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 a vertical axis of the cupholder when the cupholder is in the volume-maximizing mode (if 14 is placed within base 12 and the sidewall of 14 overlaps the slots 38) and to establish a handle-receiving space (if 14 is placed within base 12 and 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).
Therefore, 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 to use a cupholder mode-changer and complimentary slots on the cupholder base as taught by Osborn on the cupholder of Denbo, since this would allow large cylindrical cups or baby bottles to be fully surrounded and secured in the cup holder, as well as toddler sippy cups that typically have handles.
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Denbo and Osborn combined teach the juvenile seat of claim 2, and Denbo further teaches wherein, when cupholder base (40) 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 and would bisect the diameter).
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, as best understood, Denbo and Osborn combined teach the juvenile seat of claims 2 and 10, and Osborn further teaches wherein the base sidewall (36) includes (i) 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 (ii) at least one sidewall panel (20) extending between and interconnecting the base rim (42) and the lower sidewall ring.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, as best understood, Denbo and Osborn combined teach the juvenile seat of claims 2, 10, and 18, and Osborn further teaches wherein the base sidewall (36) of 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 the 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 a vertical axis of the cupholder base (as best depicted in Figure 2B, the sidewall segments of 20 begin and end at the slots).
Regarding Claims 6 and 20, as best understood, Denbo and Osborn combined teach the juvenile seat of claims 5 and 19, and Osborn further teaches wherein the cupholder mode-changer (14) includes an insert floor (65; Figure 3B) and 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 the 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 Claims 7, 14, and 21, as best understood, Denbo and Osborn combined teach the juvenile seat of claims 6, 13, and 20, and Osborn further teaches wherein each insert sidewall segment (of 48) has first a 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.
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood, Denbo and Osborn combined teach the juvenile seat of claim 12, and Osborn further teaches 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 the 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 18, as best understood, Denbo and Osborn combined teach the juvenile seat of claim 10, and Osborn further teaches wherein the cupholder base (12) includes a base sidewall (36) having (i) 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 (ii) at least one sidewall panel (20) extending between and interconnecting the base rim (42) and the lower sidewall ring.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,059,244 to Lombardi et al. (hereinafter ‘Lombardi’).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Lombardi teaches a juvenile seat (Figure 1) comprising
a cupholder support (108) and
a cupholder coupled to the cupholder support (Figure 1; col 4, ln 16-19), the cupholder including: (i) a cupholder base (110) and (ii) a cupholder mode-changer (112) fixed to the cupholder base (110) and configured to rotate relative to the cupholder base (110) while being coupled to the cupholder base (col 11, ln 8-12) to change the cupholder from a volume-maximizing mode (Figure 1), in which the cupholder base (110) and the cupholder mode-changer cooperate with one another to establish a cupholder sidewall that extends circumferentially around a vertical axis of the cupholder, and a handle-receiving mode, in which a handle-receiving space is formed in the cupholder sidewall (col 10, ln 63-col 11, ln 7 teaching that while the two configurations taught are the in use and stored configurations, that the mode-changer can also be positioned in intermediate positions so that it is rotated anywhere between 20-180 degrees. Therefore this would leave an opening where the handle could stick out of.), wherein the cupholder has (i) a first circumference in the volume-maximizing mode (fully enclosed as in Figure 1).
Lombardi does not specifically teach (ii) the first circumference in the hand-receiving mode. However, as stated above in the 112 rejections, this is unclear since in the handle-receiving mode there is a gap in circumference and therefore the first circumference is not in both modes. However, as best understood, 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 if the mode changer of Lombardi was rotated to have a gap large enough for a handle of a mug to extend out through the slot, then the overall circumference of the cupholder (including an invisible circumference where the gap is) would remain the same as in the volume-maximizing mode in the same manner as the Applicant’s invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 15 and 16 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.
**The Examiner notes that any amendments should be made with the parent application claims in mind as to avoid double patenting. Filing a terminal disclaimer is also recommended.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INGRID M WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-M-T 7-5:00pm.
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.
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.
/INGRID M WEINHOLD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights