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 .
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, 10-11, 16-17, and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 16 recite “a holding receptacle extending in a longitudinal direction of one of the two holding portions”. These recitations are unclear and therefore indefinite. It is not clear what is meant by the positional reference “extending in a longitudinal direction of …holding portions”. At best, this recitation is just cumbersome as it appears that the drawing illustrates what is attempted to be claimed. It is suggested that applicants consider more definitive positioning language such as “a holding receptacle extending in a longitudinal direction with reference to at least one of the two holding portions” or a holding receptacle extending in a perpendicular direction to at least one of the two holding portions”
Claims 10-11 and 20 recite the limitation "the mat" in lines 1 (claims 10 and 11) and lines 1-2 (claim 20).
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 6-7 and 17 do not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claims 5 and 16 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 1-6, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vander Sluis et al. (US 20180186303 – “Sluis”), alone.
Regarding claim 1: Sluis discloses an insert unit 20 for insertion into a storage compartment of a vehicle (Fig. 1; title; [0038]). Sluis does not explicitly disclose that the insert unit is for insertion into a storage compartment of a center console of a vehicle. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sluis so that the insert unit is in a storage compartment of a center console of a vehicle. As Sluis disclose a compartment for holding an electronic device such as a cell phone, as vehicle compartments for storing an electronic device are very well-known, as it is also very well-known that it is common place to have the stored electronic device within reach of the vehicle operator and/or passenger, as Sluis discloses that the insertion unit (retaining assembly 20) can be mounted in an interior portion of a vehicle, and as Sluis is silent regarding a center console but does not preclude a center console, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired storage unit position from a finite selection of positions suitable for a retaining and electronic device (i.e. in a center console or other convenient location in the vehicle interior). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Sluis discloses the insert unit comprising a holding depression 28 for at least partially receiving an electronic device (Fig. 1; [0042]). Sluis discloses two holding portions 30, 32, between which the holding depression is arranged and which define longitudinal sides of the holding depression (Fig. 1; [0042]). Sluis discloses that the two holding portions each define a common holding plane (illustrated but not numbered) against which an object can be placed substantially flat (Figs. 1, 12 – the figures illustrate the geometrical positioning of the holding portions 30, 32 as recited). Sluis discloses that the two holding portions are designed such that a spacing between the common holding plane and a planar base of the holding depression is greater than a height of the electronic device (Figs. 1, 12 – illustrate the limitation as recited).
Regarding claim 2: Sluis discloses that the electronic device comprises a cell phone ([0002]).
Regarding claim 3: Sluis discloses that the spacing between the common holding plane and the planar base of the holding depression is constant or decreases in a direction of a distal end region of the insert unit (Figs. 1, 12).
Regarding claim 4: Sluis discloses that at least one holding projection extending in a transverse direction of one of the two holding portions and/or at least one holding recess extending in the transverse direction of the one of the two holding portions is/are formed on at least one holding portion (Figs. 1, 12 – illustrate the limitation as recited).
Regarding claim 5: Sluis discloses that a holding receptacle (open area containing element 28) extending in a longitudinal direction of one of the two holding portions is formed on at least one of the two holding portions (Fig. 1 – illustrates the limitation as recited; see also the 112 rejection above which makes the direction of the receptacle unclear).
Regarding claim 6: Sluis discloses that the holding receptacle is designed to hold a card or at least one coin or at least one pen or at least one remote control (Fig. 1 – illustrates the limitation as the receptacle is sized such that it can clearly hold a coin, pen or a remote control).
Regarding claim 8: Sluis discloses that at least one of the two holding portions extends over only part of a length of the holding depression (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9: Sluis discloses that at least one raised holding portion is arranged on a longitudinal edge of at least one of the two holding portions, which longitudinal edge is arranged at a spacing from the holding depression (Figs. 12, 13 – the illustrated edge of 28 meets this limitation as it is not explicit that the raised holding portion is required to directly contact the holding portion).
Regarding claim 11: Sluis discloses that the insert unit is designed as an insert mat (Figs. 1, 2 – this illustrate that bed 28 can be a mat).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vander Sluis et al. (US 20180186303 – “Sluis”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lambert et al. (US 20160211697).
Sluis discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 10: Sluis does not explicitly disclose that the insert mat is made at least partially of an elastomer. Lambert discloses that the insert mat (42) is made at least partially of an elastomer (Figs. 1-4; [0047]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sluis so that the insert mat is made at least partially of an elastomer as taught by Lambert. As both Sluis and Lambert are directed to a vehicle insert unit, as Sluis is silent regarding a material for the insert mat, as elastomers are a well-known material used in vehicles, and as Lambert explicitly teaches the use of an elastomer material for the insert unit/mat, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired material from a finite selection of materials suitable for a vehicle insert unit/mat (i.e. a plastic and/or an elastomer material). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Claims 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert et al. (US 20160211697) in view of Vander Sluis et al. (US 20180186303 – “Sluis”).
Lambert and Sluis disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Lambert discloses a center console 10, 12 for a vehicle (Fig. 1; [0036]). Lambert discloses a storage compartment 16 and an insert unit 18 (Figs. 1-3; [0038]). Lambert discloses a holding depression 42 for at least partially receiving a portable electronic device. Lambert does not explicitly disclose two holding portions, between which the holding depression is arranged and which define longitudinal sides of the holding depression, that the two holding portions each define a common holding plane against which an object can be placed substantially flat, and that the two holding portions are designed such that a spacing between the common holding plane and a planar base of the holding depression is greater than a height of the portable electronic device. Sluis discloses two holding portions 30, 32, between which the holding depression is arranged and which define longitudinal sides of the holding depression (Sluis - Fig. 1; [0042]). Sluis discloses that the two holding portions each define a common holding plane (illustrated but not numbered) against which an object can be placed substantially flat (Sluis - Figs. 1, 12 – the figures illustrate the geometrical positioning of the holding portions 30, 32 as recited). Sluis discloses that the two holding portions are designed such that a spacing between the common holding plane and a planar base of the holding depression is greater than a height of the portable electronic device (Sluis - Figs. 1, 12 – illustrate the limitation as recited). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Lambert so as to include two holding portions, between which the holding depression is arranged and which define longitudinal sides of the holding depression, that the two holding portions each define a common holding plane against which an object can be placed substantially flat, and that the two holding portions are designed such that a spacing between the common holding plane and a planar base of the holding depression is greater than a height of the portable electronic device as taught by Sluis. As both Lambert and Sluis are directed to a vehicle insert unit, as various center console storage designs are well-known in vehicles, and as Sluis explicitly teaches two holding portions, between which the holding depression is arranged and which define longitudinal sides of the holding depression, that the two holding portions each define a common holding plane against which an object can be placed substantially flat, and that the two holding portions are designed such that a spacing between the common holding plane and a planar base of the holding depression is greater than a height of the portable electronic device, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired center console storage design from a finite selection of center console storage designs suitable for a vehicle (i.e. having a storage for electronic devices or not). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13: Lambert, as modified by Sluis, discloses that the portable electronic device comprises a cell phone (lambert – Fig. 3; [0005], [0054]; Sluis – Fig. 12; [0002]).
Regarding claim 14: Lambert, as modified by Sluis, discloses that the spacing between the common holding plane and the planar base of the holding depression is constant or decreases in a direction of a distal end region of the insert unit (Sluis - Figs. 1, 12).
Regarding claim 15: Lambert, as modified by Sluis, discloses that at least one holding projection extending in a transverse direction of one of the two holding portions and/or at least one holding recess extending in the transverse direction of the one of the two holding portions is/are formed on at least one holding portion (Sluis - Figs. 1, 12 – illustrate the limitation as recited).
Regarding claim 16: Lambert, as modified by Sluis, discloses that a holding receptacle (open area containing element 28) extending in a longitudinal direction of one of the two holding portion is formed on at least one of the two holding portions (Fig. 1 – illustrates the limitation as recited; see also the 112 rejection above which makes the direction of the receptacle unclear).
Regarding claim 18: Lambert, as modified by Sluis, discloses that at least one of the two holding portions extends over only part of a length of the holding depression (Sluis - Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19: Lambert, as modified by Sluis, discloses that at least one raised holding portion is arranged on a longitudinal edge of at least one of the two holding portions, which longitudinal edge is arranged at a spacing from the holding depression (Sluis - Figs. 12, 13 – the illustrated edge of 28 meets this limitation as it is not explicit that the raised holding portion is required to directly contact the holding portion).
Regarding claim 20: Lambert, as modified by Sluis, discloses that the insert mat is made at least partially of an elastomer, and that the insert unit is designed as an insert mat (Lambert - Figs. 1-4; [0047] – Lambert’s surface 42 or tray 18 can be interpreted as a mat; Sluis - Figs. 1, 2 – this illustrate that bed 28 can be a mat)..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Automobiles having a center console and a center console storage compartment and their structure are very well known in the art. It is also well known that these storage compartments can hold electronic devices. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Vander Sluis et al. (US 20180186303 – “Sluis”), Lambert et al. (US 20160211697), Johnson (US 20210384744), Leimer (US 10574801), Sosan (US 11581914), Lohman (US 20240228102), An et al. (US 20190036364), Villar Mesa et al. (US 20180208128), and Huebner et al. (US 20180126919). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a vehicle center console, storage compartments, including storage in a center console, an insert unit, a holding depression for at least partially receiving a portable electronic device, two holding portions, between which the holding depression is arranged and which define longitudinal sides of the holding depression, that the two holding portions each define a common holding plane against which an object can be placed substantially flat, and that the two holding portions are designed such that a spacing between the common holding plane and a planar base of the holding depression is greater than a height of the portable electronic device. Thus, upon reviewing these cited publications, and their included references, it appears that the claimed subject matter might teach a generally known concept. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically recited positional relationships of the recited structural components. Specifically, the art does not disclose the detailed positional and attachment relationships of the holding receptacle with portions differing from one another in terms of a configuration of their respective holding receptacles and the remaining recited apparatus structure and the overall relationship to the vehicle. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural and positional relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights