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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, each of the one or more retention cables is associated with one of the one or more compartments must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Fig. 1 includes two instances of reference number 117, one of which appears to be incorrectly located at the bottom edge of the receptacle.
Fig. 1 includes two instances of reference number 132 on the left-hand side. It appears as though the higher instance of the two should be 133 instead of 132.
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: 133, 134, and 136.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 7, 8, and 15 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.
Claim 7 currently states “…each of the one or more retention cables is associated with one of the one or more compartments.” This appears to be implying that all of the retention cables are associated with a single compartment, as opposed to “each retention cable being associated with a corresponding compartment” which is what appears to be shown in the figures. Claim 15 similarly states “…at least one retention cable of the one or more retention cables is associated with one of the one or more front compartments.” For purposes of further consideration, the claim is being interpreted as stating “each retention cable being associated with a corresponding (front) compartment”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the one of more portable devices" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greaves (US 2979098) in view of Drake (US 11950667).
Regarding Claim 1
Greaves teaches a receptacle (below Fig. 1 and 2) for retaining one or more portable devices comprising: a supportive structure including: a front face (5) including an upper portion and a lower portion; and one or more compartments (shown at 14, 18, 23, and 26) positioned along the front face; an extension (28’ and 29’) coupled to at least a portion of the upper portion (Col. 2, Ln. 4 – Col. 3, Ln. 23).
PNG
media_image1.png
220
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
521
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Greaves does not teach a connection system including: one or more retention cables coupled with the supportive structure including: a first end portion connected with the supportive structure proximate to at least one of the one or more compartments; and a second end portion including a device fastener.
Drake teaches a receptacle for retaining a portable device (below – Fig. 2) comprising: a supportive structure having a compartment (102); and a connection system including: one or more retention cables (206) coupled with the supportive structure including: a first end portion (214) connected with the supportive structure proximate to at least one of the one or more compartments; and a second end portion including a device fastener (210) (Col. 4, Ln. 40-57; Col. 5, Ln. 7-21; and Col. 7, Ln. 1-4).
PNG
media_image3.png
667
333
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Greaves and Drake are analogous inventions in the field of receptacles for retaining one or more portable devices. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the supportive structure of Greaves with the teachings of the connection system of Drake in order to allow the user to access the portable device while also keeping the device from getting misplaced (Col. 2, Ln. 8-19).
Regarding Claim 2
Greaves in view of Drake (hereinafter “modified Greaves”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Drake further teaches the one or more retention cables (206) are configured to be elastically extendable or retractable (Col. 7, Ln. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 3
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Drake further teaches the connection system includes a retained configuration and an extended configuration; wherein in the retained configuration the one or more retention cables (206) are subjected to minimal external force; wherein in the extended configuration, the one or more retention cables (206) are subjected to a tensile force; and wherein the one or more retention cables are configured to return to the retained configuration when the tensile force is removed.
Regarding Claim 4
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Greaves further teaches the extension (28’ and 29’) is formed from a flexible material, the flexible material configured to support the supportive structure.
Regarding Claim 5
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Greaves further teaches the extension (28’ and 29’) has a length dimension longer than a supportive structure (5) length dimension; wherein the extension is configured to anchor the supportive structure, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Greaves further teaches the one or more compartments (shown at 14, 18, 23, and 26) are sized to retain at least one portable device.
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. It would appear an obvious matter of design choice to one or ordinary skill in the art to have a retention cable being associated with a respective compartment in order to ensure that each portable device is maintained where it is supposed to be. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding Claim 8
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Drake further teaches the device fastener (210) is configured to be removably coupled with one portable device (104) of one or more portable devices.
Regarding Claim 9
Greaves teaches a system (Fig. 1 and 2) for retaining one or more portable devices comprising: a supportive structure having an upper portion and a lower portion, the supportive structure including: a front face (5) extending between the upper portion and the lower portion; a back face (5) opposed to the front face, the back face extending between the upper portion and the lower portion; and one or more front compartments (shown at 14, 18, 23, and 26) positioned along the front face, and one or more portable devices (not shown) (Col. 2, Ln. 4 – Col. 3, Ln. 23).
Greaves does not teach one or more retention cables extending from the supportive structure including: a first end connected with the supportive structure; and a second end having a device fastener; wherein the device fastener couples the one or more portable devices with the one or more retention cables.
Drake teaches a system for retaining one or more portable devices (Fig. 2) comprising: a supportive structure having a compartment (102); one or more retention cables (206) extending from the supportive structure including: a first end (214) connected with the supportive structure; and a second end having a device fastener (210); and one or more portable devices (104); wherein the device fastener couples the one or more portable devices with the one or more retention cables (Col. 4, Ln. 40-57; Col. 5, Ln. 7-21; and Col. 7, Ln. 1-4).
Greaves and Drake are analogous inventions in the field of receptacles for retaining one or more portable devices. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the supportive structure of Greaves with the teachings of the retention cable(s) of Drake in order to allow the user to access the portable device while also keeping the device from getting misplaced (Col. 2, Ln. 8-19).
Regarding Claim 10
Greaves in view of Drake (hereinafter “modified Greaves”) teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Greaves further teaches an extension (28’ and 29’) coupled to the upper portion.
Regarding Claim 11
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Greaves further teaches the extension (28’ and 29’) is configured to anchor the supportive structure.
Regarding Claim 12
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Drake further teaches the one or more retention cables (206) have elastic properties (Col. 7, Ln. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 13
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as stated above. Drake further teaches the one or more retention cables (206) are configured to extend and retract.
Regarding Claim 14
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as stated above. Greaves further teaches each of the one or more front compartments (shown at 14, 18, 23, and 26) are sized to retain one portable device.
Regarding Claim 15
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. It would appear an obvious matter of design choice to one or ordinary skill in the art to have a retention cable being associated with a respective front compartment in order to ensure that each portable device is maintained where it is supposed to be. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding Claim 16
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Greaves further teaches a back compartment (shown at 14, 18, 23, and 26) positioned on the back face. Greaves does not teach the back compartment includes a closure.
Drake teaches a compartment (102) having a closure (108) (Col. 4, Ln. 49-57).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to further modify the supportive structure of modified Greaves with the teachings of the compartment closure of Drake in order to prevent easy access to the compartment by unauthorized individuals (Col. 4, Ln. 49-57).
Regarding Claim 17
Greaves teaches a receptacle (Fig. 1 and 2) for retaining one or more portable devices comprising: a supportive structure formed from a pliant material, the supportive structure including: a front face (5) including one or more front compartments (shown at 14, 18, 23, and 26) positioned along the front face; and a back face (5) opposing the front face including one or more back compartments (shown at 14, 18, 23, and 26) positioned along the back face; an extension (28’ and 29’) coupled to an upper portion of the supportive structure; wherein the extension is configured to support the supportive structure (Col. 2, Ln. 4 – Col. 3, Ln. 23).
Greaves does not teach one or more elastic retention cables extending from the supportive structure, the one or more elastic retention cables including: a first end connected with the supportive structure; and a second end including a device fastener; wherein the device fastener is configured to be coupled with a portable device.
Drake teaches a receptacle for retaining one or more portable devices (Fig. 2) comprising: a supportive structure formed from a pliant material, the supportive structure including: a compartment (102); and one or more elastic retention cables (206) extending from the supportive structure, the one or more elastic retention cables including: a first end (214) connected with the supportive structure; and a second end including a device fastener (210); wherein the device fastener is configured to be coupled with a portable device (104) (Col. 4, Ln. 40-57; Col. 5, Ln. 7-21; and Col. 7, Ln. 1-4).
Greaves and Drake are analogous inventions in the field of receptacles for retaining one or more portable devices. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the supportive structure of Greaves with the teachings of the retention cable(s) of Drake in order to allow the user to access the portable device while also keeping the device from getting misplaced (Col. 2, Ln. 8-19).
Regarding Claim 18
Greaves in view of Drake (hereinafter “modified Greaves”) teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Drake further teaches the one or more elastic retention cables (206) include a retained configuration and an extended configuration; wherein in the retained configuration the one or more elastic retention cables are subjected to minimal external force; wherein in the extended configuration, the one or more elastic retention cables are subjected to a tensile force; and wherein the one or more elastic retention cables are configured to return to the retained configuration when the tensile force is removed.
Regarding Claim 19
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Greaves further teaches the supportive structure is configured to be associated with an article of furniture; and wherein the extension (28’ and 29’) is configured to anchor the supportive structure to the article of furniture, as can be seen in Fig. 2 above.
Regarding Claim 20
Modified Greaves teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Drake further teaches the device fastener (210) is configured to be removably coupled with the portable device (104).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733