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 .
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 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation "said mat portion of said food container" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow (U.S. Patent No. 9943150) in view Clarke (U.S. Patent No. 6609627) and Lautze (EP0993798).
Regarding Claim 1, Morrow discloses a portable placemat 10 (Figure 1), comprising: a mat portion 40 (figure 2) with a lip 36 (Figure 2) along a perimeter of the mat portion (Figure 2), wherein the lip is configured to prevent food spillage when the mat portion is in an unfolded configuration (Figure 2); and an attachment piece 78 (Figure 1) configured to bind the mat portion in a folded configuration (Figure 1); wherein the mat portion further comprises folds (Figure 8) across the mat portion configured to enable bi-folding of the mat portion into the folded configuration (figure 1 and 8). Morrow does not disclose two indentations for folding across a diameter and at least one food container attached to said mat portion of said food container, wherein the at least one food container comprises a lid. However, Lautze teaches an indentation 4 (figure 2) at the fold (when combined with Morrow would have two indentations) across a diameter . It would have been obvious to change the shape (include a diameter) since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP2144.04(IV)(B). Clarke teaches at least one food container 300 (figure 8) attached to said mat portion of said food container (when attached to Morrow sleeve 98 figure 8), wherein the at least one food container comprises a lid (figure 9, right portion). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morrow to include the above, as taught by Lautze and Clarke, in order to protect food stored within the portable placemat and provide a more defined fold line to make folding easier.
Regarding Claim 2, Morrow discloses the unfolded configuration provides a mobile eating surface (Figure 2) and wherein the folded configuration compactly stores food for travel (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Morrow discloses the mat portion further comprises an inside face and an outside face (figure 1 and 2) and wherein the two indentions (when combined with Lautze) further partition the inside face into a top area and a bottom area (Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 4, Clarke teaches the at least one food container is attached to a top area of the mat portion (when combined with 98 figure 2 of Morrow) and wherein a bottom area serves as an eating surface when in the unfolded configuration (figure 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Morrow discloses the portable placemat configured to stand upright when in the folded configuration (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Clarke teaches the at least one food container is triangular in shape (Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 7, Clarke teaches the at least one food container further comprises internal dividing walls 316/317 (Figure 8) to partition different foods.
Regarding Claim 8, Clarke teaches the lid is further configured to act as a small plate when detached from the food container (figure 9, capable of acting as a plate).
Claim(s) 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow (U.S. Patent No. 9943150) in view Lautze (EP0993798), Clarke (U.S. Patent No. 6609627) and Coven et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2683507).
Regarding Claim 9, Morrow, Lautze and Clarke teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the attachment piece is one of a locking button, a snap-lock, a string attachment, or Velcro. Coven et al. teaches the attachment piece is one of a locking button, a snap-lock, a string attachment, or Velcro 75/77 (Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morrow, Lautze and Clarke to include the above, in order to quickly open the portable placemat.
Regarding Claim 10, Morrow discloses a portable food mat 10 (Figure 1), comprising: a placemat (Figure 2) with two folds (Figure 8) configured to enable bi-folding into a storage configuration (Figure 1 and 8); wherein the placemat is further configured to stand upright when in the storage configuration (Figure 1). Morrow does not disclose two indentations for folding and at least one molded snack container attached to one side of the placemat configured to store food; and an attachment piece comprising a male portion and a female portion. However, Lautze teaches an indentation 4 (figure 2) at the fold (when combined with Morrow would have two indentations) and Clarke teaches at least one molded snack container 300 (Figure 8) attached to one side of the placemat configured to store food (when combined with 98 figure 2 of Morrow) and Coven et al. teaches an attachment piece comprising a male portion and a female portion 75/77 (Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morrow and Clarke to include the above, in order to help keep food organized and quickly open the portable food mat and provide a more defined fold line to make folding easier.
Regarding Claim 11, Morrow discloses the placemat further comprises a pronounced lip 36 (Figure 2) along a perimeter configured to retain food spillage when in a feeding configuration (figure 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Clarke teaches the at least one molded snack container further comprises at least one matching lid (Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 13, Coven et al. teaches the attachment piece is configured to bind the placemat in the storage configuration (figure 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Coven et al. teaches the male portion 77 (Figure 2) is positioned at a first end of the placemat and the female portion is positioned at an opposite second end of the placemat 75 (figure 2).
Regarding Claim 15 Morrow discloses the two folding indentions (when combined with Lautze) further partition the placemat into a top area and a bottom area (Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 16, Clarke teaches the at least one molded snack container (figure 8) is attached to a top area of the placemat and wherein a bottom area of the placemat serves as an eating surface when in a feeding configuration (when combined with Morrow 98 figure 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Clarke teaches the at least one molded snack container is triangular in shape (Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 18, Clarke teaches the at least one molded snack container further comprises internal dividing walls to partition different foods 316/317 (Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 19, Clarke teaches a matching lid is further configured to act as a small plate when detached from the molded snack container (figure 9, capable of acting as a plate).
Regarding Claim 20, Morrow discloses a feeding configuration provides a mobile eating surface (Figure 2) and wherein the storage configuration compactly stores food for travel (figure 1).
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm est.
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.
/ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733