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 .
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
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, the arcuate recess must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 25, is it necessary to claim that the stop edge is formed by a projection then define the projection as the rib, rather than claiming that the stop edge is formed by the rib, in addition, the rib is not the stop edge, the stop edge is a portion of the rib, this is an important distinction because different areas of the rib provide different stopping means, both the open and close stop means is formed by the same rib.
Regarding claim 1, it should be clarified that the holding aperture holds a beverage cup or receptacle and is not capable of holding a beverage as in a liquid.
Regarding claim 1, in the second to last line, “a carrier” should be “each carrier” or one of the carrier elements.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 11-14, 16, 17, 22-31 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: the limitation, “an open stop being formed between two carrier elements,” is indefinite. The term “an open stop” suggests a structure, yet “an open stop” is used to define a stop means that includes multiple structures, a rib edge, and a recess. The structures that form the stop are on the carriers, not between them. The language could be changed for clarity, suggestion “means for stopping one carrier element from moving past a predetermined position with respect to an adjacent carrier element” , likewise for “a closed stop” in claim 25.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the carriers" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation, “wherein the carrier elements do not extend beyond 270 degrees when in the open position,” is indefinite because it is not clear what the angle is with respect to. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted to mean that when expanded to the maximum open position, such that all the carrier elements are open in relation to an adjacent one to the maximum extent, the angle between a center line through the drink opening and pivot point does not exceed 270 degrees.
Regarding claim 24, in the figures of the instant application, there is an arcuate projection in the recess of the open stop means but the recess itself does not have an arcuate shape. With this in mind, it is not clear what applicant intends to claim by the term “arcuate recess.”
Regarding claims 27 -28, the projection introduced in claim 27 was already introduced in claim 1 since there is a single rib on each planar carrier element. With this in mind, the limitation “one or more projections” is unclear, then claim 27 recites a single projection, is that another different projection? Does claim 28 intend to mean that each carrier element has only one single projection or is “a single projection” meant to narrow “one or more projections of claim 27, likewise for the recesses. In addition, there are two different recesses that form the opening and closing stop means, which makes the limitation “a single recess” even more indefinite.
Regarding claim 29, which projections and recesses do “the projection” and “the recess” refer to?
Regarding claim 30, the rib is already introduced in claim 1, is “a rib” a different rib from the one in claim 1? For the purposes of examination, the ribs are interpreted as referring to the same rib as seen in the figs of the instant application. Which previously presented recesses does “the recess” refer back to?
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11-14, 16, 22-29, 31, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kayser (DE 29908061 U1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Kayser discloses a carrier able to carry beverages, the carrier comprising:
a plurality of carrier elements 1 (slat), each carrier element pivotally movable with respect to an adjacent carrier element via a pin 16 (rotation member) through a hole 5; and
each carrier element having at least one holding aperture 6 able to hold at least one beverage cup;
the carrier elements are moved relative to each other between an open position and a closed position;
an open stop formed from a protrusion 7 and a recess 8 that stops one carrier element from moving past a predetermined position with respect to an adjacent carrier element;
the open stop being formed from an open stop edge on each of the carrier elements that contact to prevent further movement in one direction;
the open stop edge on each of the carriers being formed by a surface (edge) of a projection and a surface (edge) recess;
wherein the projection is formed by a rib, the rib being located on a carrier element to provide strength to the carrier. The rib of Kayser provides strength by maintain slats in at least a partially overlapping orientation, thereby adding to the resistance of a slat to bending (providing strength) after a beverage container is inserted into the holding aperture.
Regarding claim 11, Kayser discloses that the mounting member is located adjacent to an end of each of the carriers, fig. 1.
Regarding claim 12, Kayser discloses that adjacent carrier elements may be stacked adjacent to each other on the mounting member, fig. 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 13, Kayser discloses that in at least one orientation, the slats/carrier elements extends to 180 degrees, translation page 2, 4th paragraph from bottom: “When the carrying frame is unfolded to approximately 180°, it can be leisurely carried with one hand, in the manner of a folding fan or in the manner of a card player holding a deck of cards.”
In this orientation the slats/carrier elements do not extend beyond 270 degrees when in the open position.
Regarding claim 14, Kayser discloses each of the carrier elements is formed from a carrier body that is substantially planar in nature, fig. 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 16, Kayser discloses that each side of the top surface of the slats have a single rib, 7, fig. 1.
Regarding claim 31, Kayser discloses that when the carrier elements are in the open position (when a protrusion 7 from a side of the carrier element is aligned in a recess 8 on the opposing side across a line of symmetry, fig. 1), a portion of one carrier body overlaps a portion of the adjacent carrier body as the two planar bodies have to overlap for the elements to be locked together into the open position.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, (embodiment seen in fig. 3b, of Kayser) Kayser discloses a carrier able to carry beverages, the carrier comprising:
a plurality of carrier elements 1 (slat), each carrier element pivotally movable with respect to an adjacent carrier element via a pin 16 (rotation member) through a hole 5; and
each carrier element having at least one holding aperture 6 able to hold at least one beverage cup;
the carrier elements are moved relative to each other between an open position and a closed position;
as seen in fig. 3b, Kayser further discloses an open stop formed from a protrusion and a recess, not numbered, that stops one carrier element from moving past a predetermined position with respect to an adjacent carrier element, see translation, page 4, 2nd paragraph above the claims;
the open stop being formed from an open stop edge on each of the carrier elements that contact to prevent further movement in one direction;
the open stop edge on each of the carriers being formed by a perpendicular projection and a recess;
wherein the projection is formed by a rib, the rib being located on a carrier element to provide strength to the carrier at least by providing a thickened arear and in addition, strength is provided since the rib of Kayser provides strength by maintain slats in at least a partially overlapping orientation, thereby adding to the resistance of a slat to bending (providing strength) after a beverage container is inserted into the holding aperture.
Regarding claim 11, Kayser discloses that the mounting member is located adjacent to an end of each of the carriers, fig. 3b.
Regarding claim 12, Kayser discloses that adjacent carrier elements may be stacked adjacent to each other on the mounting member, fig. 3b and 2.
Regarding claim 13, Kayser discloses that in at least one orientation, the slats/carrier elements extends to 180 degrees, translation page 2, 4th paragraph from bottom: “When the carrying frame is unfolded to approximately 180°, it can be leisurely carried with one hand, in the manner of a folding fan or in the manner of a card player holding a deck of cards.”
In this orientation the slats/carrier elements do not extend beyond 270 degrees when in the open position.
Regarding claim 14, Kayser discloses each of the carrier elements is formed from a carrier body that is substantially planar in nature, fig. 3b and 2.
Regarding claim 16, Kayser discloses that each side of the top surface of the slats have a single rib, 7, fig. 3b.
Regarding claim 22, Kayser discloses there is a single projection located on one carrier and a single recess located on the adjacent carrier, fig. 3b.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Kayser discloses that the open stop is formed with the projection located on a lower carrier element and the recess is located on an upper carrier element, and wherein the projection is in the form of a rib and the recess is in the form of an arcuate (concave) recess see translation, page 4, 2nd paragraph above the claims, fig. 3b.
Regarding claim 25, Kayser discloses a closed stop is formed between two carrier elements that stops one carrier element from moving past a predetermined position with respect to an adjacent carrier element, page 4, 2nd paragraph above the claims, fig. 3b.
Regarding claim 26, Kayser discloses closed stop is formed from a closed stop edge on each of the carrier elements that contact to prevent further movement in one direction, page 4, 2nd paragraph above the claims, fig. 3b.
Regarding claim 27, Kayser discloses that the projection and a second edge form the closed stop edge on each of the carrier elements is formed by one or more projections and/or one or more recesses.
Regarding claim 28, Kayser discloses there is a single projection located on one carrier element and a single recess located on the adjacent carrier element, fig. 3b.
Regarding claim 29, Kayser discloses the closed carrier stop is formed with the projection located on a lower carrier element and the recess is located on an upper carrier element, page 4, 2nd paragraph above the claims, fig. 3b.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11-14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostwald (DE 29715628 U1) in view of Sue (US 5980205).
Regarding claim 1, Ostwald discloses a carrier able to carry beverages, the carrier comprising, fig. 1-3:
a plurality of carrier elements 1, each carrier element pivotally movable with respect to an adjacent carrier element about a hinge at 2; and
each carrier element having at least one holding aperture 3 able to hold at least one beverage;
the carrier elements are moved relative to each other between an open position and a closed position, fig. 1 and 3;
Ostwald does not disclose a stop means for preventing the elements from moving past a predetermined position with respect to an adjacent carrier element.
Sue is analogous art in regard to rotationally connected planar elements, fig. 5,
the open stop being formed from an open stop edge on each of the carrier elements that contact to prevent further movement in one direction;
the open stop edge on each of the carriers being formed by a projection 5 and a recess formed by projection at 6;
wherein the projection is formed by a rib, the rib being located on a carrier element to provide strength to the carrier because the rib runs along the length of the element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elements of Ostwald to include stops for limiting the extent of opening as per the teaching of Sue in order to limit the extent of rotation as per the teaching of Sue and allow the device of Ostwald to be used as a fan.
Regarding claim 9, 11, Ostwald discloses that each of the carrier elements are mounted for rotation by a mounting member at 2, located adjacent to an end of each of the carriers.
Regarding claim 12, Ostwald discloses that adjacent carrier elements may be stacked adjacent to each other on the mounting member fig. 2.
Regarding claim 13, as seen in fig. 3 of Ostwald, a central axis through the outermost planar elements do not extend beyond 270 degrees when in the open position.
Regarding claim 14, Ostwald discloses that each of the carrier elements is formed from a carrier body that is substantially planar in nature, fig. 2.
Regarding claim 16, the carrier of Ostwald as modified above has a single rib that is located on one side of the carrier body, see fig. 5 of Sue.
Regarding claim 17, each of the ribs of Ostwald as modified above is inclined at between 30 and 60 degrees with respect to the carrier body, see fig. Fig. 5 of Sue
Regarding claim 22, Ostwald as modified above teaches a single projection 5 located on one carrier and a single recess located on the adjacent carrier, formed between fold 6 and planar surface 30, fig. 5 of Sue.
Regarding claim 23, the open stop of Ostwald as modified above is formed with the projection located on a lower carrier element and the recess is located on an upper carrier element, see annotated fig. 5 of Sue.
Regarding claim 31, Ostwald as modified above result in when the carrier elements are in the open position a portion of one carrier body overlaps a portion of the adjacent carrier body as the two planar bodies have to overlap for the elements to be locked together into the open position, see fig. 5 of Sue.
Claim(s) 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostwald and Sue as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mayer (DE 2443417).
Regarding claim 25-29, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach a stop for when the planar sections are stacked on top of one another (closed).
Mayer is analogous art in regard to rotationally connected planar elements, fig. 1. Mayer teaches a planar element 4 and a second planar element, 5, rotationally coupled via a pin at 7 through openings 8 and 9. The planar elements are provided with an edge stop having a projection 11 edge on element 5 that fits into a recess 10 edge on the adjacent planar element 4, for aligning the elements above a container, and preventing further movement when the elements are aligned/closed on top of one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each carrier of Ostwald such that a pair of adjacent carriers to have a stop means formed from a projection that fits into a recess, each formed at an edge of the carrier, such that when the elements are aligned, further rotation is prevented to stack the elements above one another, as per the teaching of Mayer.
In addition, the term “lower” and “upper” are dependent based on the orientation of the carrier device, With this in mind, Ostwald as modified above results in the projection and recess being on the respective lower and upper carriers at least in one orientation.
Regarding claim 30, the references applied above teach all of claim 29, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach that the recess is chamfered. The recess at 10 of Ostwald as modified by Mayer has a fully cut recess and a protrusion that has sides formed at right angles. Applicant’s disclosure provides no particular motivation for a chamfered recess. With this in mind, the right angled recess of Ostwald as modified by Mayer and a chamfered recess would work equally as well to provide a stopping means for adjacent planar parts.
As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the invention as specified in claim 30 because such a modification is considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Ostwald in view of Mayer. Alternatively, an angled recess and protrusion would allow the elements to slide past one another if desired. With this in mind, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recess and projection of Ostwald in view of Mayer to have matching angled (chamfered) surfaces in order to allow the parts to slide up over one another with additional force, if such an operation were so desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lynam et al. (US 6196567) discloses a stop at 3, 5, fig. 4, for stopping rotation of planar elements, as does Torluemke (US 2828068), at 20/28, fig. 2 and 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799