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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the spring recited in claims 2 and 20 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding the recitation of the springs operably couple to the adjustment panel and urge such adjustment panel to closed position in claims 2 and 20, it is not clear how such is achieved since there are no discussion of the operation and connection of the spring to the other components to achieve such claimed result.
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 3. 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 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. With respect to claim 3, “the opening within each of the securing holes” lacks proper antecedent basis. With respect to claim 9, “an unlock mechanism” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 10 is rejected for depending from a rejected claim. With respect to claim 13, “the faceplate” on lines 3 and 4 lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 14 is rejected for depending on a rejected claim. Claim 16 – depending from claim 12, is vague and indefinite for several reasons: (a) “a positioning flange” on line 2 is the same as the “adjustment flange” recited in claim 12. Such double inclusion of the same element makes the claim vague and indefinite; (b) “an adjustment opening” line 2 is the same as the “adjustment opening” as recited in claim 12 and should be corrected to “the attachment opening”; (c) “the faceplate” on line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis; (d) “the adjustment panels” is vague and indefinite since only one adjustment panel is recited; and (e) “the opening” and “the securing holes” lack proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (US 3635433 A) in view of Wengerd (US 10765185 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Anderson discloses a device for holding a plurality of containers (intended use) comprising:(a) a mount (11) ;(b) a faceplate (14) comprising:(i) at least one container opening (8) therewithin, the at least one container opening configured to receive a container (intended use) therewithin; and(ii) at least one adjustment panel (13) slidably disposed within the at least one container openings (12) , the adjustment panel positionable between:(A) an open position (figure 5) whereby a container may be received within or removed from the at least one container opening, and (B) a closed position (figure 2) whereby a container may be securely held in place. Regarding applicant’s recitation of intended use “for holding a plurality of containers”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Whitehead’s device is capable of supporting a container by its neck within each of the openings (16-24, figure 2) of Anderson.
However, Anderson does not disclose a clamp and an adjustment assembly fixable to the clamp on a proximal portion and fixable to the faceplate on a distal portion, the adjustment assembly comprising:(i) a first component fixable to the faceplate; and(ii) a second component fixable to the clamp; wherein the first component and the second component are rotationally positionable with respect to one another.
Wengerd discloses a device comprising a clamp (12, figure 4) “configured to be removably clamped to the support structure 13” (column 4, lines 26-28) and an adjustment assembly (15, figure 4) fixable to the clamp (12) on a proximal portion (62 and 64, figure 3) and fixable to a faceplate (40) on a distal portion (45), the adjustment assembly comprising:(i) a first component (45) fixable to the faceplate (40); and (ii) a second component (64 and 62) fixable to the clamp; wherein the first component and the second component are rotationally positionable with respect to one another to facilitate angular adjustment of the holder (column 4, lines 43-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the device of Anderson such that it is provided with a clamp configured to be removably clamped to the support structure and an adjustment assembly fixable to the clamp on a proximal portion and fixable to the faceplate on a distal portion, the adjustment assembly comprising:(i) a first component fixable to the faceplate; and(ii) a second component fixable to the clamp; wherein the first component and the second component are rotationally positionable with respect to one another to facilitate angular adjustment of the holder as taught to be desirable by Wengerd.
With respect to claim 2, Anderson and Wengerd combined discloses the device of claim 1 as advanced above, wherein Anderson discloses the faceplate (14) further comprises a spring (17, figure 4) operably coupled to the at least one adjustment panel (13), the spring (17) configured to urge the adjustment panel toward the closed position.
With respect to claim 4, Anderson and Wengerd combined discloses the device of claim 1 as advanced above, except for wherein the at least one container opening comprises at least four openings. Anderson discloses there are a total of 3 openings (8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide additional openings for holding additional objects therein, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With respect to claim 5, Anderson and Wengerd combined discloses the device of claim 1, except for wherein the container is a vial containing medical liquid. However, as discussed above, “the container” is a recitation of intended use, the device of Anderson is capable of supporting a vial containing a medical liquid.
With respect to claim 6, Anderson and Wengerd combined discloses the device of claim 1, wherein Wengerd discloses the adjustment assembly further comprises a tightening bolt (70, figure 4), and wherein first component (45) and the second component (62 and 64) each comprises corresponding teeth (73, 81, figure 4) that are selectively operably coupled by the tightening bolt.
With respect to claim 7, Anderson and Wengerd combined discloses the device of claim 1 as advanced above, wherein Wengerd discloses the first and second components further comprise locking mechanisms (gears 73 and 81).
With respect to claim 8, Anderson and Wengerd combined discloses the device of claim 7, wherein Wengerd discloses the locking mechanisms (gears 73 and 81)of the first and second components are in a locked position by default.
With respect to claim 9, Anderson and Wengerd combined discloses the device of claim 8 as advanced above, wherein Wengerd discloses a user activates an unlock mechanism (19) on at least one of the first and second components (62) to re-orient the faceplate.
With respect to claim 11, Anderson and Wengerd combined discloses the device of claim 1 as advanced above, wherein Wengerd discloses the clamp comprises:(i) a base 37, figure 5) ;(ii) a holding flange (18 or 20); and(iii) a locking mechanism (80, figure 5).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al (US 3635433 A) in view of Wengerd (US 10765185 B1) as applied to claims 1 and 7-9 above, and further in view of Lake et al (US 11175476 B2).
With respect to claim 10, Anderson and Wengerd combined discloses the device of claim 9, wherein the unlock mechanism is a button that a user depresses. Lakes teaches attachment device comprising a clamp (270, figure 6) and adjustment assembly (240) wherein the unlock mechanism can be a button (244) wherein “A user presses the release button 244 to release the locking mechanism 240” (column 9, lines 10-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the adjustment assembly of Anderson and Wengerd combined such that the unlocking mechanism is a button as an alternative to the knob as taught to be desirable by Lakes.
Claims 12, 15, 17, 18 and 19 are allowed.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13, 14, 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 allowability of claim 20 cannot be determined due to the ambiguity discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Whitehead (US 20070210021 A1) discloses a device for holding a plurality of containers (intended use) comprising:(a) a mount (10) ;(b) a faceplate (12) comprising:(i) at least one container opening (16-24) therewithin, the at least one container opening configured to receive a container (intended use, hanging tools, figure 5A) therewithin; and(ii) at least one adjustment panel (36, figure 2) slidably disposed within the at least one container openings (24) , the adjustment panel positionable between:(A) an open position (not shown but when plate 36 slides to other end of slot 44) whereby a container may be received within or removed from the at least one container opening, and (B) a closed position (figure 5A) whereby a container may be securely held in place. The remaining prior art of record further demonstrate holders of interests.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ko (Korie) H Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-6816. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 571-272-8227. 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.
/Ko H Chan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Khc
Prosecution Insights