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 .
The amendment filed 3/31/2026 has been entered.
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, 5-6, 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 9,505,527 (Campbell hereinafter) in view of US Patent No. 9,988,202 (Haas hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1-3, Campbell discloses: A multi-configuration, reusable bottle assembly, comprising: a bottle cap (12); a metal bottle that defines an interior volume for retaining liquid (column 2, lines 20-24), wherein the metal bottle includes an upper portion (13), wherein the upper portion includes a neck (30) that defines an opening and that mates with the bottle cap in a watertight manner; and a glass bottle (100, “glass”, see Background) sized to securely and removably nest within the interior volume of the metal bottle (see Fig. 3), wherein the glass bottle has a shoulder (103) and a mouth (106), wherein the glass bottle is further sized to extend out the opening of the metal bottle, so that an opening of the glass bottle directly mates with the bottle cap (see Fig. 3) in order to form a watertight seal therebetween (column 3, lines 26-29), wherein the glass bottle includes a second sleeve disposed about a base of the glass bottle, wherein the second sleeve contacts an interior side of the metal bottle in a snug-fit manner when the glass bottle is nested therein, wherein the second sleeve is fit around the base of the glass bottle (sleeve 93 is located on an upward facing surface of the metal wall of the metal bottle and is fit to the outer surface of the glass bottle, see Fig. 3 below).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. upper portion and lower portion being able to serve as cups) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
PNG
media_image1.png
752
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Campbell fails to disclose wherein the glass bottle include a first sleeve fit around the neck of the bottle, disposed between the neck of the bottle and the metal bottle when the glass bottle is nested therein, wherein the first sleeve has a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the top surface of the first sleeve is disposed below the mouth of the glass bottle, wherein the bottom surface of the first sleeve is disposed above the shoulder of the glass bottle.
However, with reference to Fig. 8, Haas discloses an outer bottle having upper (30) and lower (20) portions, and inner bottle (70), wherein a first sleeve (160) is snugly fit to the outer bottle and the neck of the inner bottle (column 9, lines 11-28), wherein the first sleeve has a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the top surface of the first sleeve is disposed below the mouth of the glass bottle, wherein the bottom surface of the first sleeve is disposed above the shoulder of the glass bottle (see below).
[AltContent: textbox (neck of bottle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Shoulder of bottle)][AltContent: textbox (Mouth of bottle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Sleeve Bottom Surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Sleeve Top Surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Sleeve at neck of bottle)]
PNG
media_image2.png
637
365
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the first sleeve of Hass with the bottle assembly of Campbell for the purposes restricting vertical/lateral movement of the bottle (column 9, lines 11-28), predictably resulting in a more secure seating arrangement of the glass bottle within the outer bottle in instances when the closure 12 of Campbell is removed (i.e. during access to/filling of/pouring of contents).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Campbell in view of Haas discloses the claimed invention including wherein the metal bottle further includes a lower portion (14), wherein the upper portion (13) has a cylindrical body including an insulative double-walled side wall (wall 13 and wall 90), wherein the neck of the upper portion includes threads (42) that mate with corresponding threads (53) of the bottle cap, wherein the lower portion has a cylindrical body including an insulative, double-walled side wall (walls 14 and 93).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Campbell in view of Haas discloses the claimed invention including wherein the upper portion (13) defines a bottom opening and includes threads (40) disposed about an outer side of a sidewall of thereof, wherein the threads of the upper portion are proximate to the bottom opening, wherein the metal bottle further includes a lower portion (14), and the lower portion (14) defines a top opening and includes threads (41) disposed on in inner side of a sidewall thereof, wherein the threads of the lower portion are proximate to the top opening, wherein the threads of the lower portion are adapted to mate with the threads of the upper opening in order to form a watertight seal therebetween (volume 15 is sealed off from the environment, Campbell, column 7, lines 15-19).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Campbell in view of Haas discloses A multi-configuration, reusable bottle assembly, comprising: a bottle cap; a metal bottle that defines an interior volume for retaining liquid (as in re claim 1 above), wherein the metal bottle includes an upper portion, the upper portion including a neck that defines an opening (as in re claim 1), the upper portion having a cylindrical body including an insulative, double-walled side wall (as In re claim 5 above), wherein the neck includes threads that mate with corresponding threads of the bottle cap in a watertight manner, and a lower portion having a cylindrical body including an insulative, double-walled side wall (as in re claim 5 above); and a glass bottle sized to securely and removably nest within the interior volume of the metal bottle, wherein the glass bottle has a shoulder and a mouth (as in re claim 1 above), the glass bottle further sized to extend out the opening of the metal bottle so that an opening of the glass bottle directly mates with the bottle cap in order to form a watertight seal therebetween (as in re claims 1 and 5 above), wherein the glass bottle includes a first sleeve disposed about a neck of the glass bottle and a second sleeve disposed about a base of the glass bottle, wherein the first and second sleeves contact an interior side of the metal bottle in a snug-fit manner when the glass bottle is nested therein, wherein the first sleeve of the glass bottle is disposed between the neck of the glass bottle and the metal bottle when the glass bottle is nested therein, wherein the first sleeve has a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the top surface of the first sleeve is disposed below the mouth of the glass bottle, wherein the bottom surface of the first sleeve is disposed above the shoulder of the glass bottle (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Campbell in view of Haas discloses the claimed invention including wherein the upper portion defines a bottom opening and includes threads disposed about an outer side of a sidewall of thereof, wherein the threads of the upper portion are proximate to the bottom opening, and the lower portion defines a top opening and includes threads disposed on an inner side of a sidewall thereof wherein the threads of the lower portion are proximate to the top opening, wherein the threads of the lower portion are adapted to mate with the threads of the upper portion forming a watertight seal therebetween (as in re claim 6 above).
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Haas as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Us PG pub No. 2015/0122828 (Madala hereinafter).
In re claims 2 and 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Campbell in view of Haas discloses the claimed invention including wherein the bottle cap includes a cylindrical base that mates with the neck of the metal bottle (54), but not a flip top that is attached to the base via a hinge, and a latch that engages the base and the flip top in order to secure the flip top, wherein the flip top is positioned to seal the opening of the glass bottle in a watertight manner when closed.
However, with reference to Figs. 7-10, Madala discloses a bottle cap (22/24) which includes a cylindrical base (22) that mates with a neck of a container (20), a flip top (24) that is attached to the base via a hinge 36), and a latch (38) that engages the base (at catch 40) and the flip top for securing the flip top, the flip top is positioned to seal the opening of the inner container (12) in a watertight manner, when closed.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Latch)]
PNG
media_image3.png
470
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the cap of Campbell in view of Haas to have included a flip top portion as taught by Madala for the purposes of allowing for simplified opening and closing of the bottle without misplacing the cap or extensive unthreading each time the user desires a drink.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Haas and Madala as applied to claims 2 and 9 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2012/0145591 (Ceder hereinafter).
In re claims 3 and 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Campbell in view of Haas and Madala discloses the claimed invention except wherein the metal bottle further includes a removable spout for use when the glass bottle is removed, wherein the spout is disposed between the base of the cap and the metal bottle in a watertight matter, when in use, the spout projects upward through an opening of the base, when the top is flipped open, so that the user can drink directly through the spout.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 4, Ceder discloses a multi-part bottle which further includes removable spout (60).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (“for use with the glass bottle is removed”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
PNG
media_image4.png
712
408
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the spout of Ceder with the bottle of Campbell in view of Haas and Madala, the spout being disposed between the base of the cap and the metal bottle in a watertight matter, and when in use, the spout projects upward through an opening of the base, when the top is flipped open, so that the user can drink directly through the spout (which is how one of ordinary skill would be expected to operate the c combination, for the purposes of facilitating accurate pouring/emptying of contents thereby preventing spillage during egress of fluids from the bottle.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Haas as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2007/0056964 (Holcomb hereinafter).
In re claims 4 and 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Campbell in view of Haas discloses the claimed invention including wherein the metal bottle further includes a lower portion (14), but not a separable silicone grip sized to fit about a top opening of the lower portion of the metal bottle.
However, with reference to Fig. 1, Holcomb discloses a silicone element (102, paragraph 0017) fit about the top of a lower portion of a container (at 108).
PNG
media_image5.png
700
498
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (“when separated from the upper portion, serving as a grip, in a can cooler configuration”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the lower portion of Campbell in view of Haas to have included a silicone element as taught by Holcomb for the purposes of enhancing drinking sensation of the user (Holcomb, paragraphs 0009 and 0018-0019).
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Haas as applied to claim1 and 8 above, and further in view of US PG Pub. No. 2005/0056610 (Randolph et al. hereinafter).
In re claims 14 and 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Campbell in view of Haas discloses the claimed invention except wherein the bottle cap has a base, further comprising: a removeable spout, wherein the removeable spout is disposed between the base of the bottle cap and the metal bottle in a watertight manner, the base having an opening, wherein the removeable spout projects upward through the opening of the base.
However, with reference to Fig. 2, Randolph et al. discloses a bottle (10) having a bottle cap (400, 500, 600), the bottle cap has a base (400) and a removable spout (500) disposed between the base of the bottle cap and the bottle, the spout projecting through the opening (paragraph 0058).
PNG
media_image6.png
694
280
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the cap of Campbell in view of Haas to have included a removable spout as taught by Randolph et al. for the purposes of facilitating use by a baby/infant thereby enhancing the versatility of the bottle.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Haas as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US PG Pub. No. 2014/0319158 (Lonsway hereinafter).
In re claims 15 and 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Campbell in view of Haas discloses the claimed invention including wherein the metal bottle further includes a lower portion (14), but not wherein the upper portion and the lower portion are detached, further comprising: a grip sized to fit about a top opening of the lower portion of the metal bottle, wherein the grip is disposed about the top opening of the lower portion of the metal bottle.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2, Lonsway discloses a bottle/shell portion (16) which includes a grip (18) sized to fit about a top opening of the bottle/shell.
PNG
media_image7.png
663
526
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the lower portion of the bottle of Campbell in view of Haas to have included a grip as taught by Lonsway for the purposes of forming a seal in order to create an air pocket between an inner container and the bottle/shell (Lonsway, paragraph 0012).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/31/2026 with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment (i.e. in view of Hass above).
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights