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 amendments filed 5/4/2026 have 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 2002/0088810 (Murakami hereinafter) in view of US PG Pub No. 2019/0161267 (Getsay et al. hereinafter) and US Patent No. 2,995,267 (Ostrander hereinafter), and Zhang (of record).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 3 and 4, Murakami discloses: An insulated container configured to hold a bottle, the insulated container comprising: a metallic outer shell (10, paragraph 0041) comprising an external sidewall and an outer bottom wall (14); a metallic inner shell (12, paragraph 0041) comprising an inner sidewall and an inner bottom wall (22); the outer shell connected to the inner shell forming an insulated double wall structure with a sealed vacuum cavity between the outer shell and the inner shell (paragraph 0046); the insulated container having a top opening at a top of the inner sidewall that leads into a cavity (36) formed by the inner sidewall and the inner bottom wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
526
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
444
265
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Murakami fails to disclose a cylindrical elastomeric disc that is a similar size and shape as the inner bottom wall and is located on the inner bottom wall, wherein the cylindrical elastomeric disc includes a top side, a bottom side opposite the top side, and a circular sidewall located between the top side and the bottom side, wherein the bottom side lays flat against the inner bottom wall.
However, with reference to Fig. 26, Getsay et al. discloses an elastomeric disc (960, “neoprene” “silicone” paragraph 0071) similar in size and shape to a bottom wall of a beverage can sleeve member, wherein the cylindrical elastomeric disc includes a top side (see Fig. 26 below), a bottom side opposite the top side, and a circular sidewall (963) located between the top side and the bottom side, wherein the bottom side lays flat against the inner bottom wall (i.e. between the can and its supporting wall in Getsay et al.).
[AltContent: textbox (Bottom side)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Top side)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image3.png
644
467
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 Murakami to have included an elastomeric disc on a bottom wall as taught by Getsay et al. for the purposes of providing an elastomeric/wicking layer to facilitate advantageous management of condensation from a cold beverage can in a warm environment (Getsay et al. paragraph 0071).
Murakami in view of Getsay et al. fails to disclose a support member located between the outer bottom wall and the inner bottom wall.
However, with reference to Fig. 3, Ostrander discloses an insulating member (10) wherein a fiber glass or glass wool insulation (i.e. ceramic fiber insulation) can be located between spaced walls of the insulating member for further insulation performance benefits (column 2, lines 3-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the spaced compartment between the inner and outer shells to receive insulation as taught by Ostrander for the predictable purposes of enhancing the insulation performance of the container in certain circumstances (Ostrander column 2, lines 3-7).
Mrakam in view of Getsay et al. and Ostrander fail to disclose wherein the top side of the cylindrical elastomeric disc comprises a central solid surface surrounded by a set of cavities that are each in a first shape corresponding in shape to the central solid surface.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 9, Zhang discloses a coaster including a honeycomb design formed by a plurality of cavities in the shape of a hexagon surrounding a central solid surface (see Detail below, dotted lines provided to distinguish “central solid surface” from surrounding solid surfaces in the same manner as Applicant’s analogous feature in Fig. 24 at element 384A). Further note Applicant’s solid surface at 384A is a different size than cavity 384B, thereby allowing for definition of the term “corresponding” to accommodate different sizes rather than requiring equal sizes.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image4.png
671
542
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
661
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Central Solid Surface)]
PNG
media_image6.png
195
163
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 provided a pleasing aesthetic design to the disc of Murakami in view Getsay et al. and Ostrander as taught by Zhang, and regarding the limitation(s) to the claimed aesthetics/ornamentation, note that MPEP 2144.04, I, the court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In the current specification at paragraph 0073, Applicant has not stated criticality for the claimed limitations (“the cavities 384 in the top side 382 of the dampener 380 may have other designs and/or shapes such as pentagons, squares, rectangles, circles, ovals, slots, or other geometric shapes. The top side 382 of the dampener 380 may also have no specific design, i.e. may be flat.”)
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al. and Ostrander and Zhang disclose the claimed invention including wherein the support member comprises a ceramic fiber insulation (fiberglass/glass wool as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 21, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al. and Ostrander and Zhang disclose the claimed invention including wherein the set of cavities are surrounded by an additional set of cavities and wherein the additional set of cavities comprise a second shape and a third shape and wherein the first shape, the second shape, and the third shape are each different from each other (See Fig. 1 detail below, at least one wall of the “pentagon” and “trapezoid being curved as in Applicants Figs. 24 and 25).
[AltContent: textbox (Trapezoid)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pentagon)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image7.png
111
156
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In re claim 22, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al. and Ostrander and Zhang disclose the claimed invention including wherein the first shape is hexagonal, the second shape is pentagonal, and the third shape is trapezoidal (see Fig. 1 above).
Murakami in view of Getsay et al. and Ostrander and Zhang fail to disclose wherein the hexagonal shape is regular hexagonal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have instead modified the hexagonal first shape to be regularly hexagonal, since the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0073 ##, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (i.e. “regular” hexagonal).
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 7, 10-12, 17-20, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Getsay et al. and Ostrander and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 10,729,261 (Ellison et al., of record).
In re claims 2, 3, and 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al. and Ostrander and Zhang disclose the claimed invention except wherein a diameter of the inner bottom wall is within a range of 3.25 inches and 3.75 inches, a height of the inner sidewall is within a range of 8.5 inches and 9 inches, and wherein a ratio of a height of the inner sidewall to a diameter of the inner bottom wall is within a range of 2.2:1 and 2.8:1.
However, with reference to Fig. 11, Ellison et al. teaches an insulating container formed from inner (105) and outer (107) shells with a vacuum therebetween (column 5, lines 25-31), and teaches a ratio of a sidewall height to a diameter within a range of 2:1 and 3:1, and or 2.15:1 and 2.5:1 (column 3, lines 31-35: “In other aspects, the ratio of the height to the diameter may be 2.00-3.00 to 1. In yet other aspects, the ratio of the height to the diameter may be 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.25, 2.26, 2.27, 2.28, 2.29, 2.30, 2.31, 2.32, 2.33, 2.34, 2.35, 2.36, 2.38, 2.39, 2.40, 2.41, 2.42, 2.43, 2.44, 2.45, 2.46, 2.47, 2.48, 2.49, or 2.50 to 1”).
[AltContent: textbox (Continuous inner cavity wall)][AltContent: textbox (Continuous outer cavity wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image8.png
384
558
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the teachings of Ellison et al. to have sized/proportioned the height and diameter of the beverage can-receiving space of Murakami in view of Getsay et al. and Ostrander and Zhang to have been of a desired range of ratios as claimed, as taught by Ellison et al., and further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have sized the beverage can-receiving cavity to approximate the dimensions of a beverage can, such as 3.25-3.75 inches in diameter and 8.5-9 inches in height (and in accordance with the taught ratio range taught by Ellison et al.), since it has been held that the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A).
In re claims 6 and 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al. and Ostrander and Zhang disclose the claimed invention except wherein the outer bottom wall has a lower ring-shaped cavity, the lower ring-shaped cavity including a continuous inner cavity wall and a continuous outer cavity wall, and a foot bracket connected to the lower ring-shaped cavity, wherein the foot bracket includes a pair of engaging members, and wherein an elastomeric foot member is connected to the foot bracket.
However, with reference to Fig. 11 above, Ellison et al. teaches an outer bottom wall having a lower ring-shaped cavity (103b), the lower ring-shaped cavity including a continuous inner cavity wall and a continuous outer cavity wall (see Fig. 11 above), and a foot bracket (111) connected to the lower right[ring]-shaped cavity, wherein the foot bracket includes a pair of engaging members (113), and wherein an elastomeric foot member (103) is connected to the foot bracket (“rubber or other polymer”, column 3, lines 16-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a ring shaped cavity having a bracket with engaging members and a rubber/polymer foot in the outer bottom wall of Murakami in view of Getsay et al. and Ostrander and Zhang as taught by Ellison et al. for the purposes of increasing friction to prevent slippage from a support surface which would predictably prevent spillage and/or damage to the surface (column 3, lines 16-20). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilized an elastomeric material as the “rubber or other polymer” to increase friction, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0057, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al., Ostrander, Zhang and Ellison et al. disclose: An insulated container configured to hold a bottle, the insulated container comprising: a metallic outer shell comprising an outer sidewall and an outer bottom wall (as in re claim 1 above), wherein the outer bottom wall has a lower ring-shaped cavity, the lower ring-shaped cavity including an inner cavity wall, an outer cavity wall, and a bottom cavity wall; a foot bracket connected to the lower ring-shaped cavity, wherein the foot bracket includes a pair of engaging members, and wherein an elastomeric foot member is connected to the foot bracket (as In re claims 6-7 above); a metallic inner shell defining an inward facing surface comprising an inner sidewall and an inner bottom wall, wherein the inner bottom wall includes a planar central region (at Murakami 22, see Fig. 3); the outer shell being integrally joined to the inner shell forming an insulated double wall structure with a sealed vacuum cavity between the outer shell and the inner shell (as in re claim 1 above); the insulated container having a top opening extending into a cavity; a support member located between the outer bottom wall and the inner bottom wall, wherein the support member is located adjacent the inner cavity wall; and a cylindrical elastomeric disc that is a similar size and shape as the inner bottom wall and is located on the inner bottom wall (as in re claim 1 above), wherein the cylindrical elastomeric disc includes a top side, a bottom side opposite the top side, and a circular sidewall located between the top side and the bottom side (as in re claim 1 above), wherein the bottom side lays flat against the inner bottom wall and wherein the top side of the cylindrical elastomeric disc comprises a central hexagonal-shaped solid surface surrounded by a plurality of hexagonal-shaped cavities corresponding in shape to the central hexagonal-shaped solid surface (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al., Ostrander, Zhang and Ellison et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein a diameter of the inner bottom wall is within a range of 3.25 inches and 3.75 inches and a height of the inner sidewall is within a range of 8.5 inches and 9 inches (as in re claims 2 and 3 above).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al., Ostrander, Zhang and Ellison et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the support member comprises a ceramic fiber insulation (as in re claim 5 above).
In re claim 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al., Ostrander, Ellison et al. and Zhang disclose: An insulated container configured to hold a bottle, the insulated container comprising: a metallic outer shell comprising an external sidewall and an outer bottom wall; a metallic inner shell comprising an inner sidewall and an inner bottom wall (as in re claim 1 above), wherein a diameter of the inner bottom wall is within a range of 3.25 inches and 3.75 inches and a height of the inner sidewall is within a range of 8.5 inches and 9 inches (as in re claims 2 and 3 above); the outer shell connected to the inner shell forming an insulated double wall structure with a sealed vacuum cavity between the outer shell and the inner shell; the insulated container having a top opening at a top of the inner sidewall that leads into a cavity formed by the inner sidewall and the inner bottom wall; a cylindrical elastomeric disc that is a similar size and shape as the inner bottom wall and is located on the inner bottom wall (as in re claim 1 above), wherein the cylindrical elastomeric disc includes a top side, a bottom side opposite the top side, and a circular sidewall located between the top side and the bottom side, wherein the bottom side of the cylindrical elastomeric disc lays flat against the inner bottom wall (as in re claim 1 above), and wherein the top side of the cylindrical elastomeric disc comprises a plurality of regular hexagonal-shaped cavities (as in re claim 1 above), and wherein the plurality of regular hexagonal-shaped cavities surround a hexagon-shaped solid surface (as in re claim 1 above); and a support member located between the outer bottom wall and the inner bottom wall (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 18, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al., Ostrander, Ellison et al. and Zhang disclose the claimed invention including wherein the support member comprises a ceramic fiber insulation (as in re claim 5 above).
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al., Ostrander, Ellison et al. and Zhang disclose the claimed invention including wherein the outer bottom wall has a lower ring-shaped cavity, the lower ring-shaped cavity including a continuous inner cavity wall and a continuous outer cavity wall (as in re claim 6 above).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al., Ostrander, Ellison et al. and Zhang disclose the claimed invention including wherein a foot bracket connected to the lower ring-shaped cavity, wherein the foot bracket includes a pair of engaging members, and wherein an elastomeric foot member is connected to the foot bracket (as in re claim 7 above).
In re claim 23, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al., Ostrander, Ellison et al. and Zhang disclose the claimed invention including wherein the plurality of hexagonal- shaped cavities are regular hexagonal-shaped and the top side of the cylindrical elastomeric disc further comprises pentagonal-shaped cavities and trapezoidal-shaped cavities (as in re claim 21 and 22 above).
In re claim 24, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al., Ostrander, Ellison et al. and Zhang disclose the claimed invention including wherein the plurality of hexagonal- shaped cavities are surrounded by the pentagonal-shaped cavities and the trapezoidal- shaped cavities (as in re claim 21 and 22 above).
In re claim 25, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Murakami in view of Getsay et al., Ostrander, Ellison et al. and Zhang disclose the claimed invention including wherein the plurality of regular hexagonal-shaped cavities are surrounded by pentagonal-shaped cavities and trapezoidal- shaped cavities (as in re claim 21 and 22 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new limitations are not taught the combination of references presented (e.g. Zhang, of record), however, as in re claims 1, 10, 17, and 21-25 above, Zhang does teach the claimed limitations.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
