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 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 1-14 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.
Each independent claim now includes a limitation requiring the strap to pass through a channel extending through the upper portion of the case, however this limitation is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed. The specification only described the attachment of the strap to the carrier in the same terminology as was previously presented in the claims (now deleted via the current amendment) and makes no mention of the channel. Further, the drawings do not show sufficient detail to be the sole support for the newly added claim limitation.
This is a new matter rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panganiban (US 7677056) in view of Hvedson et al. (US 2016/0135572, hereinafter ‘Hvedson’) and Saffran (US 8272545).
Panganiban discloses a beverage container holding apparatus comprising: a case comprising: a lower portion (25) having a bottom wall (20) and a perimeter wall (100), the perimeter wall being coupled to and extending away from the bottom wall (see Fig. 1), the lower portion defining an interior space in the lower portion, the interior space having a size and a shape such that the lower portion is configured to hold a beverage container in the interior space, a top edge of the perimeter wall defining an opening to the interior space (see Figs. 1, 2); an upper portion (50) being coupled to the lower portion, the upper portion being movable between an open position (see Fig. 1) and a closed position with respect to the opening of the lower portion (see Fig. 1); and a closure (80) being coupled to the lower portion and the upper portion and is operable to releasably secure the upper portion in the closed position (col. 5, ll. 20-32); except does not expressly disclose the lanyard/channel as claimed.
However, Hvedson teaches providing a beverage container holding apparatus with a lanyard being coupled to the case, the lanyard comprising: a strap (6) being mounted to the upper portion of the case, the strap having a pair of end portions (4, 5), each end portion of the pair of end portions of the strap being coupled to the case, the strap having a middle portion being coupled to and extending between the pair of end portions (see Fig. 1); and an adjustment ring (7) being slidably coupled to the pair of end portions of the strap, the adjustment ring receiving the pair of end portions through the adjustment ring, the adjustment ring forming a proximal loop and a distal loop with the strap with respect to the case (see Fig. 1), the adjustment ring being slidable alternately toward and away from the case to adjust sizes of the proximal loop and the distal loop (functional/intended use limitation).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the lanyard taught by Hvedson to the container holder taught by Panganiban, in order to allow the apparatus to remain level and balanced while providing hands-free use to the user as taught by Hvedson (para 0015).
Further, Saffran teaches a bottle carrier strap extending through a channel (82) extending through the carrier such that the strap is coupled to the case, the strap having a middle portion extending from opposite ends of the channel extending through the carrier (see Figs. 1, 4) as claimed.
Because Panganiban as modified above and Saffran both teach attachments of a strap to a beverage carrier device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the channel with strap extending therethrough taught by Saffran for the tied strap ends taught by Panganiban as modified above to achieve the predictable result of securely suspending the carrier from the user.
The initial statement of intended use and all other functional implications have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by Panganiban as modified above which is capable of being used in the intended manner, i.e., adjusting loop size to fit a user’s neck or wrist. There is no structure in Panganiban as modified above that would prohibit such functional intended use (see MPEP 2111).
Panganiban as modified above further results in a device wherein the perimeter wall has a height from the bottom wall to the top edge of the perimeter wall such that the top edge is configured to be positioned between a top end and a bottom end of the beverage container when the lower portion holds the beverage container in a held position in the lower portion (see Panganiban Fig. 2); the top edge is configured to be positioned closer to the top end than to the bottom end of the beverage container when the lower portion holds the beverage container in the held position (see Panganiban Fig. 2); an interior surface of the perimeter wall has a shape such that the interior surface is configured to be complementary in shape to an exterior surface of the beverage container (see Panganiban Fig. 1); the perimeter wall has a cylindrical shape (see Panganiban Fig. 1); the lower portion and the upper portion each comprise a thermally insulating material (see Panganiban 60); the upper portion has a top wall and a peripheral wall, the peripheral wall being coupled to and extending away from the top wall, the upper portion and the lower portion being configured to completely enclose the beverage container when the upper portion is positioned in the closed position (see Panganiban Fig. 2; col. 5, ll. 20-32); the closure comprises a pair of mating members (zipper; Panganiban 80); a living hinge being coupled to the lower portion and the upper portion, the upper portion being pivotable with respect to the lower portion via the hinge (see Panganiban Figs. 1, 2; col. 3, ll. 14); the hinge is integrally formed with the lower portion and the upper portion (see Panganiban Figs. 1, 2); a lid being mounted in the upper portion, the lid comprising a panel (Panganiban top panel of 50) and a peripheral lip (Panganiban 35), the peripheral lip being coupled to and extending away from the panel wherein the peripheral lip is configured to form a seal around a rim of the beverage container (Panganiban Figs. 1, 2; col. 5, ll. 20-32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-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 Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
July 22, 2025