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 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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Regarding Claim 22, it is unclear whether “a sidewall” in line 2 is the same as the sidewall from claim 21.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 22 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (U.S. Pub. No. 20070176069) in view of Diaz (U.S. Patent No. 8333300).
Regarding Claim 21, Mitchell discloses bottle sleeve (figure 13) comprising: a sleeve body 86 (Figure 13); Mitchell does not disclose a magnet housing integrated into a sidewall of the sleeve body, the magnet housing having a magnet disposed therein; and a strike plate channel formed at a forefront of the magnet housing, wherein the strike plate channel is configured to receive a metal and/or magnetic strike plate attachable on a first side to the magnet housing and on a second side to an accessory. However, Diaz teaches a magnet housing 106 (Figure 10) integrated into a sidewall of the sleeve body, the magnet housing having a magnet 104 (Figure 10) disposed therein; and a strike plate channel (space which magnet is placed, figure 10) formed at a forefront of the magnet housing, wherein the strike plate channel is configured to receive a metal and/or magnetic strike plate (figure 10; opening which the magnet fits into) attachable on a first side to the magnet housing and on a second side to an accessory (functional language, capable of). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell to include the above as taught by Diaz, in order to provide a strong attachment for magnets to the sleeve by surrounding the magnet and protecting the magnet.
Regarding Claim 22, Mitchell teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a second magnet housing integrated into a sidewall of the sleeve body, the second magnet housing having a second magnet disposed therein; and a second strike plate channel formed at a forefront of the second magnet housing, wherein the second strike plate channel is configured to receive a second metal and/or magnetic strike plate attachable on a first side to the second magnet housing and on a second side to an accessory. However, Diaz teaches a second magnet housing 106 (Figure 10) integrated into a sidewall of the sleeve body (when combined with Mitchell sleeve), the second magnet housing having a second magnet disposed therein 104 (Figure 10); and a second strike plate channel (space which the magnet is placed, figure 10) formed at a forefront the second magnet housing, wherein the second strike plate channel is configured to receive a second metal and/or magnetic strike plate (Figure 10) attachable on a first side to the second magnet housing and on a second side to an accessory (functional language; capable of). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell to include the above as taught by Diaz, in order to provide a strong attachment for magnets to the sleeve by surrounding the magnet and protecting the magnet.
Regarding Claim 27, Mitches discloses air pressure equalizing vents (upper opening (Figure 13) and 2300 (Figure 23)).
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (U.S. Pub. No. 20070176069) in view of Diaz (U.S. Patent No. 8333300) and Brown (U.S. Patent No. 8960125).
Regarding Claim 23, Mitchell and Diaz teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a band and/or ring anchor integrated into the sleeve. However, Brown teaches a band anchor 23 (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell and Diaz to include the above as taught by Brown, in order to allow multiple objects to be carried.
Regarding Claim 24, Mitchell and Diaz teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the band anchor and the sleeve body form an opening configured to receive an accessory. However, Brown teaches an opening configured to receive an accessory (figure 1, space between band 23 and the sleeve). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell and Diaz to include the above as taught by Brown, in order to allow multiple objects to be carried.
Regarding Claim 25, Mitchell and Diaz teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a tracking device compartment. However, Brown teaches a tracking device compartment (pocket, column 4, lines 16-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell and Diaz to include the above as taught by Brown, in order to allow objects to be carried.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (U.S. Pub. No. 20070176069) in view of Diaz (U.S. Patent No. 8333300) and Cross (U.S. Pub. No. 20150250684).
Regarding Claim 26, Mitchell and Diaz teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for shock absorbing bumpers. However, Cross teaches shock absorbing bumpers 11 (figure 6; paragraph 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell and Diaz to include the above as taught by Cross, in order to prevent damage when the sleeve is dropped.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Diaz is not integrated into a sidewall of the sleeve. However, Diaz combined with Mitchell which when combined would disclose the magnet integrated in the side wall (figure 13 of Mitchell shows the magnets integrated). Applicant also argues that Diam does not disclose a strike plate channel at a forefront of the magnet housing and a strike plate isn’t attachable on a first side to the magnet housing and on a second side to an accessory. However, when the magnet/strike plate is not within the channel, the channel is on the front of the housing and when the magnet/strike plate is placed within the channel the strike plate is attachable to the housing and an accessory. Applicant argues that Diaz does not disclose a magnet and a strike plate. However, the outer face of the magnet is considered the strike plate.
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 ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-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 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.
/E.J.V/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights