Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/411,000

DRINK BOTTLE SLEEVE WITH MAGNETIC ACCESSORIES AND POWER BANK SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 11, 2024
Examiner
VOLZ, ELIZABETH J
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Hyperion Vantage LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
722 granted / 1082 resolved
-3.3% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
1140
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.3%
+1.3% vs TC avg
§102
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1082 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 28-41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/6/25. 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 extending from the sleeve body, the magnet housing having a magnet disposed therein; and a strike plate channel formed on the magnet housing, wherein the strike plate channel is configured to receive a metal and/or magnetic strike plate. However, Diaz teaches a magnet housing 106 (Figure 10) extending from 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 on 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). 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. Regarding Claim 22, Mitchell teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a second magnet housing extending from the sleeve body, the second magnet housing having a second magnet disposed therein; and a second strike plate channel formed on the second magnet housing, wherein the second strike plate channel is configured to receive a second metal and/or magnetic strike plate. However, Diaz teaches a second magnet housing 106 (Figure 10) extending from 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 on the second magnet housing, wherein the second strike plate channel is configured to receive a second metal and/or magnetic strike plate (Figure 10). 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. 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. Conclusion 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. /ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 11, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600528
PACKAGE AND CLOSURE FOR PACKAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595885
NONUNIFORM WALL THICKNESS PROFILE FOR TEARDROP PRESSURE VESSELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577039
WASTE MANAGEMENT RECEPTACLE SYSTEM FOR CONTAINMENT OF ODOROUS WASTE AND METHOD OF USING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559304
SECURE BIN FOR SELECTIVE DEPOSIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559307
TRASH CAN ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+18.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1082 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month