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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/14/2025 (hereinafter “amendment”) has been accepted and entered. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claim(s) 13-15 are withdrawn as a result of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim(s) 13-15 are withdrawn as a result of the amendment.
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) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crandall et al. US 2021/0198920 A1 in view of Kimura et al. US 2021/0101840 A1, herein after referred to as Crandall and Kimura respectively.
Regarding claim 13 Crandall disclosed a device capable of thermal dampening (1 brace member, Figs. 7-9), the device consisting of:
a rectangular shaped base (9 central wall, Fig. 7) which has a rectangular cross-section;
a first sidewall (7 right angled sidewall) extending from a first edge of the rectangular base,
a second sidewall (8 right angled side wall) extending from a second edge of the rectangular base that is perpendicular to the first edge (Fig. 7, walls form a right angle);
the first sidewall and the second sidewall are made from at least two layers of material (paragraph [0002] lines 7-9 and 15-18),
wherein a first layer of material is made from solid material that is a poor conductor of heat (paragraphs [0002] line 15-18, at least steel and aluminum);
wherein the second layer of material is made from a coating (paragraph [0002] lines 7- 9).
Crandall is silent to the coating being a ceramic coating.
Kimura teaches a ceramic coating (paragraph [0002]) on to a metal substrate (paragraph [0119] lines 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating of Crandall to include the ceramic coating as taught by Kimura as doing so is well know in the art and would yield predictable results. Additionally, the use of a ceramic coating provides Crandall with excellent strength, abrasion resistance and insulation properties (paragraph [0002], lines 7-9). Further, 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
Regarding claim 14 Crandall disclosed the thermal dampening device of claim 13 and further discloses wherein the first layer of material is aluminum (paragraph [0002] line 15-18).
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument that “any subsequent office action in the present applicant cannot be made final”, the examiner disagrees. The changing of the grounds of rejection in this office action is necessitated by the applicant’s amendment. The previous office action addressed the claim language on the available grounds, both a 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) rejection. The subject matter was examined as what could be determined by what was originally presented in the specification. The claims previously recited that “the second layer of material is coated in a ceramic material” and then subsequently that “the second layer is paint”, thusly introducing new matter and further making it unclear as to how many layers are involved. Again, the subject matter was determined based on the specification as originally presented. The subject matter being that there is a second layer, that layer is paint (as was previously recited in claim 15) and without a third layer made of any type of material.
Applicant argues that Crandall cannot be utilized in the rejection, either as a primary reference or as a teaching reference” and Crandall is non-analogous art, examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that Crandall is not in the same field of endeavor, examiner disagrees. Crandall is directed to a brace that can connect object(s) and protect the object held within it, additionally the claim does not recite it is a device to thermally isolate a beverage container, just that it is a thermal dampening device. Crandall is a thermal dampening device as it is made from a coated metal and will protect the object held within it from damage including heat. Applicant argues that is not reasonably pertinent and does not prevent heat transfer from a source of heat to a beverage container. This is a moot point as that is not claimed. Additionally, Crandall will prevent heat transfer from an outside source to the item held within its sidewalls, thusly performing the same function as the applicant alleges and is thusly pertinent. Applicant is arguing the intended use of the invention. Again, the brace of Crandall will provide structural support and protection for what is held within it, the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Crandall discloses the materials used to make the device capable of thermal dampening are from a group including steel and aluminum which are the same materials disclosed in the specification as being thermal dampening/a poor conductor of heat. The specification recites in paragraph [0025] “A first layer of material 201 is made from a solid material. In one embodiment aluminum is used because it has a temperature dampening property. In another embodiment other materials may be used such as steel or iron. In some embodiments heat resistant plastic could be used to the same effect.” Thusly, the structure disclosed by Crandall meets the limitations as claimed and is capable of performing the intended use of a thermal dampening device. Applicant argues that Crandall does not disclose a ceramic coating, this is a moot point and is addressed by Kimura as discussed above.
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 Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/L KMET/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735