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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 22 were amended, claim 11-20, 29-30 were canceled, claims 31-32 are new. Claims 1-10, 21-28, and 31-32 are pending. Claims 24-30 were withdrawn in the previous action filed 5/4/2026, as it includes language not previously considered. In the present response, applicant failed to designate said claims as withdrawn.
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 6 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.
The term “shaped like a semicircle” in claim 6 renders the claim indefinite.. The present invention’s side wall is item 17. The ends of item 17 do not connect. A semi-circle is half of a circle. The present invention’s side wall does not connect; it is not a closed shape. Whereas a semi-circle is a closed shape. Further, the drawings show a side wall that is arched above 180 degrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 10, 21, 23, 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Brown (US D732956 S).
With respect to claim 1, Brown discloses a bottle holder device, comprising: a substantially planar top surface (figure 7 below); an opening (figure 7) through the top surface; and a side wall (figure 7) that is arched and extending along a side of the top surface; wherein the side wall includes a substantially U-shaped receiving slot (figure 8) extending an entire length of the inside of the side wall, the U-shaped receiving slot including a ledge (figure 8) proximate a bottom end of the side wall that is distal from the substantially planar top surface extending inward directly from the side wall and defining a bottom wall of the U-shaped receiving slot, wherein the side wall extends along the side of the top surface in a circumferential arch that is less than 360 degrees (as seen in figure 6).
Examiner Note: As claimed, the ledge is a portion of the side wall and a portion of the U-shaped receiving slot.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
480
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
480
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5, Brown discloses the bottle holder device of claim 1, wherein a center of the opening is offset from a lateral center of a widest width of the top surface. (as seen in figure 7)
With respect to claim 6, Brown discloses the bottle holder device of claim 1, wherein a circumference of the side wall is shaped like a semicircle.
With respect to claim 10, Brown discloses the bottle holder device of claim 1, wherein the receiving slot is configured to fit over and be supported by a rim of a can. (Intended function language, this can be achieved by the invention as taught by Brown.)
With respect to claim 21, Brown discloses the bottle holder device of claim 1, wherein the opening is configured to hold an inverted mini bottle. (Intended function language, this can be achieved by the invention as taught by Brown.)
With respect to claim 23, Brown discloses the bottle holder device of claim 1, wherein a bottom portion of the substantially U-shaped receiving slot is parallel to an outside surface of the side wall. (can consider bottom and outer most portion of the bottom of the side wall and the U-shaped receiving slot as parallel, these two surfaces are offset will never intersect)
With respect to claim 31, Brown discloses the bottle holder device of claim 1, wherein the bottle holder device is configured to be coupled to a can with a protruding rim of the can seated in the U-shaped receiving slot. (Intended function language, this can be achieved by the invention as taught by Brown.)
With respect to claim 32, Brown discloses the bottle holder device of claim 1, wherein: a bottom portion of the U-shaped receiving slot is parallel to an outside surface of the side wall, and the ledge extends inward directly from the side wall substantially parallel to the substantially planar top surface. (Can consider bottom and outer most portion of the bottom of the side wall and the U-shaped receiving slot as parallel, these two surfaces are offset will never intersect. Similarly, the ledge and top surface are offset and do not intersect)
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Amazon SOLO Plastic Lid (see webpage attached).
With respect to claim 1, Amazon SOLO Plastic Lid discloses a device capable of being a bottle holder device, comprising: a substantially planar top surface (figure 1); an opening (figure 1) through the top surface; and a side wall (figure 1) that is arched and extending along a side of the top surface, wherein the side wall includes a substantially U-shaped receiving slot (figure 1) extending an entire length of the side wall, the U-shaped receiving slot including a ledge (bottom of u-shaped channel) proximate a bottom end of the side wall that is distal from the substantially planar top extending inward directly from the side wall and defining a bottom wall of the U-shaped receiving slot, wherein the side wall extends along the side of the top surface in a circumferential arch that is less than 360 degrees.
Examiner Note: See remarks below under Response to Arguments for further perspective about the interpretation of the arch and side wall. The “side of the top surface” can have an interpretation of a C-shape (degrees of 180 or more with respect to a top view). The wall that extends along said “side of the top surface” would be considered the “side wall”.
PNG
media_image3.png
282
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Amazon SOLO Plastic Lid discloses the bottle holder device of claim 1, wherein a circumference of the side wall is arched more than 180 degrees. As stated above, the “side wall” can be interpreted to meet said criteria. As the term “side of the top surface” has a broad range.
With respect to claim 9, Amazon SOLO Plastic Lid discloses the bottle holder device of claim 1, wherein the top surface includes signage. (“Caution” and other signage is visible in Figure 1)
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Riley (US 20170128327 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Riley discloses a bottle holder device, comprising: a substantially planar top surface (top of 48); an opening (46) through the top surface; and a side wall (42 and below) that is arched and extending along a side of the top surface; wherein the side wall includes a substantially U-shaped receiving slot (portion between threads of 56) extending an entire length of the inside of the side wall, the U-shaped receiving slot including a ledge (bottom thread of 56) proximate a bottom end of the side wall that is distal from the substantially planar top surface extending inward directly from the side wall and defining a bottom wall of the U-shaped receiving slot, wherein the side wall extends along the side of the top surface in a circumferential arch that is less than 360 degrees.
Examiner Note: See remarks below under Response to Arguments for further perspective about the interpretation of the arch and side wall. The “side of the top surface” can have an interpretation of a C-shape (degrees of 180 or more with respect to a top view). The wall that extends along said “side of the top surface” would be considered the “side wall”. In this art, one can also consider the rounded rim as the arch that is less than 360 degrees.
PNG
media_image4.png
332
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Riley discloses the bottle holder device of claim 1, wherein the opening (46) is circular.
With respect to claim 3, Riley discloses the bottle holder device of claim 1, wherein a wall defining the opening is chamfered. (46 has flat chamfer segment see cross section in figure 6)
With respect to claim 4, Riley discloses the bottle holder device of claim 3, wherein a chamfer of the opening slopes (46) inward from the top surface towards a center of the opening. (see cross section of figure 6)
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US D732956 S) in view of Dybala (US 8322562 B2).
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for made of a unitary construction of plastic, molded wax, or a biodegradable material. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely beverage lids, Dybala taught of a beverage lid with a similar structure that is made of a plastic material as is common in the field (Col 2 lines 59-61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of beverage lid containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a unitary plastic material as taught by Dybala in the system of Brown since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Brown teaches an unitary beverage lid and adding plastic as taught by Dybala would maintain the same functionality of Brown, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 22, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for that is made of an edible material. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely beverage lids, Dybala taught of a beverage lid with a similar structure that is made of a plastic material as is common in the field (Col 2 lines 59-61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of beverage lid containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a unitary plastic material as taught by Dybala in the system of Brown since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Brown teaches an unitary beverage lid and adding plastic as taught by Dybala would maintain the same functionality of Brown, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Examiner Note: Edible is not limited to human consumption. This does not distinguish an organism. Microplastics are commonly consumed. Dogs are known to consume plastic components. Certain organism can digest plastics. Wax worms can digest polyethylene which is a commonly used type of plastic.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues against the restriction of the new species of claims 24-30 by stating that independent claim 1 requires features of independent claim 24 (albeit using slightly different language). However, the differences in language leads to different structural limitations. Claim 24 and claim 1 have different limitations. Further, claim 24 introduces limitations that were not previously considered in the original independent claim 1. Therefore these claims remain restricted.
Although new art is used, examiner would like to convey that the amendments to claim 1 with respect to the circumferential arch that is less than 360 degrees is still broader than the applicant wishes. The specific language used can be broadly interpreted. An arch is traditionally considered a curved feature (think filleted edge). The radius of a fillet edge is less than 360 degrees. A fillet being present meets the limitation of an arch that is less than 360 degrees. In the prior, for example, the cross-sectional curve that is seen meets the limitation of an arch that is less than 360 degrees. The language circumferential relates to a circle/curve, and a fillet has a curve. The amended language allows for a broad interpretation.
When considering side wall as the perimeter wall, another interpretation can also cause a broad interpretation of the claims. Consider; the outer wall be made up of “side wall” and a “perimeter wall”? Meaning that a portion of an outer wall of prior art could be considered the “side wall” to meet the claimed limitations. In the current invention it appears there is a shortened side wall (that does not contain the U-shaped channel). However, this portion of the perimeter wall is excluded from the term “side wall”. Meaning another interpretation of “side wall” does not need to include the entirety of a “wall” extending from a top surface and only a portion. With this interpretation, the SOLO cup art would still read on the present invention. In fact, claim language even states “extending along a side of the housing”. Meaning that the sidewall is limited to “a side” (or a portion) of the top surface.
In general, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 arguments.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-8881939-B2 OR US-6901976-B1 OR US-4708254-A OR US-D1042046-S OR US-11033131-B2 OR US-D731696-S OR US-D731697-S OR US-D731698-S OR US-11918544-B2 OR US-D650692-S OR US-20130306664-A1 OR US-20170128327-A1 OR US-20120234845-A1 OR US-20070272329-A1 OR US-20050029299-A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights