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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-13) in the reply filed on February 12th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 12th, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “force mechanism 90” first appearing in on Pg. 12, paragraph 55 of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 5: “the opening” should read “the at least one opening”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 7, line 2: “release mechanism” draws corresponding support from the following recitation of the specification, “the release mechanism comprises a release wedge 44 coupled to the lid 41 by a hinge joint, allowing the release wedge to hinge upward relative to the plane of the lid. A release hinge spring 45, coupled to the release wedge 44 and lid 41, is disposed approximately at the release wedge's attachment point with the lid. The tension of the release hinge spring 45, on one hand, urges the lid 41 downward into its closed position and, on the other hand, urges the angle of the release wedge 44 downward and into contact with a driving block 46 (Pg. 12, paragraph 55)”, or equivalents.
Claim 9, line 1: “force mechanism” draws corresponding support from the following recitation of the specification, “In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 9, the force mechanism 90 is disposed within the cooler's inner cavity 70 and features an attachment point 91 arranged proximate to the bottom 11 of the cooler. In the embodiment of FIG. 9, the force mechanism comprises a platform 92 that engages with items stored in the cooler and a cavity spring 93 that urges the platform and any items thereon upwards towards the head assembly 40 and/or the cooler's top 10 (Pg. 13-14, Paragraph 59)”, or equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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 “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the one or more thermoelectric cooling elements contact the exterior surface of the tube is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require any amount of contact between the one or more thermoelectric cooling elements and contact the exterior surface of the tube.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the head assembly covers the top end of the tube is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require any amount of covering of the top end of the tube via the head assembly.
Claim 3, lines 1-2 recite, “comprising at least three thermoelectric cooling elements” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the at least three thermoelectric cooling elements of claim 3 relate to the previously claimed one of more thermoelectric cooling elements of claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read as follows, “wherein the one or more thermoelectric cooling elements comprise at least three thermoelectric cooling elements”. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to read as interpreted herein.
The term “substantially” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the thermoelectric elements are disposed equidistant from one another is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the thermoelectric elements to be disposed equidistant from one another.
The term “substantially” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the tube is cylindrical in shape is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the tube to have a cylindrical shape.
The term “substantially” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the head interior is contiguous with the inner cavity of the tube is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require any degree of contiguousness between the head interior and the inner cavity of the tube.
The term “substantially” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to the which gate obstructs passage through the head interior when in the locked state is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require any degree of passage obstruction via the gate through the head interior when in the locked state.
The term “substantially” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to the bottom surface is uniform is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the bottom surface to have any degree of uniformness.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the frame’s" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the frame’s” in line 5 of claim 10 to “the bag top frame’s” which is given sufficient antecedent basis in line 2 of claim 10. The Examiner will interpret the claim as recommended herein.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the base’s" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the base’s” in line 6 of claim 10 to “the bag base’s” which is given sufficient antecedent basis in line 4 of claim 10. The Examiner will interpret the claim as recommended herein.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the mounting assembly" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the mounting assembly” in line 3 of claim 11 to “the mount assembly” which is given sufficient antecedent basis in line 1 of claim 11. The Examiner will interpret the claim as recommended herein.
The term “substantially” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to the axis is perpendicular to the height of the tube is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the axis to be perpendicular to the height of the tube.
The term “substantially” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to the plane is parallel to the height of the tube is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the plane is parallel to be perpendicular to the height of the tube.
The term “substantially” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to the axis is perpendicular to the height of the tube is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the axis to be perpendicular to the height of the tube.
Claim 13, line 7 recites, “an axis” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the axis of line 7 relates to the previously claimed axis of line 4 of claim 7. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the axes of lines 4 and 7 to be the same axis. The Examiner recommends changing “an axis” in line 7 of claim 13 to “the axis”.
The term “substantially” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to the axis is perpendicular to the height of the tube is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the axis to be perpendicular to the height of the tube.
Claims 2-7, and 10-13 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 8 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
Claim 9 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 8.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penner (US Patent No. 4,924,682), hereinafter Penner in view of Alexander et al. (US Patent No. 12,480,691), hereinafter Alexander.
Regarding claim 1, Penner discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1, golf bag beverage cooler 10; Fig. 13-16 third embodiment 60) comprising:
a tube having a top end, a bottom end, a height, an exterior surface, and an inner cavity (Fig. 15, insulated housing 66, access opening 41; Fig. 13-16 which depict the third embodiment 60 do not show the entirety of the insulated housing 66, however, the third embodiment 60 is simply a modification of how the cans are extracted via a top pivotal door 61 and will include a top end, a bottom end, an a height as depicted in Fig. 2 which depicts the tube 33, which corresponds to the Insulated housing 66 of the third embodiment 60, of the golf bag beverage cooler 10 of a first embodiment; See annotated Fig. 14 of Penner below, exterior surface A);
a head assembly substantially covering the top end of the tube and having an open position and a closed position (Fig. 14 depicts top pivotal door 61 substantially covering the top end of the insulated housing 66; Col. 6, lines 42-44 and 65-66, A latch 63 is pivotally mounted on a bracket 64, and retains the door 61 in the illustrated closed position; FIG. 16 illustrates the lid 61 pivoted to an open position; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
However, Penner does not disclose one or more thermoelectric cooling elements substantially contacting the exterior surface of the tube;
a power source connected to the one or more thermoelectric cooling elements;
an air channel housing disposed adjacent to the tube and comprising an air inlet vent, an air outlet vent, and an air channel, wherein the air channel is arranged parallel to the height of the tube.
Alexander teaches one or more thermoelectric cooling elements substantially contacting the exterior surface of the tube (Fig. 3, container 100B, vessel 10B, liner 20B, thermoelectric element 40B; Col. 6, lines 53-57, When the ring is attached to the top of the container 100B, one side of the thermoelectric element 40B can be in thermal communication (e.g., in thermal contact, in direct contact) with at least a portion of the liner 20B (e.g., via the threaded connection 90B, 95B); As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above);
a power source connected to the one or more thermoelectric cooling elements (Fig. 3, batteries 60B; Col. 8, lines 7-12, In one implementation, the batteries 60, 60B can be in a removable pack, allowing the batteries 60, 60B to be swapped out with another pack and/or to be recharged, thereby allowing the cooler container 100, 100A, 100B to have extended temperature control performance);
an air channel housing disposed adjacent to the tube and comprising an air inlet vent, an air outlet vent, and an air channel, wherein the air channel is arranged parallel to the height of the tube (See annotated Fig. 3 of Alexander below, air channel housing B; Fig. 3, fan 70B, air flow path 80B is depicted to be arranged parallel to the vessel 10B and the liner 20B; Col. 7, lines 17-24, Optionally, the circuitry operates the fan 70B to draw air via one or more vent openings in the outer housing of the container 100B and flows said air along the air flow path 80B toward the top of the container 100B. The air flows past at least a portion of the heat sink 80B to dissipate heat from the heat sink 80B and flows out of one or more exhaust openings in the container 100B).
Penner fails to teach one or more thermoelectric cooling elements substantially contacting the exterior surface of the tube; a power source connected to the one or more thermoelectric cooling elements; an air channel housing disposed adjacent to the tube and comprising an air inlet vent, an air outlet vent, and an air channel, wherein the air channel is arranged parallel to the height of the tube, however Alexander teaches that it is a known method in the art of canned beverage temperature control to include one or more thermoelectric cooling elements substantially contacting the exterior surface of the tube; a power source connected to the one or more thermoelectric cooling elements; an air channel housing disposed adjacent to the tube and comprising an air inlet vent, an air outlet vent, and an air channel, wherein the air channel is arranged parallel to the height of the tube. This is strong evidence that modifying Penner as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. active temperature control of the canned beverage). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penner by Alexander and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of active temperature control of the canned beverage.
PNG
media_image1.png
443
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 14 of Penner
PNG
media_image2.png
707
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Alexander
Regarding claim 2, Penner as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a fan disposed within the air channel housing (Alexander, Fig. 3, fan 70B; Col. 6, lines 46-52, The container 100B can have an outer housing that defines the cavity under the vessel 10B that houses the fan 70B, one or more batteries 60B and other electronics (e.g., circuitry, sensors, etc.). The outer housing can define a gap between the outer surface of the vessel 10B and the outer surface of the outer housing, the gap providing an air flow path 80B toward a top of the container 100B). Further, the limitations of claim 2 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Penner as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the power source is a removable battery disposed adjacent to the air channel housing (Alexander, Col. 6, lines 46-52, The container 100B can have an outer housing that defines the cavity under the vessel 10B that houses the fan 70B, one or more batteries 60B and other electronics (e.g., circuitry, sensors, etc.); Col. 8, lines 7-12, In one implementation, the batteries 60, 60B can be in a removable pack, allowing the batteries 60, 60B to be swapped out with another pack and/or to be recharged, thereby allowing the cooler container 100, 100A, 100B to have extended temperature control performance). Further, the limitations of claim 6 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Penner as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a mount assembly (Penner, Fig. 1, golf bag B, rectangular base 25, slots 17 and 19, straps 16 and 18, buckle fasteners 20 and 22), wherein the mount assembly comprises:
a detachable fastener configured to secure the apparatus to the mounting assembly, wherein the detachable fastener contacts the apparatus along an axis substantially perpendicular to the height of the tube (Penner, Fig. 1, straps 16 and 18, buckle fasteners 20 and 22; Col. 4, lines 44-49, Each of the coolers has an elongated generally rectangular base 25 provided with pairs of aligned slots 17 and 19. A pair of straps 16 and 18 received through the slots are received around a conventional golf bag B and secured by respective buckle fasteners 20 and 22; Further, the buckle fasteners 20 and 22 have the same structure as the claimed detectable fastener and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above); and
a mounting plate coupled to the detachable fastener and having a plane arranged substantially parallel to the height of the tube (Penner, Fig. 1 depicts rectangular base 25 to have a plane arranged substantially parallel to the height of the tube; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 13, Penner as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a joiner assembly (Penner, Fig. 1, golf bag B, rectangular base 25, slots 17 and 19, straps 16 and 18, buckle fasteners 20 and 22), wherein the joiner assembly comprises:
a first detachable fastener configured to secure the apparatus to the joiner assembly, wherein the first detachable fastener contacts the apparatus along an axis substantially perpendicular to the height of the tube (Penner, Fig. 1 depicts strap 16 and buckle fastener 20 to contact the apparatus along an axis substantially perpendicular to the height of the coolers 12 and 14 which contain the insulated housing 66; Col. 4, lines 44-49, Each of the coolers has an elongated generally rectangular base 25 provided with pairs of aligned slots 17 and 19. A pair of straps 16 and 18 received through the slots are received around a conventional golf bag B and secured by respective buckle fasteners 20 and 22; Further, the strap 16 and buckle fastener 20 have the same structure as the claimed first detachable fastener and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above); and
a second detachable fastener configured to secure the apparatus to the joiner assembly, wherein the second detachable fastener contacts the apparatus along an axis substantially perpendicular to the height of the tube (Penner, Fig. 1 depicts strap 18 and buckle fastener 22 to contact the apparatus along an axis substantially perpendicular to the height of the coolers 12 and 14 which contain the insulated housing 66; Col. 4, lines 44-49, Each of the coolers has an elongated generally rectangular base 25 provided with pairs of aligned slots 17 and 19. A pair of straps 16 and 18 received through the slots are received around a conventional golf bag B and secured by respective buckle fasteners 20 and 22; Further, the straps 18 and buckle fasteners 22 have the same structure as the claimed second detachable fastener and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penner as modified by Alexander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scofield et al. (US Patent No. 9,581,384), hereinafter Scofield.
Regarding claim 3, Penner as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the one or more thermoelectric cooling elements are disposed within the air channel housing (See annotated Fig. 3 of Alexander below, thermoelectric element 40B is depicted to be disposed within the air channel housing B).
However, Penner as modified does not disclose comprising at least three thermoelectric cooling elements, disposed substantially equidistant from one another along the height of the tube.
Scofield teaches comprising at least three thermoelectric cooling elements, disposed substantially equidistant from one another along the height of the tube (Fig. 3A depicts temperature regulator 100 to have at least three heat transfer device 118 disposed along the height of the inner walls 110 of the housing 106; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Penner as modified fails to teach at least three thermoelectric cooling elements, disposed substantially equidistant from one another along the height of the tube, however Scofield teaches that it is a known method in the art of canned beverage temperature control to include at least three thermoelectric cooling elements, disposed substantially equidistant from one another along the height of the tube. This is strong evidence that modifying Penner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to provide desired heat transfer capabilities to the inner tube). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penner as modified by Scofield and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of to provide desired heat transfer capabilities to the inner tube.
PNG
media_image2.png
707
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Alexander
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penner as modified by Alexander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gratteau (US Patent No. 7,100,397), hereinafter Gratteau.
Regarding claim 4, Penner as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the tube is a substantially cylindrical shape having a diameter (Fig. 13-16 of Penner depict the insulated housing 6 to be a cylinder having a diameter; Penner, Col. 6, lines 53-56, The can receiving bore has a diameter dimensioned to receive a standard beverage can C, with a surrounding clearance, forming an insulating air space; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
However, Penner as modified does not explicitly disclose the ratio between the height and the diameter of the tube is at least 3:1.
Gratteau teaches the ratio between the height and the diameter of the tube is at least 3:1 (Fig. 1, beverage cooler for a golf bag 10, first cylindrical housing 20; Col. 9, lines 11-15 and 29-31, In a preferred embodiment, the first cylindrical housing and second cylindrical housing are made of 3 inch diameter PVC. The first cylindrical housing is 32 inches long and the second cylindrical housing is 8 to 11 inches long, more preferably 8 inches long… It may also be appreciated that the length of the various cooler components may be varied to meet the needs of the user; Further, it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) (MPEP § 2144.05-I)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio between the height and the diameter of the tube is at least 3:1 as taught by Gratteau. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to meet the needs of the user (Gratteau, Col. 9, lines 29-31).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penner as modified by Alexander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurita (JP 2001208465), hereinafter Kurita.
Regarding claim 5, Penner as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Penner as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the air channel housing further comprises:
a shelf arranged parallel to the height of the tube, wherein the shelf divides the air channel into an upper space and lower space; and
at least one opening in the shelf, wherein the opening is configured to allow air exchange between the upper space and lower space.
Kurita teaches wherein the air channel housing (Fig. 1, outer wall 8) further comprises:
a shelf arranged parallel to the height of the tube, wherein the shelf divides the air channel into an upper space and lower space (See annotated Fig. 1 of Kurita below, inner wall 7 is arranged parallel to the height of the tube and divides the air channel into an upper space C and lower space D); and
at least one opening in the shelf, wherein the opening is configured to allow air exchange between the upper space and lower space (Fig. 1, hole 13; Pg. 3, The cool air that has passed between the container 2 and the inner wall 7 passes through a hole 13 provided above the inner wall 7 and passes between the inner wall 7 and the outer wall 8; Further, the hole 13 has the same structure as the claimed opening and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Penner as modified fails to teach wherein the air channel housing further comprises a shelf arranged parallel to the height of the tube, wherein the shelf divides the air channel into an upper space and lower space; and at least one opening in the shelf, wherein the opening is configured to allow air exchange between the upper space and lower space, however Kurita teaches that it is a known method in the art of canned beverage temperature control to include wherein the air channel housing further comprises a shelf arranged parallel to the height of the tube, wherein the shelf divides the air channel into an upper space and lower space; and at least one opening in the shelf, wherein the opening is configured to allow air exchange between the upper space and lower space. This is strong evidence that modifying Penner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. improving exhaust heat efficiency (Kurita, Pg. 3)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penner as modified by Kurita and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of improving exhaust heat efficiency (Kurita, Pg. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
583
332
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Kurita
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penner as modified by Alexander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watson et al. (US 20110226799), hereinafter Watson.
Regarding claim 7, Penner as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the head assembly comprises a lid and a release mechanism (Penner, Fig. 16, top pivotal door 61, hinge 62, latch 63, bracket 64, latch member 65, catch 72; Col. 6, lines 40-44, in which the cans are dispensed through a top pivotal door 61 which is mounted for pivotal movement about a horizontal axis by a hinge 62. A latch 63 is pivotally mounted on a bracket 64, and retains the door 61 in the illustrated closed position).
However, Penner as modified does not disclose wherein the head assembly comprises a head interior, wherein the head interior is substantially contiguous with the inner cavity of the tube.
Watson teaches wherein the head assembly comprises a head interior, wherein the head interior is substantially contiguous with the inner cavity of the tube (Fig. 1, dispenser 10, first and second tube sections 11 and 12, open end 15, head assembly 30; Fig. 1 of Watson depicts the open end 15 of the head assembly 30 to be contiguous with the inner cavity of the first tube section 11; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Penner as modified fails to teach wherein the head assembly comprises a head interior, wherein the head interior is substantially contiguous with the inner cavity of the tube, however Watson teaches that it is a known method in the art of dispensing to include wherein the head assembly comprises a head interior, wherein the head interior is substantially contiguous with the inner cavity of the tube. This is strong evidence that modifying Penner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. access to the objects inside of the tube). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penner as modified by Watson and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of access to the objects inside of the tube.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penner as modified by Alexander and Watson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of J. G. Rylander (US Patent No. 3,107,029), hereinafter Rylander.
Regarding claim 8, Penner as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 7 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 7 above).
However, Penner as modified does not disclose wherein the release mechanism comprises:
a gate having a locked state and an unlocked state, wherein the gate substantially obstructs passage through the head interior when in the locked state;
a trigger coupled to the gate, wherein activation of the trigger changes the gate from its locked state to its unlocked state.
Rylander teaches wherein the release mechanism comprises:
a gate having a locked state and an unlocked state, wherein the gate substantially obstructs passage through the head interior when in the locked state (Fig. 1, clip 10, cover 26; Col. 1, lines 61-64, Attached to the clip structure is a circular lid or cover 26, dimensioned to fit inside the rim 22 and cover the end of the can 12, said cover having, an obliquely upwardly extending arm 28. Col. 2, lines 11-14, For drinking, the cover 26 is raised by depressing the thumb plate 32, which is in a convenient position above, the handle, said cover being indicated in the raised position in broken line in FIGURE 2; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above);
a trigger coupled to the gate, wherein activation of the trigger changes the gate from its locked state to its unlocked state (Fig. 1, thumb plate 32, Col. 2, lines 11-14, For drinking, the cover 26 is raised by depressing the thumb plate 32, which is in a convenient position above, the handle, said cover being indicated in the raised position in broken line in FIGURE 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the release mechanism of Penner as modified to include a gate having a locked state and an unlocked state, wherein the gate substantially obstructs passage through the head interior when in the locked state and a trigger coupled to the gate, wherein activation of the trigger changes the gate from its locked state to its unlocked state as taught by Rylander. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure contents within the tube are secured when access to the contents is not desired by the user to improve user friendliness.
Regarding claim 9, Penner as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 8 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 8 above), further comprising a force mechanism disposed within the inner cavity and coupled to apparatus at a point proximate to the bottom end of the tube (Penner, Fig. 2, coil spring 37, disk 35; Fig. 16, coil spring 37, disk 67; Col. 4-5, lines 68 and 1-7, A coil spring 37 in the tube 33 has a first end in abutment with the bottom surface of the disk 35 and a second end in abutment with the bottom base portion 34. The spring 37 has a predetermined spring constant selected for maintaining the top one of a stacked of standard beverage cans supported on the disk 5 35 at a constant level adjacent the access opening 41, as the cans are sequentially dispensed; Col. 6, lines 56-58, The disk 67 is supported and biased upwardly by a spring 37, as described with respect to the first embodiment of the invention).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penner as modified by Alexander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nichols (US Patent No. 5,358,109), hereinafter Nichols.
Regarding claim 10, Penner as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Penner as modified does not disclose further comprising:
a bag top frame having a first opening, and a plurality of additional openings, wherein the first opening is fitted to the head assembly; and
a bag base coupled to the bottom end of the tube and comprising a substantially uniform bottom surface, and a top surface having a plurality of depressions, wherein the frame's plurality of additional openings are arranged opposite the base's plurality of depressions on an axis parallel to the height of the tube.
Nichols teaches further comprising:
a bag top frame having a first opening, and a plurality of additional openings, wherein the first opening is fitted to the head assembly (Fig. 1, auxiliary bag 10, reinforcing collar 14; Fig. 2, main bag 22, reinforcing collar 30, eye 37; See annotated Fig. 2 of Nichols below, first opening E-1, additional openings E; Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 27-31 and 65-66, Mounted in a lateral upper recess 32 of auxiliary bag 12 is a hook 34, which is part of a holding means. Another part of the holding means is eye 37 shown in FIG. 2 as a U-shaped bracket riveted to reinforcing collar 30 between the ribs 28 in the auxiliary region 26… Referring again to FIG. 3, auxiliary bag 10 is shown mounted against main bag 22); and
a bag base coupled to the bottom end of the tube and comprising a substantially uniform bottom surface, and a top surface having a plurality of depressions, wherein the frame's plurality of additional openings are arranged opposite the base's plurality of depressions on an axis parallel to the height of the tube (Fig. 2, base 20, boot 16, pocket 18; Fig. 6, main receptacle 64; Fig. 7 depicts base 20 to have a substantially uniform bottom surface; See annotated Fig. 2 of Nichols below, first opening E-1, additional openings E are arranged opposite of pocket 18 and base 20 which includes the main receptacle 64 on an axis parallel to the height of the tube; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Penner as modified fails to teach a bag top frame having a first opening, and a plurality of additional openings, wherein the first opening is fitted to the head assembly; and a bag base coupled to the bottom end of the tube and comprising a substantially uniform bottom surface, and a top surface having a plurality of depressions, wherein the frame's plurality of additional openings are arranged opposite the base's plurality of depressions on an axis parallel to the height of the tube, however Y teaches that it is a known method in the art of golf bags to include a bag top frame having a first opening, and a plurality of additional openings, wherein the first opening is fitted to the head assembly; and a bag base coupled to the bottom end of the tube and comprising a substantially uniform bottom surface, and a top surface having a plurality of depressions, wherein the frame's plurality of additional openings are arranged opposite the base's plurality of depressions on an axis parallel to the height of the tube. This is strong evidence that modifying Penner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing a golf bag with a main bad and an auxiliary component (Nichols, Col. 1, lines 37-38)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penner as modified by Y and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing a golf bag with a main bad and an auxiliary component (Nichols, Col. 1, lines 37-38).
PNG
media_image4.png
771
402
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Nichols
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penner as modified by Alexander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of C. M. Hadley (US Patent No. 2,663,528), hereinafter Hadley.
Regarding claim 12, Penner as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Penner as modified does not disclose further comprising a detachable handle having one or more pivotable legs.
Hadley teaches a detachable handle having one or more pivotable legs (Fig. 1, spring ring 12, handle 13, leg portions 17 and 18; Col. 1, lines 2-12, It is an object of the present invention to provide a golf bag support which can be easily clipped or fixed to a golf bag and which has a swingable leg structure adapted to swing outwardly to provide a support for maintaining the bag in a tilted position so that the golf clubs will be readily accessible and removable therefrom and wherein on the connection of the support to the bag it is unnecessary to drill holes or rigidly attach the support thereto or to deface the exterior of the golf bag).
Penner as modified fails to teach a detachable handle having one or more pivotable legs, however Hadley teaches that it is a known method in the art of golf bags to include a detachable handle having one or more pivotable legs. This is strong evidence that modifying Penner as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to provide a golf bag support which can be easily clipped or fixed to a golf bag and which has a swingable leg structure adapted to swing outwardly to provide a support for maintaining the bag in a tilted position so that the golf clubs will be readily accessible and removable therefrom (Hadley, Col. 1, lines 2-8)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penner as modified by Hadley and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of to provide a golf bag support which can be easily clipped or fixed to a golf bag and which has a swingable leg structure adapted to swing outwardly to provide a support for maintaining the bag in a tilted position so that the golf clubs will be readily accessible and removable therefrom (Hadley, Col. 1, lines 2-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Penxa (US Patent No. 5,272,890) discloses a similar canned beverage cooler for use with a golf bag.
Josey (US Patent No. 3,938,869) discloses a similar canned beverage cooler for use with a golf bag.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 February 26th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763