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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed 05/22/2026. The objections to the abstract have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claims 1-20 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
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 8-13 and 15-16 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 8, the recitation of “…an inner case…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 1, has already disclosed “an inner case”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the term is referring to the previously disclosed element, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – the inner case –
Regarding Claim 9, the recitation of “…an insertion guide…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 1, has already disclosed “an insertion guide”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the term is referring to the previously disclosed element, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – the insertion guide –
Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of “…an inner case…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 1, has already disclosed “an inner case”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the term is referring to the previously disclosed element, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – the inner case –
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation of “…an inner case…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 1, has already disclosed “an inner case”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the term is referring to the previously disclosed element, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – the inner case –
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation of “…an insertion guide…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 1, has already disclosed “an insertion guide”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the term is referring to the previously disclosed element, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – the insertion guide –
Regarding Claim 16, the recitation of “…an insertion guide…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 1, has already disclosed “an insertion guide”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the term is referring to the previously disclosed element, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – the insertion guide –
Regarding Claim 16, the recitation of “…a front surface of the insertion guide…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 1, has already disclosed “a front surface of the insertion guide”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the term is referring to the previously disclosed element, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – the front surface of the insertion guide –
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 14 and 17-20 allowed.
Claims 8-13, 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
As per independent Claim 1, the prior art, Braz Ferro (US 20190257570 A1) and Jaffe et al. (US 20150225222 A1) does not teach the device as recited, in particular “…wherein the cabinet houses an inner case, the inner case comprising the inner frame and the cooling guide, the inner frame including an insertion guide configured to surround an opening of the drink container, and the cooling guide being coupled to a lower portion of the insertion guide, wherein the insertion guide is positioned closer to a top of the inner frame than to a bottom of the inner frame, and wherein a front portion of the cooling guide extends further toward the front surface of the cabinet than a front surface of the insertion guide…,” when added to the other features claimed in independent Claim 1. More specifically, the rearrangement of previous claim elements into independent claim 1 has narrowed the broadest reasonable scope of the structure implied by the claim language, thereby overcoming a further combination of the cited prior arts. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the device of Braz Ferro to arrive at the claimed invention.
It would not be obvious to modify the prior art structure to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight. Therefore, Claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom are currently allowable.
Response to Arguments
On pages 10-19 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the currently amended independent claim 1 is allowable in view of the currently applied prior art. Applicant’s amendments, in combination with their remarks, are convincing. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
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 KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights