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 .
The amendments filed 3/24/2026 have been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: improper punctuation (dash): “to protect at least-a bottom end…” Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the boot extending over up to about 95% of a height of the base structure". The meets and bounds of the claim are unclear as there are several ways to interpret the clause “over up to about”, and the limitation is not specifically described by the original disclosure in the same manner as presented in current claim 5. For instance, is the range “over 95%”, “over about 95%”, does the range begin at 0% and end at “up to about 95%”, or the boot extends throughout a vertical dimension, the vertical dimension being “up to about 95%”, etc. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the boot extending to cover a height dimension of the base, the height dimension extending up to about 95% of a height of the base structure.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, 14-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,456,380 (Ito et al. hereinafter, of record) in view of US Patent No. 8,839,983 (Chiou et al. hereinafter) and US PG Pub No. 2006/0091143 (Chantalat hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Fig. 1 and Detail below, Ito et al. discloses: A beverage system (10, 30) comprising: a base structure having a bottom margin and a (engages with 33) and a top margin (at 35), the base structure comprising an inner wall (32) and an outer wall (31), and the outer wall comprising a first portion offset from a second portion; a lid structure (10); and a boot (33) to protect at least the bottom end of the base structure (i.e. located between the bottom end of the base structure and a support surface the base structure may be set upon/contact during normal use, See Fig. 1 below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Boot Second Outer Surface)][AltContent: textbox (First Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Engagement Depression)][AltContent: textbox (Boot Bottom)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Offset)][AltContent: textbox (Second Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
727
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
333
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ito et al. teaches wherein the boot is attached to the base structure and engages the second portion of the base structure, but fails to disclose wherein the boot is removably attachable to the base structure, the boot being elastic and stretchable and comprising a cushioning wall configured to frictionally engage the second portion of the base structure, and wherein the boot is configured to slidably fit over the second portion of the base structure.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2 below, Chiou et al. discloses beverage system wherein a boot (110) is attachable (“snap ring” 110) to a base structure (112), the boot being elastic (120 can be polypropylene, column 3, lines 61-63, and 122 is made of thermoplastic elastomer, column 4, lines 34-42) and stretchable and comprising a cushioning wall configured to frictionally engage a second portion of the base structure (118), and wherein the boot is configured to slidably fit over the second portion of the base structure (in order to mate mating members 132, 134/136).
[AltContent: textbox (Engagement Depression)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image3.png
667
443
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Boot Second Outer Surface)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Engagement Depression)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image4.png
602
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Please note that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Hence, the functional limitations “removably attachable“ which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Note the geometries of attachment of the boots of both Ito et al. and Chiou et al. would teach on of ordinary skill in the art at the removability of the boot is possible, while neither teach permanent attachment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the boot of Ito et al. to have ensured the boot is attachable to the base structure and being elastic for this purpose and thereby providing a cushioning wall for the purposes of protecting the base structure by serving as a pad and for providing a mechanism for snapping/elastic attachment of the boot to the base structure as taught by Chiou et al.
Ito et al. in view Chiou fails to teach the boot comprising a nonstick finish configured to facilitate slidably donning and doffing of the boot over the second portion.
However, with reference to Figs. 1b and 1c below, Chantalat teaches utilizing a lamination on the inside of a beverage container sleeve (100) which is formed of materials to advantageously provide a smooth surface conducing for sliding sleeve (100) easily and with minimal friction on a beverage container (“Also, another advantage of the lamination layer 201 is that the smooth surface is conducive for sliding sleeve 100 easily and with minimal friction onto a beverage container 101”, paragraphs 0035-0036).
PNG
media_image5.png
389
464
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
514
464
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a nonstick finish to the boot of Ito et al. in view of Chiou as taught by Chantalat for the noted advantages of providing a smooth surface conducing for sliding the boot easily and with minimal friction on base structure (see paragraphs 0035-0036 of Chantalat.
In re claim 2, with reference to the Fig(s). noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention including wherein the base structure comprising an engagement depression a predetermined height above the bottom margin (See Figs. 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Fig(s). noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention including the boot having a height corresponding to the predetermined height of the engagement depression of the base structure (See Figs. 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Fig(s). noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention including wherein the boot comprising a lip configured to engage with the engagement depression of the base structure (lip of 33 is occupying the depression in Fig. 1 above, lip 146 of Chiou et al. similarly engages the depression of Figs. 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Fig(s). noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention including the boot having a thickness complementary to an offset distance that the first portion of the base structure is offset from the second portion of the base structure (See Fig. 1 above, the outer surface of the boot 33 is flush with the outer surface of the outer wall, also see Fig. 2 of Chiou et al. above).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Fig(s). noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention including a first outer surface of the first portion of the base structure being level with a second outer surface of the boot (See Figs. 1 and 2 above).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Fig(s). noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention including the lid structure comprising a thread portion configured to engage with a threading of the base structure (column 2, lines 59-61).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Fig(s). noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention including wherein the boot providing insulation to the base structure (While Ito et al. and Chiou et al. do not specifically disclose the boots as providing insulation, the polypropylene/thermoplastic elastomer material of Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. as in re claim 1 above would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide prevention of at least a degree of heat from being lost or gained by virtue of its positioning between the bottom margin and the external environment over a period of time, absent any evidence the boots of Ito et al./Chiou et al. could not possibly insulate the base structure).
Please note that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Hence, the functional limitations “providing insulation to the base structure“ which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See in re claim 10 above regarding how the prior art boots are understood to perform this function.
In re claim 11, with reference to the Fig(s). noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention including the boot comprising a bottom (See fig. 1 Detail above).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Fig(s). noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses A beverage system comprising: a base structure having a bottom margin and a top margin, the base structure comprising an inner wall and an outer wall, wherein the outer wall comprises a first portion offset from a second portion; a lid structure (as in re claim 1 above); and a sleeve (33) removably attachable to the base structure, the sleeve being elastic and stretchable and comprising a cushioning wall configured to frictionally engage the second portion of the base structure to protect at least the second portion of the base structure, the sleeve comprising a nonstick finish configured to facilitate donning and doffing of the sleeve over the second portion of the base structure (See Fig. 1 above, as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Fig(s). noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention including the base structure comprising an engagement depression a predetermined height above the bottom margin (as in re claim 2 above).
In re claim 16, with reference to the Fig(s). noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention including the sleeve comprising a height corresponding to the predetermined height of the engagement depression of the base structure (as in re claim 3 above).
In re claim 17, with reference to the Fig(s). noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention including the sleeve comprising a lip configured to engage with the engagement depression of the base structure (as in re claim 4 above).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Fig(s). noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention including the sleeve having a thickness complementary to an offset distance that the first portion of the base structure is offset from the second portion of the base structure (as in re claim 7 above).
In re claims 6, 18, and 19, with reference to the fig(s) noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention except the boot comprising a specific elastic material.
However, Chiou et al. discloses a beverage system wherein the material for a boot (110) comprising elastic materials such as polypropylene and thermoplastic elastomer (120 can be polypropylene, column 3, lines 61-63, and 122 is made of thermoplastic elastomer, column 4, lines 34-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized a known material for the boot of Ito et al. as taught by Chiou et al. and Chantalat, since 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. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0024, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 10,549,902 (Brown, II et al. hereinafter, of record).
In re claim 5, with reference to the fig(s) noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention except wherein the boot extending over up to about 95% of a height of the base structure.
However, Brown, II et al. discloses a beverage system wherein a protective element (200) provides protection to a double wall base structure (130) and extends a significant distance upwards to cover a large portion of the outer wall of the base structure.
PNG
media_image7.png
643
463
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the height of the boot of Ito et al. in view of Chiou and Chantalat to have extended a further percentage of the height of the base structure, since it has been held that the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A). Further note that Ito et al. teaches a “non-slip” 34 in addition to the bottoming member 33, thereby conveying a desire to encompass and extend coverage of the outer surface of the outer wall (31) up a significant portion of the outer wall towards the top margin.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,511,031 (Lin hereinafter).
In re claims 12 and 13, with reference to the fig(s) noted above, Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat discloses the claimed invention except wherein the boot comprising at least one vent opening being located in the bottom of the boot.
However, with reference to Figs. 5-8, Lin discloses a container having a boot (24) which includes a vent (26) in a bottom of the boot.
PNG
media_image8.png
386
458
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included a vent in the boot of Ito et al. in view of Chiou et al. and Chantalat as taught by Lin for the purposes of preventing condensation build-up between the boot and the container within an air space between the two elements (Lin, column 4, lines 21-27).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments to Ito et al. alone filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
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 ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights