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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Final Rejection filed on May 4, 2026 wherein claim(s) 1-2, 10, 15-16 were amended. Examiner notes amendments in claims are directed to overcome rejections under 35 USC § 112 / 35 USC § 103 Therefore, claim(s) 1-16 are pending and will be examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 6, 2026 has been entered.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gautreaux et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20200115103A1) hereinafter GAUTREAUX, in view of Lemburg et al. (Germany Patent DE102021119392B3) hereafter LEMBURG.
Regarding claim 1, GAUTREAUX teaches (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D below) a beverage container 102 comprising:
an inner wall G2C-01;
an outer wall G2C-02,
wherein the inner G2C-01 and outer G2C-02 walls create an insulating layer G2C-03 defined between the inner wall G2C-01 and the outer wall G2C-02;
a first magnetic insert 208 positioned within a space G2C-04 defined by the outer wall G2C-02; and
GAUTREAUX fails to teach first magnetic insert 208 positioned within a recess defined by the outer wall G2C-02.
GAUTREAUX fails to teach resilient insert configured to at least partially encapsulate the first magnetic insert 208 and being interposed between the first magnetic insert 208 and the outer wall G2C-02 to fit respective surface contours of the outer wall G2C-02 and the first magnetic insert 208 to secure the first magnetic insert 208 in place.
GAUTREAUX fails to teach wherein the first magnetic insert 208 and the resilient insert are positioned within the space G2C-04 and do not occupy the insulating layer G2C-03.
However, LEMBURG teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 below) a beverage container 01 comprising:
an inner wall 09;
an outer wall 10,
wherein the inner 09 and outer 10 walls create an insulating layer 07, 08 defined between the inner wall 09 and the outer wall 10;
a first magnetic insert 37 positioned within a recess L2-01 defined by the outer wall 10; and
a resilient insert 35 configured to at least partially encapsulate the first magnetic insert 37 and being interposed between the first magnetic insert 37 and the outer wall 10 to fit respective surface contours L2-02 of the outer wall 10 and the first magnetic insert 37 to secure the first magnetic insert 37 in place, and
wherein the first magnetic insert 37 and the resilient insert 35 are positioned within the recess L2-01 and do not occupy the insulating layer 07, 08 to meet design requirements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified first magnetic insert 208 / outer wall G2C-02 in the beverage container 102 of GAUTREAUX with first magnetic insert 37 / outer wall 10 as taught in the beverage container 01 of LEMBURG to meet design requirements.
PNG
media_image1.png
776
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
445
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
442
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
433
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
416
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
878
547
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
880
433
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, GAUTREAUX, and LEMBURG (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above) and LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above) further teaches beverage container 102, wherein the resilient insert 54 offers cushioning to the first magnetic insert 208, preventing the first magnetic insert 208 from rattling relative to the outer wall G2C-02.
Regarding claim 3, GAUTREAUX, and LEMBURG (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above) and LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above) further teaches beverage container 102, wherein the resilient insert 54 is inert, durable, and resistant to a wide range of temperatures.
Regarding claim 4, GAUTREAUX, and LEMBURG (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above) and LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above) fails to teach beverage container 102, wherein the resilient insert 54 is comprised of silicone.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified resilient insert 54 to be comprised of silicone in the beverage container 102 of GAUTREAUX, and LEMBURG to meet design requirements. 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, GAUTREAUX, and LEMBURG (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above) and LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above) further teaches beverage container 102, wherein the resilient insert 54 does not compromise insulating properties of the container 102.
Regarding claim 6, GAUTREAUX, and LEMBURG (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above) and LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above) further teaches beverage container 102, wherein the first magnetic insert 208 is situated at a bottom of the container 102.
Regarding claim 7, GAUTREAUX, and LEMBURG (as applied to claim 6 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above) and LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above) further teaches beverage container 102, further comprising a first tumbler 110 sized and shaped to fit over the bottom of the container 102 and having a third magnetic insert 210b therein,
wherein a magnetic attraction between the first magnetic insert 208 and the third magnetic insert 210b is configured to hold the first tumbler 110 to the bottom of the container 102 when the first tumbler 110 is fit over the bottom of the container 102.
Regarding claim 8, GAUTREAUX, and LEMBURG (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above) and LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above) further teaches beverage container 102, wherein the third magnetic insert 210b is positioned in a bottom of the first tumbler 110 such that when the first tumbler 110 is fit over the bottom of the container 102, the third magnetic insert 210b is configured to the in close proximity to the first magnetic insert 208 to enable the magnetic attraction.
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAUTREAUX, in view of LEMBURG, in further view of Cooper (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20230031592A1) hereinafter COOPER.
Regarding claim 9, GAUTREAUX, and LEMBURG (as applied to claim 6 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above) and LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above) further teaches beverage container 102, further comprising;
a neck G2A-01 that defines a pouring opening G2A-02;
a cap 104 configured to attach to the neck G2A-01 and having a second magnetic insert 206 disposed within the cap 104.
The combination of GAUTREAUX, and LEMBURG fails to teach a second resilient insert configured to at least partially encapsulate the second magnetic insert 206 and being interposed between the second magnetic insert 206 and an outer wall of the cap 104 to fit respective surface contours of the outer wall and the second magnetic insert 206 to secure the second magnetic insert 206 in place.
However, COOPER teaches (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 6 below) teaches a cooler 10 / patch 50 / tumbler 28 combination wherein magnet 52 is positioned within a recess 46 defined by the outer wall C6-01 for securement purposes.
Moreover, COOPER teaches a resilient insert 54 configured to at least partially encapsulate the magnet 52 and being interposed between the magnet 52 and the outer wall C6-01 to fit respective surface contours of the outer wall C6-01 and the magnet 52 to secure the magnet 52 in place for securement purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified second magnetic insert 206 / outer wall of the cap 104 in the beverage container 102 of GAUTREAUX, and LEMBURG with magnet 52 / outer wall C6-01 as taught in the cooler 10 / patch 50 / tumbler 28 combination of COOPER for securement purposes.
PNG
media_image8.png
801
624
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
668
630
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
184
569
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
451
632
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
363
628
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, GAUTREAUX, LEMBURG, and COOPER (as applied to claim 9 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above), LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above), and COOPER (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 6 above) further teaches beverage container 102 wherein the second resilient insert 54 offers cushioning to the second magnetic insert 206, preventing the magnetic insert 206 from rattling relative to the outer wall.
Regarding claim 11, GAUTREAUX, LEMBURG, and COOPER (as applied to claim 9 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above), LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above), and COOPER (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 6 above) further teaches beverage container 102, wherein the second resilient insert 54 is inert, durable, and resistant to a wide range of temperatures.
Regarding claim 12, GAUTREAUX, LEMBURG, and COOPER (as applied to claim 9 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above), LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above), and COOPER (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 6 above) fails to teach beverage container 102 of claim 9, wherein the second resilient insert 54 is comprised of silicone.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified second resilient insert 54 to be comprised of silicone in the beverage container 102 of GAUTREAUX, LEMBURG, and COOPER to meet design requirements. 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 13, GAUTREAUX, LEMBURG, and COOPER (as applied to claim 9 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above), LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above), and COOPER (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 6 above) further teaches beverage container 102, wherein the second resilient insert 54 does not compromise the insulating properties of the container 102.
Regarding claim 14, GAUTREAUX, LEMBURG, and COOPER (as applied to claim 9 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above), LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above), and COOPER (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 6 above) further teaches beverage container 102, wherein the second magnetic insert 206 is situated at a top of the container 102 when the cap 104 is attached to the neck G2A-01.
Regarding claim 15, GAUTREAUX, LEMBURG, and COOPER (as applied to claim 14 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above), LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above), and COOPER (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 6 above) further teaches beverage container 102, farther comprising a second tumbler 100 sized and shaped to fit over the top of the container 102 and having a fourth magnetic insert 210a therein, wherein magnetic attraction between the second magnetic insert 206 and the fourth magnetic insert 210a is configured to hold the second tumbler 100 to the top of the container 102 when the second tumbler 100 is fit over the top of the container 102.
Regarding claim 16, GAUTREAUX, LEMBURG, and COOPER (as applied to claim 15 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of GAUTREAUX (see FIG. 1E - FIG. 1F, FIG. 2A - FIG. 2D above), LEMBURG (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 2 above), and COOPER (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 6 above) further teaches beverage container 102, wherein the fourth magnetic insert 210a is positioned in a bottom of the second tumbler 100 such that when the second tumbler 100 is fit over the top of the container 102, the fourth magnetic insert 210a is configured to be in close proximity to the second magnetic insert 206 to enable the magnetic attraction.
Response To Arguments
Applicant's arguments / amendments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) of claim(s) 15-16 in the reply filed May 4, 2026 have been considered and found persuasive.
Applicant's arguments / amendments have been further considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections under 35 USC § 103 does not rely on exactly all references / arguments applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the
claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of
Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
MAKOSINSKI et al. (U. S. Patent US10573799B2): Teaches a “device” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Conti (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20170086580A1): Teaches an “apparatus” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Beadles (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20160176607A1): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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 D. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
