Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/904,217

Multifunctional Beverage Container Sleeve Device

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 02, 2024
Examiner
VOLZ, ELIZABETH J
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
722 granted / 1082 resolved
-3.3% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
1140
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.3%
+1.3% vs TC avg
§102
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1082 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melk (U.S. Patent No. 5915580) in view of Coplin (U.S. Pub. No. 20160244206) and Elele (U.S. Patent No. 5720555). Regarding Claim 1, Melk discloses beverage container enclosure device (figure 1) comprising: a sleeve 10 (Figure 1) having a base 36 (Figure 1) and a sidewall 12 (Figure 1); and a fastener 18 (Figure 1) for selectively expanding and closing an open top end of said sidewall; wherein said sidewall extending upward from said base (Figure 1); wherein said open top end of said sleeve adapted for receiving a beverage container (Figure 1); wherein said base and said sidewall conform to a shape of said beverage container (Figure 1). Melk does not disclose a plurality of windows for viewing a beverage level within said beverage container secured in said sleeve. However, Coplin teaches a window 24 (Figure 1) and Elele teaches a plurality of windows 18 (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melk to include the above, as taught by Coplin and Elele, in order to view the bottle within. Regarding Claim 2, Elele teaches said plurality of windows include two windows positioned on opposing sides of said sleeve 15 (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 3, Elele teaches said two windows are cut-outs in said sidewall of said sleeve 15 (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 4, Melk discloses said fastener is a zipper 18 (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 5, Melk discloses said zipper extends vertically from said open top end downward along a portion of a length of said sidewall (figure 1, column 3, lines 5-9). Regarding Claim 6, Melk discloses said zipper in said expanded position enables removal and insertion of said beverage container (figure 1, Column 3, lines 5-9). Regarding Claim 7, Melk discloses said beverage container is a bottle 22 (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 8, Melk discloses said sleeve including a material selected from the group consisting of a neoprene, a rubber, a polyester, a foam, and a fabric (Column 4, lines 3-7). Regarding Claim 9, Coplin teaches said plurality of windows are transparent windows 24 (Figure 2). Regarding Claim 19, Melk discloses a beverage container enclosure device (Figure 1) comprising: a sleeve 10 (figure 1) having a base 36 (Figure 1) and a sidewall 12 (Figure 1); and a fastener 18 (Figure 1) for selectively expanding and closing an open top end of said sidewall; wherein said sidewall extending upward from said base (Figure 1); wherein said open top end of said sleeve adapted for receiving a beverage container (Figure 1); wherein said base and said sidewall conform to a shape of said beverage container (Figure 1). Melk does not disclose said sleeve having a plurality of windows for viewing a beverage level within said beverage container secured in said sleeve; wherein said plurality of windows are transparent windows positioned on opposing sides of said sleeve; wherein said transparent windows include a material of plastic sheet; and further wherein said plastic sheet having temperature responsiveness for transitioning from a first color to a second color in response to a temperature change in said beverage container. However, Coplin teaches a window 24 (Figure 1), Elele teaches a plurality of windows 18 (Figure 1), McKinney teaches plastic material (paragraph 50) and Elele teaches temperature responsiveness for transitioning from a first color to a second color in response to a temperature change in said beverage container (Column 5, lines 3-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melk to include the above, as taught by McKinney, Coplin and Elele, in order to view the bottle within and identifying the temperature. Claim(s) 10-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melk (U.S. Patent No. 5915580) in view of Coplin (U.S. Pub. No. 20160244206), Elele (U.S. Patent No. 5720555) and McKinney et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20070068944). Regarding Claim 10, Melk, Coplin, and Elele teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for said transparent windows include a material of transparent plastic sheet. However, McKinney et al. teaches transparent plastic (paragraph 50). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melk, Coplin and Elele to include the above, as taught by McKinney et al. to cover the opening while allowing easy viewing. Regarding Claim 11, Melk discloses said fastener is a zipper 18 (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 12, Melk discloses said zipper extends vertically from said open top end downward along a portion of a length of said sidewall (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 13, Melk discloses said zipper in said expanded position enables removal and insertion of said beverage container (figure 1, Column 3, lines 5-9). Regarding Claim 14, Melk discloses said beverage container is a bottle 22 (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 15, Melk discloses said sleeve including a material selected from the group consisting of a neoprene, a rubber, a polyester, a foam, and a fabric (Column 4, lines 3-7). Regarding Claim 16, Melk discloses a beverage container enclosure device (Figure 1) comprising: a sleeve 10 (Figure 1) having a base 36 (Figure 1) and a sidewall 12 (Figure 1); and a fastener 18 (Figure 1) for selectively expanding and closing an open top end of said sidewall; wherein said sidewall extending upward from said base (Figure 1); wherein said open top end of said sleeve adapted for receiving a beverage container (Figure 1); wherein said base and said sidewall conform to a shape of said beverage container (Figure 1). Melk does not disclose said sleeve having a plurality of windows for viewing a beverage level within said beverage container secured in said sleeve; wherein said plurality of windows are transparent windows positioned on opposing sides of said sleeve; and further wherein said transparent windows include a material of transparent plastic sheet. However, Coplin teaches a transparent window 24 (Figure 1), Elele teaches a plurality of windows 18 (Figure 1) and McKinney teaches plastic material (paragraph 50). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melk to include the above, as taught by McKinney, Coplin and Elele, in order to view the bottle within. Regarding Claim 17, Melk discloses said fastener is a zipper 18 (figure 1). Regarding Claim 18, Melk discloses said zipper extends vertically from said open top end downward along a portion of a length of said sidewall (figure 1). Regarding Claim 20, McKinney et al. teaches said plastic sheet including a material selected from the group consisting of a PVC, a PET, a vinyl, and a silicone (paragraph 50). Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm 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. /ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 02, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600528
PACKAGE AND CLOSURE FOR PACKAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595885
NONUNIFORM WALL THICKNESS PROFILE FOR TEARDROP PRESSURE VESSELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577039
WASTE MANAGEMENT RECEPTACLE SYSTEM FOR CONTAINMENT OF ODOROUS WASTE AND METHOD OF USING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559304
SECURE BIN FOR SELECTIVE DEPOSIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559307
TRASH CAN ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+18.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1082 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month