Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/043,470

CAN HOLDER TUMBLER

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 02, 2025
Examiner
ELOSHWAY, NIKI MARINA
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Adnart Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
1002 granted / 1576 resolved
-6.4% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
76 currently pending
Career history
1652
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
51.9%
+11.9% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1576 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-10, 12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roth et al. (U.S. 7,866,183). Roth et al. teaches a beverage container 10, shown in figure 1, configured to contain different beverages at different temperatures, the beverage container comprises a cup section 14 configured for containing a first beverage at a first temperature, a detachable insulated section 12 configured to contain a beverage can storing a second beverage (capable of containing an appropriately sized beverage can) at a second temperature, wherein the detachable insulated section 12 is configured to be attached with the cup section 14 from a bottom side of the cup section (via threads at 16, 18), and a lid 40 configured to engage with the cup section from an upper side of the cup section (figure 1), the lid 40 comprising an aperture at 54 configured to have an arrangement at 56 to expose the cup section in an open configuration enabling a user to drink the first beverage and seal the cup section in a closed configuration. Regarding claim 3, the cup section 14 comprises a non-insulated container (figure 4). Regarding claim 4, the insulated section 12 comprises a double-walled construction (walls 24, 26) having an outer layer 24 and an inner layer 26 made of an insulating material (capable of providing insulating properties). Regarding claim 6, the first temperature and the second temperature may be same or different temperatures (as the upper compartment is not insulated). Regarding claim 8, the cup section comprises a first engagement mechanism at 76 at the upper side and a second engagement mechanism at 18 at the bottom side. Regarding claim 9, the first engagement mechanism at 76 enables the cup section to engage with a corresponding third engagement mechanism at 74 of the lid 40 provided on its bottom side. Regarding claim 10, the second engagement mechanism at 18 enables the cup section to engage with a corresponding fourth engagement mechanism at 16 of the insulated section provided on its upper side. Regarding claim 12, the first engagement mechanism 76 comprises an upper connecting part and the third engagement mechanism 74 comprises a gripping ring, wherein the gripping ring is configured to be engaged with the upper connecting part to form a male and a female connector (figure 6A). Regarding claim 14, the first engagement mechanism 76 comprises a first pattern (annular pattern) and the third engagement mechanism 74 comprises a second pattern (annular pattern) configured to engage as a male-female connector (figure 6A). Regarding claim 15, the first pattern and the second pattern may comprise one or more of a regular matrix, an irregular matrix, slits, shape-oriented modules (annular is a shape oriented module), or a combination thereof. Regarding claim 16, the first engagement mechanism 74 and the third engagement mechanism 76 comprise protrusions (74) and indentations (76)-based engagement mechanism. Regarding claim 17, the lid 40 further comprises one or more foldable covers 56 configured to cover a small part of the cup section and tightly fit the lid over the cup section in a closed configuration (figure 3). Regarding claim 18, the aperture (defined by 54) of the lid 40 comprises a section 56 configured to open the lid and expose the cup section in the open configuration enabling the user to drink the first beverage. 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. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth et al. (U.S. 7,866,183) in view of Ward et al. (U.S. 5,531,353). Roth et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the cup section being insulated. Ward et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container wherein the cup section is insulated (see element 12 in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Roth et al. with the cup section being insulated, as taught by Ward et al., in order to maintain the contents of the cup section at a more constant temperature. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth et al. (U.S. 7,866,183) in view of Irish (U.S. 2014/0209621). Roth et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the insulated section comprising a single-walled construction having a layer made of an insulating material. Irish teaches that it is known to provide a container wherein the insulated section comprises a single-walled construction having a layer made of an insulating material (see element 12 in figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Roth et al. with the insulated section comprising a single-walled construction having a layer made of an insulating material, as taught by Irish, in order to maintain the contents of the insulated section at a constant temperature while reducing material costs by providing a single layer of material. Claims 7, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth et al. (U.S. 7,866,183) in view of Alonso et al. (EP 182752A). Regarding claim 7, Roth et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the one or more additional insulated sections. Alonso et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with one or more additional insulated sections (see element 1 in figure 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Roth et al. with the one or more additional insulated sections, as taught by Alonso et al., in order to store additional contents in separate compartments. Regarding claim 19, Roth et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the one or more additional insulated sections. Alonso et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with one or more additional insulated sections (see element 1 in figure 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Roth et al. with the one or more additional insulated sections, as taught by Alonso et al., in order to store additional contents in separate compartments. Regarding claim 20, Roth et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the lid being configured to be attached to the upper side of the insulated section. Alonso et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with the lid being configured to be attached to the upper side of the insulated section (see element 13 in figure 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Roth et al. with the lid being configured to be attached to the upper side of the insulated section, as taught by Alonso et al., in order to optionally store additional contents in separate compartments. Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth et al. (U.S. 7,866,183) in view of Pucci (U.S. 8,528,759). Regarding claim 11, Roth et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first and third engagement mechanisms comprising a set of grooves. Pucci teaches that it is known to provide a container with first and third engagement mechanisms comprising a set of grooves (see figures 7 and 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Roth et al. with the first and third engagement mechanisms comprising a set of grooves, as taught by Pucci, in order to securely fasten the lid to the container in a manner that prevents accidental removal of the lid. Regarding claim 13, Roth et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first and third engagement mechanisms comprising screw threads. Pucci teaches that it is known to provide a container with first and third engagement mechanisms comprising screw threads (see figures 7 and 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Roth et al. with the first and third engagement mechanisms comprising screw threads, as taught by Pucci, in order to securely fasten the lid to the container in a manner that prevents accidental removal of the lid. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art is cited for the cup section and detachable section. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.. 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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. /NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 02, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600560
HEATING UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589917
CLOSURES WITH TAMPER EVIDENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12564280
WIRELESS DRINK CONTAINER FOR MONITORING HYDRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12553661
TRIM BREAKER WITH LIGHT-DIFFUSING OPTICAL FIBER FOR VACUUM INSULATED STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546319
Can, And A Method For Producing Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
64%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+24.0%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1576 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month