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 Objections
Claims 2-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-15: the preambles of these claims should be changed to, “The interchangeable rubber grip cover for drinkware of claim…” to provide proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13: the claim recites that, “the depth and arrangement of the interlocking geometric pattern are optimized to maximize frictional resistance without compromising comfort.” But the disclosure does not disclose any optimization process or procedures. There is no disclosure of any optimization within the specification. For example, the applicant does not disclose what modeling, testing procedures or standards were used to optimize for “maximize frictional resistance without compromising comfort.”
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 5-6 and 12-15 are 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 claims 5-6: “the material composition” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “rubber” so for the purposes of applying prior art, the examiner shall assume that “the material composition” is referring to the rubber of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6: the term “extreme temperatures” is a relative term that is not defined by the disclosure. It is not clear what temperatures the applicant considers to be “extreme.” Correction is required.
Regarding claims 12, 14, 15: similar to above, “the elastomeric material” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “rubber” so for the purposes of applying prior art, the examiner shall assume that limitation in question is referring to the rubber of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13: the claim requires that, “the interlocking geometric pattern are optimized to maximize frictional resistance without compromising comfort.” It is not clear what structure is actually required by this limitation. As discussed above, the specification does not disclose any optimization procedure or standard and it is not clear what structure the applicant believes is needed to meet the claim limitation. Clarification and/correction is required.
Regarding claim 15: “the interlocking geometric pattern” lacks proper antecedent basis. The claim depends from parent claims 12 and 1 which do not recite an interlocking geometric pattern. Correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2023/0284809).
Regarding claim 1: Smith discloses an interchangeable rubber grip (¶0019) cover (12, fig 5) for drinkware (fig 5), comprising a cylindrial body (at lead line 12, fig 5) designed to accommodate multiple bottle sizes (the band stretches, ¶¶0019-0020).
Regarding claim 2: Smith discloses, in as much as the applicant has support for said limitation, wherein the cylindrical body has a variable thickness to provide a balance of durability and flexibility. The body is made from rubber (¶0019), the same material as the applicant’s invention, and is capable of expanding to extend over different sized containers (¶¶0019-0020, figs 1-5). The cylindrical body thickness is variable in that the rubber could be compressed or stretched to change the thickness of the body. The examiner noting that this interpretation of the limitation is commensurate with the applicant’s disclosure which does not disclose any other potential interpretation for the limitations in question.
Regarding claim 3: Smith discloses wherein the grip cover is designed to fit drinkware of varying diameters while maintaining a secure grip (¶0019-0020).
Regarding claim 5: Smith discloses wherein the material composition provides shock absorption to protect against impacts and dents. The material is rubber (¶0019) which is a shock absorbing material and the same material as the applicant’s device.
Regarding claim 6: Smith discloses wherein the material composition provides thermal insulation for comfortable handling in extreme temperatures. The material of Gorcey is rubber (¶0019) which is an insulating material and is the same material disclosed by the applicant and would be expected to perform in the same manner.
Regarding claim 7: Smith discloses an ergonomic pattern (i.e., textured outer face 18, ¶0019) distributes applied pressure evenly across user contact points to reduce localized hand fatigue (¶0019).
Regarding claim 8: Smith discloses noise-reducing properties when placed on hard surfaces. Specifically, that the cover is made from rubber (¶0019) which would muffle noise when brought into contact with a hard service.
Regarding claim 10: Smith discloses a single, seamless piece without additional joining mechanisms as depicted in figures 1-5.
However, to the extent that one could argue otherwise, the examiner is taking official notice that it is notoriously well known in the art for rubber drinkware covers to be molded in a single, seamless piece. Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the cover of Smith a single, seamless piece without additional joining mechanisms, as claimed, because it is notoriously well known in the art for rubber drinkware covers to be molded in a single, seamless piece and it would reduce the likely hoof of the cover becoming detached.
Regarding claim 12: Gorcey discloses that the rubber can be silicone (¶0019).
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.
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) 1-3 and 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorcey (US 2025/0100756).
Regarding claim 1: Gorcey discloses an interchangeable rubber grip (¶0018) cover (100, fig 1) for drinkware (¶0015), comprising a body (112, fig 1) designed to accommodate multiple bottle sizes (¶0019).
The depicted embodiment does not show that the body is cylindrical. Rather the body tapers inwardly at a slight angle (see fig 3). However, before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the body to be cylindrical because it would be a simple change of shape that would not materially alter the function of the device and there is no disclosed criticality by the applicant (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B). Further, the device of Gorcey is flexible and capable of conforming to different shapes (¶¶0018,0019). When placed on a relatively large cylindrical glass/cup, the body would likely assume a cylindrical shape due to the mouth widening as is nearly depicted in figure 3. For at least these reasons, the limitation of a “cylindrical body” is obvious over the Gorcey reference.
Regarding claim 2: Gorcey discloses, in as much as the applicant has support for said limitation, wherein the cylindrical body has a variable thickness to provide a balance of durability and flexibility. The body is made from rubber (¶0018), the same material as the applicant’s invention, and is capable of expanding to extend over different sized containers (¶0019, figs 1-4). The cylindrical body thickness is variable in that the rubber could be compressed or stretched to change the thickness of the body. The examiner noting that this interpretation of the limitation is commensurate with the applicant’s disclosure which does not disclose any other potential interpretation for the limitations in question.
Regarding claim 3: Gorcey discloses wherein the grip cover is designed to fit drinkware of varying diameters while maintaining a secure grip (¶0019).
Regarding claim 5: Gorcey discloses wherein the material composition provides shock absorption to protect against impacts and dents. The material is rubber (¶0018) which is a shock absorbing material and the same material as the applicant’s device.
Regarding claim 6: Gorcey discloses wherein the material composition provides thermal insulation for comfortable handling in extreme temperatures. The material of Gorcey is rubber (¶0018) which is an insulating material and is the same material disclosed by the applicant and would be expected to perform in the same manner.
Regarding claim 7: Gorcey discloses an ergonomic pattern (i.e., protrusions 114, fig 1, ¶0018) distributes applied pressure evenly across user contact points to reduce localized hand fatigue (¶0018). The protrusions “aid in gripping the body” (¶0018).
Regarding claim 8: Gorcey discloses noise-reducing properties when placed on hard surfaces. Specifically, that the cover is made from rubber (¶0018) which would muffle noise when brought into contact with a hard service.
Regarding claim 9: Gorcey discloses customizable branding areas. The area on the body, between the protrusions (at/near lead line 106, fig 1), could be used for branding. For example, text or imagines could be printed/stamped on the rubber body in the area near/at lead line 106 in fig 1. The examiner noting that the claim does not positively require branding or text.
Regarding claim 10: Gorcey discloses a single, seamless piece without additional joining mechanisms as depicted in figures 1-4. And Gorcey discloses the body and protrusions are made from the same rubber material (¶0018).
However, to the extend that one could argue otherwise, the examiner is taking official notice that it is notoriously well known in the art for rubber drinkware covers to be molded in a single, seamless piece. Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the cover of Gorcey a single, seamless piece without additional joining mechanisms, as claimed, because it is notoriously well known in the art for rubber drinkware covers to be molded in a single, seamless piece and it would reduce the likely hoof of the cover becoming detached.
Regarding claim 11: Gorcey discloses venting holes (110, ¶0017) for ease of removal.
Regarding claim 12: Gorcey discloses that the rubber can be silicone (¶0018).
Claim(s) 4 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorcey, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kamoda (US 2023/0047333).
Regarding claim 4: Gorcey discloses that the grip cover includes a textured exterior surface to improve grip (fig 1, ¶0017) but does not disclose: a textured exterior surface comprising a continuous, interlocking geometric pattern of angular and diamond-shaped elements, wherein, said pattern enhances multi-directional frictional resistance to improve grip stability.
Kamoda discloses a rubber grip (¶0020, figs 1a-3) that comprises a textured exterior surface comprising a continuous, interlocking geometric pattern of angular and diamond-shaped elements (¶¶0009, 0010, 0022, figs 1A-1B), wherein, said pattern enhances multi-directional frictional resistance to improve grip stability (¶¶0005-0006). Kamoda is analogous because it is concerned with the problem of improving the grip on a on circular rubber surface; a problem that the application and primary reference are also concerned with. Kamoda teaches that its textured surface improves the grip of a user and have a good grip feeling (¶¶0005-0006). Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the exterior surface of Gorcey to include an interlocking geometric pattern of angular and diamond-shaped elements, as taught by Kamoda, so as to improve the grip of a user and to give a good grip feeling and because it would be a simple substitution of one textured grip surface for another known textured grip surface.
Regarding claim 13: see the above §112 discussions. Kamoda discloses wherein the depth and arrangement of the interlocking geometric pattern are optimized to maximize frictional resistance without compromising comfort (¶¶0005-0006).
Regarding claims 14 and 15: This is a product by process claim; the claimed limitation does not define a structure that is distinguished from the end product of the invention disclosed by Gorcey and Kamoda. Therefore, the claim is anticipated by the teachings of Gorcey and Kamoda. Specifically, Kamoda teaches the interlocking pattern is formed in the body of the rubber material such that a final integral product is achieved (¶0020, figs 1a-3).
With respect to claim 15 requiring “the interlocking geometric pattern” is would have been obvious to modify Gorcey to include said limitations for the exact same reasons as discussed above for claim 4.
Claim(s) 4 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kamoda (US 2023/0047333).
Regarding claim 4: Smith discloses that the grip cover includes a textured exterior surface to improve grip (¶0019) but does not disclose: a textured exterior surface comprising a continuous, interlocking geometric pattern of angular and diamond-shaped elements, wherein, said pattern enhances multi-directional frictional resistance to improve grip stability.
Kamoda discloses a rubber grip (¶0020, figs 1a-3) that comprises a textured exterior surface comprising a continuous, interlocking geometric pattern of angular and diamond-shaped elements (¶¶0009, 0010, 0022, figs 1A-1B), wherein, said pattern enhances multi-directional frictional resistance to improve grip stability (¶¶0005-0006). Kamoda is analogous because it is concerned with the problem of improving the grip on a on circular rubber surface; a problem that the application and primary reference are also concerned with. Kamoda teaches that its textured surface improves the grip of a user and have a good grip feeling (¶¶0005-0006). Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the exterior surface of Smith to include an interlocking geometric pattern of angular and diamond-shaped elements, as taught by Kamoda, so as to improve the grip of a user and to give a good grip feeling and because it would be a simple substitution of one textured grip surface for another known textured grip surface.
Regarding claim 13: see the above §112 discussions. Kamoda discloses wherein the depth and arrangement of the interlocking geometric pattern are optimized to maximize frictional resistance without compromising comfort (¶¶0005-0006).
Regarding claims 14 and 15: This is a product by process claim; the claimed limitation does not define a structure that is distinguished from the end product of the invention disclosed by Smith and Kamoda. Therefore, the claim is anticipated by the teachings of Gorcey and Kamoda. Specifically, Kamoda teaches the interlocking pattern is formed in the body of the rubber material such that a final integral product is achieved (¶0020, figs 1a-3).
With respect to claim 15 requiring “the interlocking geometric pattern” is would have been obvious to modify Gorcey to include said limitations for the exact same reasons as discussed above for claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4923. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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.
/DON M ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733