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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Monaghan et al. (U.S. 2021/0139226). Monaghan et al. teaches an insert 24 for an insulating beverage container 28, 30 to support the base of a variety of beverage cans and bottles (figures 11-13) when placed in the insulating beverage container, the insert 24 comprising a circular open first end (lower end as shown in figure 3), circular open second end (upper end as shown in figure 3), a side extending between said first end and said second end (at 24 in figure 4), said side including a first portion (outer surface of 24E) adjacent said first end and having a first portion outer diameter (figure 3), a second portion (outer surface of 24D) adjacent said second end and having a second portion outer diameter (figure 3), said first portion outer diameter (at 24E) being smaller than said second portion outer diameter (24D), and an annular side ledge formed between said first portion and said second portion (lower outer surface of 24F), and an internal bore extending between said first end and said second end (shown at 24C in figure 3), said internal bore including a first segment (inner surface of 24E) adjacent said first end and having a first segment interior diameter (inner diameter of 24E), a second segment (inner surface of 24G) adjacent said first segment and having a second segment interior diameter (inner diameter at inner most part of 24G) smaller than said first segment interior diameter (figure 3), a third segment (inner surface of 24B and 24F) adjacent said second segment and having a third segment interior diameter (inner most part of 24F) smaller than said second segment interior diameter (when 24 is inserted into an insulated container with a shorter height 24F would flex inwardly further that 24G), and a fourth segment (inner surface of 24D) adjacent said third segment and adjacent said second end and having a fourth segment interior diameter (inner diameter of 24D) larger than said first segment interior diameter (figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, a first ledge (lower portion of 24G) formed between said first segment and said second segment, a second ledge (upper portion of 24G) formed between said second segment and said third segment, and a third ledge (upper portion of 24F) formed between said third segment and said fourth segment.
Regarding claim 7, said third ledge includes a first ledge portion (upper most portion of upper half of 24F) adjacent said fourth segment and a second ledge portion (lowermost portion of upper half of 24F) adjacent said third segment.
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.
Claims 2, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monaghan et al. (U.S. 2021/0139226). Monaghan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the said first segment interior diameter being about 63.4 mm, the second segment interior diameter being about 61.0 mm, the third segment interior diameter being about 52.0 mm and the fourth segment interior diameter being about 67.0 mm. 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 insert of Monaghan et al. with the first segment interior diameter being about 63.4 mm, the second segment interior diameter being about 61.0 mm, the third segment interior diameter being about 52.0 mm and said fourth segment interior diameter being about 67.0 mm, in order to fit within an appropriately sized insulated container, and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, the modified container of Monaghan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first ledge having an angle of 120°. 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 insert of Monaghan et al. with the first ledge having an angle of 120°, in order to receive certain sized containers, and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the modified container of Monaghan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the second ledge having an angle of 124°. 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 modified container of Monaghan et al. with the second ledge having an angle of 124°, in order to receive certain sized containers, and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, the modified container of Monaghan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first ledge having an angle of 120° and except for the second ledge having an angle of 150°. 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 modified container of Monaghan et al. with the first ledge having an angle of 120°, in order to receive certain sized containers, and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, 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 modified container of Monaghan et al. with the second ledge having an angle of 150°, in order to receive certain sized containers, and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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 insert structure.
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