DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (US Pat. No. 4,943,025) in view of Franks (US Pat. No. 4,131,259).
PNG
media_image1.png
282
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1, Warner teaches a drink caddy, comprising: a cradle (14) having a beveled inner surface (B; see annotation above) configured to support a drink glass; a stem (20, Fig. 2) extending upwardly from the cradle; and a handle (32) connected to an upper end of the stem, wherein the stem includes at least one bend (adjacent 50, Fig. 2) configured to position the handle above a center of gravity of the drink glass when supported by the cradle (i.e.; above the central portion of the base; Col 4, Lines 18-26).
Warner does not particularly teach the stem being rigid. However, Warner teaches the stem is a single piece of injection molded plastic (Col 4, Lines 18-19). Franks teaches a drink caddy having a rigid stem (18) extending upwardly from a cradle (20) (Col 2, Lines 38-43).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Warner’s stem to be rigid. The motivation would be for the purpose of choosing from known rigid materials as taught by Franks (Col 2, Lines 43-51).
In regards to claim 5, modified Warner teaches the stem (Warner: 20) comprises at least two angled sections (Warner: 49, 50).
In regards to claim 7, modified Warner’s cradle (Warner: 14) is capable of supporting pilsner glass similar to the cup (Warner: 12).
In regards to claim 10, Warner teaches a method of manufacturing a drink caddy, comprising: forming (i.e.; molding; Col 3, Lines 9-11) a cradle (14) with a beveled inner surface (B; see annotation above) configured to support a drink glass; attaching a stem (20) to the cradle (at mounting sleeve 16), the stem extending upwardly from the cradle and including at least one bend (adjacent 50, Fig. 2); and connecting a handle (32) to an upper end of the stem (at 24), wherein the at least one bend in the stem is configured to position the handle above a center of gravity of the drink glass when supported by the cradle (i.e.; above the central portion of the base; Col 4, Lines 18-26).
Warner does not particularly teach the stem being rigid. However, Warner teaches the stem is a single piece of injection molded plastic (Col 4, Lines 18-19). Franks teaches a drink caddy having a rigid stem (18) extending upwardly from a cradle (20) (Col 2, Lines 38-43).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Warner’s stem to be rigid. The motivation would be for the purpose of choosing from known rigid materials as taught by Franks (Col 2, Lines 43-51).
In regards to claim 14, Warner teaches attaching the stem (Warner: 20) comprises forming at least two angled sections (Warner: 49, 50) in the stem.
Claims 2-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (US Pat. No. 4,943,025) in view of Franks (US Pat. No. 4,131,259) and Klante (US Pat. No. 2,654,628).
In regards to claims 2, 3, 11 and 12, Warner, modified by Franks, does not teach the cradle comprises an arcuate section forming a partial circular shape with an opening between two cradle ends (claim 2); the opening between the two cradle ends is configured to allow insertion and removal of the drink glass (claim 3); forming the cradle comprises creating an arcuate section forming a partial circular shape with an opening between two cradle ends (claim 11); and the opening between the two cradle ends is configured to allow insertion and removal of the drink glass (claim 12).
Klante teaches a beveled cradle (e.g.; 12) comprising an arcuate section forming a partial circular shape with an opening (24) between two cradle ends, the opening configured to allow insertion and removal of a drinking glass (36).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to further modify Warner’s device and method such that the cradle comprises an arcuate section forming a partial circular shape with an opening between two cradle ends (claim 2); the opening between the two cradle ends is configured to allow insertion and removal of the drink glass (claim 3); forming the cradle comprises creating an arcuate section forming a partial circular shape with an opening between two cradle ends (claim 11); and the opening between the two cradle ends is configured to allow insertion and removal of the drink glass (claim 12). The motivation would be for the purpose of firmly seating the drinks by the sloping sides of the receptacle part for stirring as taught by Klante (Col 3, Lines 3-6, 36-39).
In regards to claims 4 and 13, Warner, modified by Franks, does not particularly teach the beveled inner surface of the cradle is formed at an angle between 45 degrees and 60 degrees relative to a horizontal plane.
Klante teaches a beveled inner surface (41, Fig. 4) that is designed to match the angle of the sloping side of the receptacle (Col 3, Lines 3-6). In addition, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to further modify Warner’s cradle such that a beveled inner surface of the cradle is formed at an angle between 45 degrees and 60 degrees relative to a horizontal plane. The motivation would be for the purpose of firmly seating the drinks by the sloping sides of a particular sloped receptacle part for stirring as taught by Klante (Col 3, Lines 3-6, 36-39).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (US Pat. No. 4,943,025) in view of Franks (US Pat. No. 4,131,259) and Fuglevand (US Pat. No. 12,064,045 B2).
In regards to claims 6 and 15, Warner, modified by Franks, does not particularly teach each of the at least two angled sections forms an angle of approximately 45 degrees. Fuglevand teaches angled sections (120, 130, Fig. 4) forming an angle of 45 degrees (Col 4, Lines 31-40).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to further modify Warner’s device such that each of the at least two angled sections forms an angle of approximately 45 degrees as taught by Fuglevand. The motivation would be for the purpose of design the stem to support a particular type of receptacle based on the shape and size to maintain the horizontal positioning of the receptacle.
Claims 8, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (US Pat. No. 4,943,025) in view of Franks (US Pat. No. 4,131,259) and Horne et al. (US Pat. No. 10,234,132 B2).
In regards to claims 8 and 16, Warner, modified by Franks, does not teach installing a light source configured to illuminate at least a portion of the drink caddy. Horne teaches a drink caddy having a light source (313) installed therein to illuminate a least a portion of the drink caddy.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to further modify Warner’s caddy to have an installed light source configured to illuminate at least a portion of the drink caddy. The motivation would be for the purpose of lighting the area about the holding device as taught by Horne (Col 1, Lines 53-59).
In regards to claim 9, in modifying Warner, Horne teaches the light source (Horne: 313) is positioned in the cradle (Horne: 314).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (US Pat. No. 4,943,025) in view of Oglesbee (US Pat. No. 3,913,778) and Franks (US Pat. No. 4,131,259).
In regards to claim 17, Warner teaches a drink caddy, comprising: a cradle (14) having a beveled inner surface (B; see annotation above) configured to support a drink glass; a stem (20) extending upwardly from the cradle; and a handle (32) connected to an upper end of the stem, wherein the stem includes at least one bend (adjacent 50, Fig. 2) configured to position the handle above a center of gravity of the drink glass when supported by the cradle (i.e.; above the central portion of the base; Col 4, Lines 18-26).
Warner does not teach the stem positioned between first and second cradles such that the handle is configured to be positioned above a center of gravity of drink glasses supported by first and second cradles.
Oglesbee teaches a drink caddy having a stem (7) positioned between first and second cradles (4) such that a handle (12) is positioned above a center of gravity of drink glasses (2) supported by the first and second cradles.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Warner’s drinking caddy to include a second cradle such that the stem is positioned between the first and second cradles such that the handle is configured to be positioned above a center of gravity of drink glasses supported by first and second cradles as taught by Oglesbee. The motivation would be for the purpose of supporting additional drinking glasses while maintaining a horizontally level drinking caddy.
In addition, Warner does not particularly teach the stem being rigid. However, Warner teaches the stem is a single piece of injection molded plastic (Col 4, Lines 18-19). Franks teaches a drink caddy having a rigid stem (18) extending upwardly from a cradle (20) (Col 2, Lines 38-43).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Warner’s stem to be rigid. The motivation would be for the purpose of choosing from known rigid materials as taught by Franks (Col 2, Lines 43-51).
In regards to claim 18, Warner does not teach each of the first cradle and the second cradle comprises an arcuate section forming a partial circular shape with an opening between two cradle ends, the opening configured to allow insertion and removal of the drink glasses.
Oglesbee teaches each of the first cradle and the second cradle (4) comprises an arcuate section forming a partial circular shape with an opening between two cradle ends (see front opening of 4 in Fig. 4), the opening configured to allow insertion and removal of the drink glasses (17).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to further modify Warner’s device such that the first cradle and the second cradle comprises an arcuate section forming a partial circular shape with an opening between two cradle ends, the opening configured to allow insertion and removal of the drink glasses. The motivation would be for the purpose of accommodating different sizes as taught by Oglesbee (Col 2, Lines 26-45).
In regards to claim 19, Warner does not teach the beveled inner surface of each cradle is angled between 45 degrees and 60 degrees relative to a horizontal plane. However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, Warner illustrates the bevel with an angle of generally 45 degrees with the horizontal plane in figure 2 (see dotted lines).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Warner’s device such that the beveled inner surface of each cradle is angled between 45 degrees and 60 degrees relative to a horizontal plane. The motivation would be for the purpose of matching a particular outer surface of a receptacle similar to the rim (15) of Oglesbee.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner (US Pat. No. 4,943,025) in view of Oglesbee (US Pat. No. 3,913,778), Franks (US Pat. No. 4,131,259), and Horne et al. (US Pat. No. 10,234,132 B2).
In regards to claim 20, Warner does not teach a light source positioned in at least one of the handle, the stem, or the first and second cradles, the light source configured to illuminate at least a portion of the drink caddy system. Horne teaches a drink caddy having a light source (313) positioned in the cradle (314) to illuminate a least a portion of the drink caddy.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Warner’s caddy to have a light source positioned in the cradle to illuminate a least a portion of the drink caddy. The motivation would be for the purpose of lighting the area about the holding device as taught by Horne (Col 1, Lines 53-59).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues region “B” is not a beveled surface. Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). In the instant case, the upraised lip 18 forms an inner angled surface (i.e.; the bevel) as indicated by the dotted lines in figure 2. In response to applicant's argument that the bevel does not support a drink glass, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, Warner’s bevel is capable of supporting a drink glass (e.g.; a cup 12) as shown in Fig. 1.
Applicant argues the elongate strip 26 is pliable. However, the examiner has described the stem as being cantilever support 20. The strip 26 is part of the hook structure extending from the top of the stem.
Applicant additionally argues the hook 32 is not a handle. Examiner respectfully disagrees because a user’s can grasp the hook to carry the device by hand (e.g.; inserting a finger in the hook). Furthermore, the strip 26 of the hook portion can act as a carrying handle grasped by a user.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights