Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/066,659

DRINK STABILIZING INSERT FOR PORTABLE COOLER

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Feb 28, 2025
Examiner
COLLINS, RAVEN
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
591 granted / 950 resolved
-7.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
995
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.4%
+17.4% vs TC avg
§102
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 950 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . This action is written in response to application number 19/066,659 filed 02/28/2025 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 1-6 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "stabilizing insert”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "cylinder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 recites the limitation "triangular recess”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how the “cylinder” forms a hollow interior recess. Is the recess separate from the interior of the joined receptacles/ Appropriate action is required. Regarding claim 5, the protuberances are spaced apart from “a sidewall”. Is this a different sidewall then the sidewall [resented in claim 1? Appropriate action is required. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an outer surface of a beverage” is claimed. It is suggested that the limitation be replaced with “a beverage container”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “jutting from inwardly from” is claimed. It is suggested that the limitation be replaced with “jutting inwardly from”. Appropriate 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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trayhern (US 2024/0262561). Claim 1. Trayhern discloses a beverage stabilizing implement 1 operable to insert into a portable cooler, the stabilizing insert comprising: a plurality of cylindrical receptacles 2 joined together, each receptacle formed from an uninterrupted annular sidewall 7, each cylinder forming a hollow interior recess ([0041-0044]; fig. 5); and a plurality of protuberances 11 jutting from inwardly from the sidewalls, each protuberance operable to collapse when pressed against by an outer surface of a beverage [0046]. Claim 2. Trayhern discloses the beverage stabilizing implement of claim 1, wherein the protuberances are formed with the sidewall as a single integrated piece ([0046]; fig. 9). Claim 3. Trayhern discloses the beverage stabilizing implement of claim 1, wherein four or more receptacles 8 join to define an intermediate recess 12 adapted to receive ice, the triangular recess having an open top and open bottom end [0043]. Claim 5. Trayhern discloses the beverage stabilizing implement of claim 1, wherein the protuberances are spaced at regular intervals across a surface of a sidewall (fig. 9). 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) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trayhern (US 2024/0262561). Claim 4. Trayhern discloses the beverage stabilizing implement of claim 1, wherein the protuberances extend into the container recesses [0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the size of the protuberance to vary in size in order to assist in accommodating beverages that vary in size. To modify the size of the protuberances into the claimed varying sizes would entail a mere change in size of the components and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). 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). Claim 6 Trayhern disclose the beverage stabilizing implement of claim 1, wherein the sidewall is between 0.3 inches and 2 inches in height [0019]. It is noted that the average beverage can has a height of 4.83 inches. Trayhern presents an option where the protective device can have a height of half the length of the stored beverage item. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm 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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at 571-272-4561. 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. /RAVEN COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3735 /Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600563
HEAVY DUTY CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599515
RECYCLABLE ABSORBENT ARTICLE PACKAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600559
CONTAINER WITH FIRE-RESISTANT, EXPLOSION-WITHSTANDING, AND HEAT-INSULATING CAPABILITIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589930
Carrier For Containers
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575981
PACKAGE OF ABSORBENT ARTICLES UTILIZING A SHAPED NONWOVEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
62%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+10.4%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 950 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