DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action on the merits. Claims 1-12, as originally filed are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 1-12 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. The last paragraph of Claim 1 describes wherein the buckle assembly being selectively and removably secured to itself and a beverage container. It is unclear what is intended by this language. Applicant does not appear to intend to attach the belt buckle assembly 20 to a beverage container 70 despite the language of claim 7. Also, it does not appear Applicant intends to describe a buckle assembly that attaches to itself as Applicant has not provided for understanding what this might entail. As best understood, the claims are intended to describe a system including an embodiment akin to what is shown in Figs. 9A and 9B wherein an entertainment device is attachable to a beverage container with magnetic means in combination with a “buckle assembly” also with magnetic attachment means.
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.
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) 1-4 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neves (US 2017/0245624) in view of Goodwin et al. (US 11,006,699).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Neves discloses a system, comprising:
a beverage container (8) having a bottom surface, an open top surface and a sidewall (Fig. 4 as shown);
a receptacle (Fig. 4 shows wherein the sidewall is cutout to form an receptacle to interfit and accept the main body 2) positioned along the sidewall of the beverage container;
an entertainment device (28) having a speaker and a user interface (the phone as shown and described would be understood to have an interface and speaker), including functionality for being selectively and removably secured to the beverage container (Fig. 1 shows the device being secured to the beverage container).
Neves fails to disclose a buckle assembly said buckle assembly selectively and removably secured to the buckle assembly.
Goodwin teaches a buckle assembly (12, 14) attachable to itself (Fig. 1 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a buckle assembly with the beverage/entertainment assembly of Neves for proper securement of a user’s garments.
Regarding claim 2-4, as best understood, the combination device of Neves and Goodwin et al. further disclose wherein the buckle assembly includes a first buckle body (12 of Goodwin) having a front surface, a back surface and a pair of openings (18 of Goodwin); and a second buckle body (14 of Goodwin) having a front surface, a back surface (Figs. 2 of Goodwin as shown) and a pair of hooks (22 of Goodwin), wherein the pair of hooks are configured to removably engage the pair of openings to secure the first buckle body onto the buckle assembly (Figs. 10-11 of Goodwin as shown); a belt (1) having a first end that is connected to the first buckle body and a second end that is connected to the second buckle body (Figs. 1 and 2 of Goodwin as shown); at least one slot (27) that is positioned along the first buckle body, each of the at least one slot being configured to slidingly receive the first end of the belt (Fig. 9 as shown); .
Goodwin et al. fails to disclose wherein the openings are on the second buckle body and the pair of hooks are on the first buckle body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the hooks and slots of Goodwin et al. such that hooks never face the body of the user to prevent potential discomfort during usage. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11-12, Neves further discloses wherein the entertainment device is configured to communicate wirelessly with an external device and wherein the entertainment device is configured to play audible content received from the external device (the phone device 28 shown in Fig.1 would be expected to be capable of wireless communication and playing of audible content).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Neves and Goodwin et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 2017/0020234).
Regarding claims 5-6, the combination device of Neves and Goodwin et al. further disclose the at least one slot is positioned on a first end of the first buckle body (Fig. 9 as shown in Goodwin et al.) and wherein the first end and the second end are on opposite sides of the buckle assembly (Figs. 1-2 of Goodwin et al. as shown). The combination of Neves and Goodwin et al. fails to disclose a plurality of serrated teeth that are hingedly secured onto the second buckle body, said teeth being configured to removably engage the second end of the belt; and the serrated teeth are positioned on a second end of the second buckle body.
Taylor teach hingedly connected teeth (4).
From this teaching of Taylor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a hinged serration arrangement in place of the slot securement as shown in Goodwin et al. on to the end of the second buckle body. A hinged serrated securement allows for connection to a distal end of a strap or band without requiring excess material to accommodate a looped end typically required for the slot type connections as shown.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Neves and Goodwin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cherenfant (US 10,505,575).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Neves further discloses wherein the entertainment device is magnetically connected to the beverage container (Fig. 4 shows magnet 22 used to mount the electronic device) but fails to disclose the same entertainment device is magnetically connected to the buckle assembly.
Cherenfant teaches an electronic device (34) attached to a buckle assembly (16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to also mount an electronic device to a belt when a user is traveling without a beverage and still needs a place to hold and store their electronic device. The electronic device can be mounted to the belt buckle of Goodwin using the same magnetic means of Neves.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Neves and Goodwin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hung (US 2004/0195281).
Regarding claim 8-9, the combination of Neves and Goodwin disclose the invention except for a buckle cover magnetically connected to the buckle assembly. Hung teaches a buckle cover (2) magnetically (13, 21) connected to a buckle assembly (1, Figs. 1-3 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a removable cover piece taught by Hung in place of the cover plate of Goodwin et al. for interchangeability and installation of small electronics depending on the desired functionality and aesthetics.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Neves, Goodwin et al. and Hung as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wathen (US 8,794,495).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Neves, Goodwin et al. and Hung disclose the invention except for wherein the buckle cover includes a plurality of decorative elements.
Wathen teaches a plurality of decorative elements (51).
From this teaching of Wathen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to add decorative elements to the cover housing of the combination device of Neves, Goodwin et al. and Hung to allow for a user to customize the aesthetic properties of the combination device. Customization would further allow a user to more easily recognize their own property.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Weigel (US 2025/0325125), Earnest (US 2009/0114554) and Capper et al. (US 11,338,971) disclose electronic devices mounted to beverage containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/MICHAEL S LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
