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 MADE FINAL.
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 extension fee 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.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 08/05/2025, Applicant, on 11/05/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 25 and 27 are currently amended.
Claims 1-27 and 29-30 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Accordingly, the Examiner withdraws the rejection of claim 28 under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 102
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2111.05 gives two examples of a non-functional descriptive materials. The first example is to determine whether a functional relationship exist between a printer material and associate substrate and the second example is directed to machine readable media where determining the scope of a claim directed to a computer-readable medium containing certain programming, the examiner should first look to the relationship between the programming and the intended computer system. Where the programming performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated, a functional relationship will be found. In claim 1 and the original specification, Applicant does not provide/establish a relationship between the container containing a liquid and a user guessing the kind of beverages inside the container. When there is no such a relationship given in the claim, the container being empty should not being given considerable weight. Further, when a container is covered by a sleeve, the liquid inside is not visible to a user.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 102 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A skilled in the art could easily conceive the double-blind covering kit (tracking identifier coverable by tracking cover) of Metry in view of Farmsworth and apply to identical containers that do not contain beverages (argument 103 page 9).
The Examiner understand Applicant’s arguments in page 10 about the shape of the wine bottle is apparent or not and “unable to obscure the shoulder of a wine bottle”. The Examiner submits that the cover as recited in the claims does not suggest covering the entire container. With the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, Metry in view of Farmsworth still read on to the present claims.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments in page 11, in paragraph 0019, Metry specifically teaches “In one method of conducting a blind wine tasting, a wine label cover user wraps each of a plurality of wine bottles with a respective wine label cover. In some examples, each wine label cover includes an identifier to distinguish it from other wine label covers” which suggests wine identity information covered by a cover and the cover itself has an identifier. The Examiner asserts that the teaching of Merty, with BRI, still read on to present claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully submits that prior removal of an identifier prior to a tasting event and wine left in the container are not supported in the present claims as amended.
Finally, the Examiner submits even if the claimed invention is not directed to wine bottles, as explained above and in the rejections below, with the BRI Metry in view of Farmsworth still reads on to the claims.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 103 in the present office action.
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 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, 21-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Metry (US 20090026167 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Metry teaches A system for a plurality of participants to blind a plurality of beverages, the system comprising: a plurality of containers configured to be identically shaped and identically sized, each container configured to be capable of containing within a beverage, wherein each container does not contain a beverage within; [Metry, para. 0019, Metry teaches “In one method of conducting a blind wine tasting, a wine label cover user wraps each of a plurality of wine bottles with a respective wine label cover” wherein identically shaped containers configured to be capable of containing within a beverage. The negative limitation is a non-functional descriptive material per MPET 2111.05] a plurality of tracking identifiers, each tracking identifier displaying a distinct one of a first plurality of distinct indicia and configured to attach to any one of the containers such that the distinct indicium displayed on the tracking identifier is visible when the tracking identifier is attached to the container; [Metry, para. 0019, Metry teaches “In some examples, each wine label cover includes an identifier to distinguish it from other wine label covers. The identifier can be a pattern or a code, such as an alphanumeric code. It could also be a cut, punch or notch in an edge of a wine label cover 400” wherein tracking identifiers and wherein pattern or code is equivalent to the claimed indicia] and a plurality of tracking covers, each tracking cover displaying a distinct one of a second plurality of distinct indicia and configured to attach to and place over any one of the tracking identifiers when the tracking identifier is attached to any one of the containers such that the distinct indicium displayed on the tracking cover is visible when the tracking cover is attached to and placed over the tracking identifier when the tracking identifier is attached to any one of the containers, and each tracking cover is further configured to mask any one of the tracking identifiers when the tracking identifier is attached to any one of the containers such that the distinct indicium displayed on the tracking identifier is not visible when the tracking cover is attached to and placed over the tracking identifier when the tracking identifier is attached to any one of the containers [Metry, para. 0019, Metry teaches “In various embodiments, the wine label cover 400 wraps around the bottle and attaches to itself. This wrapping is to cover the label 110 to keep any identifying information that might be printed on the wine label obscured from view. In one method of conducting a blind wine tasting, a wine label cover user wraps each of a plurality of wine bottles with a respective wine label cover. In some examples, each wine label cover includes an identifier to distinguish it from other wine label covers. The identifier can be a pattern or a code, such as an alphanumeric code. It could also be a cut, punch or notch in an edge of a wine label cover 400” wherein “the wine label cover 400 wraps around the bottle and attaches to itself. This wrapping is to cover the label 110 to keep any identifying information that might be printed on the wine label obscured from view” is equivalent to the claimed tracking cover with indicia configured to mask information]
Regarding claim 2. wherein each container of the plurality of containers is not a wine bottle [Metry, para. 0019, Metry teaches double covering identical shaped and sized containers (wine bottles). The limitation each container of the plurality of containers is not a wine bottle is a non-functional descriptive material per MPET 2111.05]
Regarding claim 3. wherein each tracking identifier does not comprise a wine label [Metry, para. 0019, Metry teaches “a wine label cover wraps each of a plurality of wine bottles with a respective wine label cover” wherein containers’ tracking identifiers. The negative limitation “not comprise a wine label” is a non-functional descriptive material per MPET 2111.05].
Regarding claim 21. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Metry teaches wherein each tracking identifier is further configured to comprise an elastic material and is further configured to attach to any one of the containers by fitting the elastic material around the container [Metry, para. 0017, Metry teaches “In many instances the label 120 is formed from a plastic or vinyl that can be easily removed” wherein elastic identifier].
Regarding claim 22. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Metry teaches wherein each tracking cover is further configured to comprise an elastic material and is further configured to attach to any one of the tracking identifiers when the tracking identifier is attached to any one of the containers by fitting the elastic material around the container and over the tracking identifier [Metry, para. 0045, Metry teaches “In one embodiment, all the wine label covers are made of disposable material, such as paper or some thin-walled opaque plastic or vinyl” wherein plastic or vinal is equivalent to elastic material’s cover].
Regarding claim 23. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Metry teaches wherein the first plurality of distinct indicia comprises a first classification and the second plurality of distinct indicia comprises a second classification [Metry, para. 0024, Metry teaches “As shown in FIG. 4 the identifier is the letter "A." The identifier 412 does not have to be a letter or a number but could also be a particular pattern or color of the major surface 410” wherein first and second indicia identifiers].
Regarding claim 24. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 23 (as above). Further, Metry teaches wherein the first classification is one of numbers, letters, Roman numerals, shapes, colors, symbols, and designs and the second classification is another of numbers, letters, Roman numerals, shapes, colors, symbols, and designs [Metry, para. 0024, Metry teaches “As shown in FIG. 4 the identifier is the letter "A." The identifier 412 does not have to be a letter or a number but could also be a particular pattern or color of the major surface 410” wherein first and second indicia identifiers as numbers or patterns (design)].
Regarding claim 25. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Metry teaches wherein each tracking identifier of the plurality of tracking identifiers is distinct and each tracking cover of the plurality of tracking covers is distinct [Metry, para. 0019, Metry teaches “each wine label cover includes an identifier to distinguish it from other wine label covers” wherein distinct covers and labels)].
Regarding claim 26. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Metry teaches further comprising: a first instruction material configured to allow a recording by at least one of a written notation and a preprinted sticker; and a second instruction material configured to allow a recording by at least one of a written notation and a preprinted sticker, and is further configured to be distinct from the first instruction material [Metry, Claim 1, Metry teaches “and an instruction set including instructions for covering an example label with one of the wine label covers and for using the response materials to score a covered wine” wherein instruction material and wherein the response materials to score a covered wine is equivalent to allow a recording of a written notation].
Regarding claim 27. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 26 (as above). Further, Metry teaches wherein the first instruction material is further configured to comprise a first set of instructions comprising a use of the plurality of containers and the plurality of tracking identifiers, and the second instruction material is further configured to comprise a second set of instructions comprising a use of the plurality of tracking identifiers and the plurality of tracking covers, wherein the first set of instructions is different from the second set of instructions [Metry, Claim 1, Metry teaches “and an instruction set including instructions for covering an example label with one of the wine label covers and for using the response materials to score a covered wine” wherein an instruction set including instructions for covering an example label with one of the wine label covers and for using the response materials to score a covered wine is equivalent to a two sets of instructions].
Regarding claim 29. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Metry teaches further comprising: a plurality of distinct beverages, wherein each distinct beverage comprises a distinct beverage identity; and a plurality of beverage containers, wherein each beverage container stores within a distinct one of the plurality of distinct beverages, and each beverage container is configured to comprise a label that visibly displays the distinct beverage identity of the distinct beverage stored within [Metry, para. 0019, Metry teaches “In some examples, each wine label cover includes an identifier to distinguish it from other wine label covers” wherein distinct brands of wine is equivalent to distinct beverages].
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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 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.
Claims 4-6 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Metry in view of Coppola (US 20060225637 A1).
Regarding claim 4. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Coppola teaches wherein the plurality of containers configured to be identically shaped and identically sized is one of a plurality of carafes configured to be identically shaped and identically sized, a plurality of decanters configured to be identically shaped and identically sized, and a plurality of beverage glasses configured to be identically shaped and identically sized [Coppola, Abstract, Coppola teaches a beverage tasting kit including glasses. Para.0003 teaches “each participant needs a set of wine glasses” wherein a set of wine glasses identical in shapes and sizes. Wherein the limitation beverage glasses is a non-functional descriptive material per MPET 2111.05]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Coppola by using identical beverage glasses. The motivation to combine Metry with Coppola has the advantage where a new method of conducting such blind comparisons in which the product to be compared, e.g., wine, is contained in a glass container [Coppola, 0004].
Regarding claim 5. Metry in view of Coppola teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Coppola teaches wherein the plurality of beverage glasses configured to be identically shaped and identically sized is one of a plurality of wine glasses configured to be identically shaped and identically sized and a plurality of flutes configured to be identically shaped and identically sized [Coppola, Abstract, Coppola teaches a beverage tasting kit including glasses. Para.0003 teaches “each participant needs a set of wine glasses” wherein a set of wine glasses identical in shapes and sizes]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Coppola by using identical wine glasses. The motivation to combine Metry with Coppola has the advantage where a new method of conducting such blind comparisons in which the product to be compared, e.g., wine, is contained in a glass container [Coppola, 0004].
Regarding claim 6. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Metry teaches wherein each tracking identifier does not comprise a beverage label, [Metry, para. 0019, Metry teaches “In some examples, each wine label cover includes an identifier to distinguish it from other wine label covers. The identifier can be a pattern or a code, such as an alphanumeric code. It could also be a cut, punch or notch in an edge of a wine label cover 400” wherein tracking identifiers and wherein the beverages is a non-functional descriptive material per MPET 2111.05]
Metry does not specifically teach, however; Coppola teaches and the plurality of containers configured to be identically shaped and identically sized is one of a plurality of carafes further configured to be identical, a plurality of decanters further configured to be identical, a plurality of wine glasses further configured to be identical, and a plurality of flutes further configured to be identical [Coppola, Abstract, Coppola teaches a beverage tasting kit including glasses. Para.0003 teaches “each participant needs a set of wine glasses” wherein a set of wine glasses identical in shapes and sizes]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Coppola by using identical wine glasses. The motivation to combine Metry with Coppola has the advantage where a new method of conducting such blind comparisons in which the product to be compared, e.g., wine, is contained in a glass container [Coppola, 0004].
Regarding claim 30. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 29 (as above). Further, Metry teaches wherein the plurality of distinct beverages, each comprising a distinct beverage identity, is a plurality of distinct wines, each comprising a distinct wine identity, the plurality of beverage containers is a plurality of wine bottles, each tracking identifier does not comprise a beverage label, [Metry, para. 0045, Metry teaches “In one embodiment, all the wine label covers are made of disposable material, such as paper or some thin-walled opaque plastic or vinyl. In this way the host of the party can merely dispose of the wine bottle and the wine label cover wrapped around the label. Of course, if it is the last bottle of a particular type of wine the label can be removed from the bottle to reveal the type of wine it is or the winery responsible for the wine” wherein distinct wines, distinct identity, and wine bottles. See also figure 1].
Metry does not specifically teach, however; Coppola teaches and the plurality of containers configured to be identically shaped and identically sized is one of a plurality of carafes further configured to be identical, a plurality of decanters further configured to be identical, a plurality of wine glasses further configured to be identical, and a plurality of flutes further configured to be identical [Coppola, Abstract, Coppola teaches a beverage tasting kit including glasses. Para.0003 teaches “each participant needs a set of wine glasses” wherein a set of wine glasses identical in shapes and sizes]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Coppola by using identical wine glasses. The motivation to combine Metry with Coppola has the advantage where a new method of conducting such blind comparisons in which the product to be compared, e.g., wine, is contained in a glass container [Coppola, 0004].
Claims 7-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Metry in view of Farmsworth et al. (US 20060107563 A1).
Regarding claim 7. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Farmsworth teaches wherein each tracking identifier is further configured to comprise a sticky material such that the tracking identifier sticks to any one of the containers when the tracking identifier is attached to the container [Farmsworth, figure 11B and para. 0059, Farmsworth teaches removable stickers as identifiers on wine glass]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Farmsworth by attaching removable stickers. The motivation to combine Metry with Farmsworth has the advantage using a non-disposable charm that can be moved to a glass of wine for furtherer identification [Farmsworth, para. 0052].
Regarding claim 8. Metry in view of Farmsworth teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Farmsworth teaches wherein each tracking identifier is a sticker [Farmsworth, figure 11B and para. 0059, Farmsworth teaches removable stickers as identifiers on wine glass]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Farmsworth by attaching removable stickers. The motivation to combine Metry with Farmsworth has the advantage using a non-disposable charm that can be moved to a glass of wine for furtherer identification [Farmsworth, para. 0052].
Regarding claim 9. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Farmsworth teaches wherein each tracking identifier is further configured to be removable and reusable after being attached to any one of the containers [Farmsworth, 0003, Farmsworth teaches “disposable and reusable wine glass stem labels have been developed”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Farmsworth by using reusable stickers. The motivation to combine Metry with Farmsworth has the advantage using a non-disposable charm that can be moved to a glass of wine for furtherer identification [Farmsworth, para. 0052].
Regarding claim 10. Metry in view of Farmsworth teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Farmsworth teaches wherein each tracking identifier is a reusable sticker [Farmsworth, 0003, Farmsworth teaches “disposable and reusable wine glass stem labels have been developed”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Farmsworth by using reusable stickers. The motivation to combine Metry with Farmsworth has the advantage using a non-disposable charm that can be moved to a glass of wine for furtherer identification [Farmsworth, para. 0052].
Regarding claim 11. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Farmsworth teaches wherein each tracking cover is further configured to comprise a sticky material such that the tracking cover sticks to any one of the tracking identifiers when the tracking cover is attached to and placed over the tracking identifier when the tracking identifier is attached to any one of the containers [Farmsworth, claim 1, Farmsworth teaches “A product for identifying substances transferred into a smaller container from a larger container, comprising, a container with a label, the label being removable, the label including identifying words, symbols, marks, and/or colors, the label being removed from the larger container and affixed to the smaller container into which the substance is poured, the label serving to identify the type or source of the substance” wherein masking removable label. Para. 0059 teaches “FIG. 5B is an illustration in detail of the back of one of the labels from one embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 5B, the back of a removable label 515 features two sticky portions 520 at either end of the label” wherein a tracking cover as a sticker]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Farmsworth by attaching removable stickers as a tracking cover. The motivation to combine Metry with Farmsworth has the advantage using a non-disposable charm that can be moved to a glass of wine for furtherer identification [Farmsworth, para. 0052].
Regarding claim 12. Metry in view of Farmsworth teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Farmsworth teaches wherein each tracking cover is a sticker [Farmsworth, 0003, Farmsworth teaches “disposable and reusable wine glass stem labels have been developed”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Farmsworth by using reusable stickers. The motivation to combine Metry with Farmsworth has the advantage using a non-disposable charm that can be moved to a glass of wine for furtherer identification [Farmsworth, para. 0052].
Regarding claim 13. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Farmsworth teaches wherein each tracking cover is furtherconfigured to be removable and reusable after being attached to any one of the tracking identifiers such that the distinct indicium displayed on the tracking identifier is visible when the tracking cover is removed [Farmsworth, 0003, Farmsworth teaches “disposable and reusable wine glass stem labels have been developed” wherein reusable cover. Claim 1 of Farmsworth teaches “A product for identifying substances transferred into a smaller container from a larger container, comprising, a container with a label, the label being removable, the label including identifying words, symbols, marks, and/or colors, the label being removed from the larger container and affixed to the smaller container into which the substance is poured, the label serving to identify the type or source of the substance” wherein masking by a removable cover]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Farmsworth by masking using a removable cover. The motivation to combine Metry with Farmsworth has the advantage using a non-disposable charm that can be moved to a glass of wine for furtherer identification [Farmsworth, para. 0052].
Regarding claim 14. Metry in view of Farmsworth teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Farmsworth teaches wherein each tracking cover is a reusable sticker [Farmsworth, 0003, Farmsworth teaches “disposable and reusable wine glass stem labels have been developed” wherein reusable cover. Claim 1 of Farmsworth teaches “A product for identifying substances transferred into a smaller container from a larger container, comprising, a container with a label, the label being removable, the label including identifying words, symbols, marks, and/or colors, the label being removed from the larger container and affixed to the smaller container into which the substance is poured, the label serving to identify the type or source of the substance” wherein masking by a removable cover]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Farmsworth by masking using a removable cover. The motivation to combine Metry with Farmsworth has the advantage using a non-disposable charm that can be moved to a glass of wine for furtherer identification [Farmsworth, para. 0052].
Regarding claim 15. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Farmsworth teaches wherein each container is further configured to comprise a neck and each tracking identifier is further configured to attach to the neck of the container [Farmsworth, figure 1, Farmsworth teaches an identifier attached to a neck of a container]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Farmsworth by attaching an identifier to a neck of a container. The motivation to combine Metry with Farmsworth has the advantage using a non-disposable charm that can be moved to a glass of wine for furtherer identification [Farmsworth, para. 0052].
Regarding claim 17. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Farmsworth teaches wherein each container is further configured to comprise a stem and each tracking identifier is further configured to attach to the stem of the container [Farmsworth, para. 0052, Farmsworth teaches “FIG. 2B is an illustration in perspective view of a prior art, disposable wine glass label. As shown in FIG. 2B, a wine glass 215 is shown with a disposable wine glass label 220 that can be affixed to the wine glass stem 225” wherein label attached to a wine glass stem]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Farmsworth by attaching labels to a wine glass stem. The motivation to combine Metry with Farmsworth has the advantage using a non-disposable charm that can be moved to a glass of wine for furtherer identification [Farmsworth, para. 0052].
Regarding claim 18. Metry in view of Farmsworth teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Farmsworth teaches wherein the plurality of containers is one of a plurality of wine glasses configured to be identically shaped and identically sized and a plurality of flutes configured to be identically shaped and identically sized, and the plurality of tracking identifiers is a plurality of wine charms [Farmsworth, claim 4, Farmsworth teaches containers are wine glasses which is equivalent to carafes para. 0051, Farmsworth teaches “non-disposable wine glass label commonly referred to as a "wine charm."”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Farmsworth by using identical wine glasses as container and wine charms. The motivation to combine Metry with Farmsworth has the advantage using a non-disposable charm that can be moved to a glass of wine for furtherer identification [Farmsworth, para. 0052].
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Metry in view of Holmes et al. (US 6741150 B2).
Regarding claim 19. Metry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Holmes teaches wherein each tracking identifier is further configured to comprise one of a magnetically receptive material and a magnetic material, and each tracking cover is further configured to comprise the other of the magnetically receptive material and the magnetic material [Holmes, Abstract, Holmes teaches “A wine glass charm includes a magnetic coupling, the components of which are disposed at the respective ends of an encircling member to detachably attach the wine glass charm to the stem or handle of a drinking vessel. The encircling member may include identifying indicia”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Holmes by including magnetic identifier attachment. The motivation to combine Metry with Holmes has the advantage of easily applying or removing the attachment during the wine tasting event.
Regarding claim 20. Metry in view of Holmes teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 (as above). Metry does not specifically teach, however; Holmes teaches wherein the plurality of tracking identifiers is one of a plurality of metallic wine bottle charms and a plurality of metallic wine charms, and the plurality of tracking covers is one of a plurality of flexible magnets, a plurality of hard custom-shaped magnets, and a plurality of magnetic stickers [Holmes, column 3 lines 48-55, Holmes teaches “FIG. 5 illustrates a further variant 70 of encircling member 22 shown in FIG. 1. Herein, the encircling member may be one or more strands of material, of which two strands 72, 74 are illustrated. These strands may be of metallic or non-metallic material”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Holmes by including magnetic identifier attachment with metallic charm. The motivation to combine Metry with Holmes has the advantage of easily applying or removing the attachment during the wine tasting event.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Metry in view of Coppola and in further view of Farmsworth
Regarding claim 16. Metry in view of Farmsworth teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 (as above). Metry in view of Farmsworth does not specifically teach, however; Coppola teaches wherein the plurality of containers is one of a plurality of carafes configured to be identically shaped and identically sized and a plurality of decanters configured to be identically shaped and identically sized, [Coppola, Abstract, Coppola teaches a beverage tasting kit including glasses. Para.0003 teaches “each participant needs a set of wine glasses” wherein a set of wine glasses identical in shapes and sizes]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry to incorporate the teaching of Coppola by using identical wine glasses. The motivation to combine Metry with Coppola has the advantage where a new method of conducting such blind comparisons in which the product to be compared, e.g., wine, is contained in a glass container [Coppola, 0004].
Metry in view of Coppola does not specifically teach, however; Farmsworth and the plurality of tracking identifiers is plurality of wine bottle charms [Farmsworth, para. 0051, Farmsworth teaches “non-disposable wine glass label commonly referred to as a "wine charm."”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metry in view of Coppola to incorporate the teaching of Farmsworth by attaching an identifier as a charm. The motivation to combine Metry in view of Coppola with Farmsworth has the advantage using a non-disposable charm that can be moved to a glass of wine for furtherer identification [Farmsworth, para. 0052].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 11/05/2025 necessitated the withdrawing of the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claim 28 and the updating of the 35 USC § 103 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623