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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 1st, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 1st, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-17, and 19-26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous 112(b) rejection applied in the Final Action sent out on December 2nd, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the straw in claim 1, ln. 3, claim 21, ln. 3, and claim 22, ln. 1, the first edge in claim 24, ln. 3, the second edge in claim 24, ln. 3, the first and second arcuate edges in claim 24, ln. 6, the third and fourth arcuate edges in claim 24, ln. 7, and the radially extending flange in claim 25, ln. 1-2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is recommended that these features are labeled in the drawings. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed June 1st, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the housing has a second cylindrical circumferential outer surface having a second radius that is equal to the first radius in claim 25, ln. 7-8.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 states “the housing has a second cylindrical circumferential outer surface having a second radius that is equal to the first radius” in ln. 7-8. This limitation does not appear to be supported in the specification of the present invention. The specification does not define that the housing has a second cylindrical circumferential outer surface having a second radius that is equal to the first radius, nor describe how the second radius is equal to the first radius. Therefore, the subject matter was not reasonably conveyed in the disclosure that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 22 is dependent from claim 13, which has now been canceled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 13, 16-18, 20, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Guerrero (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0182247 A1), embodiment of Fig. 7, in view of Guerrero (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0182247 A1), embodiment of Fig. 1, and Seamons (US 20200086253 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Guerrero discloses a drinking utensil (60, Fig. 7) having a longitudinal axis (annotated in Fig. 7), the drinking utensil (60, Fig. 7) comprising:
a straw (interpreting as a tube, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 61, Fig. 7) having a first end (annotated in Fig. 7) and an opposing second end spaced from the first end along the longitudinal axis (annotated in Fig. 7), wherein the straw (61, Fig. 7) defines a lumen (interpreting as the bore of a tube, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, internal space within straw 61, annotated in Fig. 7) therethrough from the first end to the second end (annotated and shown in Fig. 7); and
a filter assembly (annotated in Fig. 7) coupled to the first end of the straw (61, shown in Fig. 7), the filter assembly (annotated in Fig. 7) comprises:
a housing (62, Fig. 7) having an outer surface (external surface of housing 62, shown in Fig. 7) and an inner surface defining an interior (internal surface of housing 62, shown in Fig. 7), the housing (62, Fig. 7) defines a side opening (63, large square opening on the side within the frame 62, annotated in Fig. 7) and a top opening (top opening of frame 62, shown in Fig. 7) that is in communication with the lumen (fluid flows from the frame 62 through the top opening of the frame 62 through the internal space of the drinking straw 61 to the user’s mouth, annotated and shown in Fig. 7, Paragraph 0045) of the straw (61, Fig. 7); and
a filter (64, Fig. 7) received within the interior of the housing (62, shown in Fig. 7), the filter (64, Fig. 7) extends across and covers the side opening (63, large square opening on the side within the frame 62, annotated in Fig. 7) of the housing (62, shown in Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
785
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Guerrero does not disclose the housing defines a plurality of side openings in one embodiment. In the embodiment of Fig. 1, Guerrero discloses a filter assembly (10, Fig. 1) comprises a housing (12, Fig. 1) defines a plurality of side openings (13, Fig. 1).
Guerrero is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the plurality of side openings in the filter assembly of the embodiment of Fig. 1 in Guerrero to the filter assembly of the embodiment of Fig. 7 to Guerrero, to have the housing defines a plurality of side openings and the filter extends across and covers the plurality of side openings of the housing. Doing so provides for additional openings for the fluid to pass through (Paragraph 0036).
However, Guerrero does not disclose the straw comprises one or more male threads at the first end and the inner surface of the housing comprises one or more female threads that receive the male threads of the straw, thereby coupling the filter assembly to the straw as claimed in both embodiments. Seamons teaches a cover (14, Fig. 1) comprises one or more male threads (22, Fig. 1) at the first end (bottom end of cover 14, shown in Fig. 1);
the inner surface (internal surface of filter housing 12, shown in Fig. 1) of the housing (12, Fig. 1) comprises one or more female threads (24, Fig. 1) that receive the male threads (22, Fig. 1) of the cover (14, Fig. 1), coupling the filter assembly (16, 36, Fig. 1) to the cover (14, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0026).
Guerrero and Seamons are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the one or more male threads and the one or more female threads taught in Seamons’ drinking utensil to Guerrero’s drinking utensil, to have the straw comprising one or more male threads at the first end and the inner surface of the housing comprising one or more female threads that receive the male threads of the straw, coupling the filter assembly to the elongate body. The one or more male threads taught in Seamons would be placed externally at the bottom end of the drinking straw 61 disclosed in Guerrero in the embodiment of Fig. 7, and the one or more female threads taught in Seamons would be placed internally at the top end of the frame 62 disclosed in Guerrero in the embodiment of Fig. 7, in order to couple the filter assembly to the elongate body. Doing so provides a sealed connection between the elongate body and the housing (Seamons, Paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 6, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 1 applied above. In the embodiment of Fig. 1, Guerrero further discloses the plurality of side openings (13, Fig. 1) are circumferentially spaced around the housing (12, shown in Fig. 1) about the longitudinal axis (annotated in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
565
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 6 applied above. In the embodiment of Fig. 7, Guerrero further discloses the filter (64, Fig. 7) defines a seam that extends parallel to the longitudinal axis (annotated in Fig. 7), and the filter (64, Fig. 7) is coupled to the housing so that the seam is disposed behind one of the longitudinally extending sections (shown in Fig. 7, Paragraph 0013). In the embodiment of Fig. 1, Guerrero further discloses the housing (12, Fig. 1) defines a respective longitudinally extending section (annotated in Fig. 1) between adjacent side openings of the plurality of side openings (13, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
531
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
565
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 13, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 1 applied above. Guerrero further discloses the housing has a cylindrical circumferential surface (shown in Fig. 7) that has a central axis that is coaxial with the longitudinal axis (annotated in Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image5.png
720
544
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 1 applied above. In the embodiment of Fig. 7, Guerrero discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention (annotated in Fig. 7) except for the express disclosure of the plurality of side openings extend no farther than 23 mm from the bottom surface along the longitudinal axis.
PNG
media_image6.png
720
544
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Guerrero and Seamons are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one side opening extends no farther than 23 mm from the bottom surface along the longitudinal axis, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, in re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Providing a workable range for the at least one side opening extending from the bottom surface allows for specific dimensions of the housing to be built.
In regards to claim 17, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 1 applied above. Guerrero further discloses the plurality of side openings are elongate along the longitudinal axis (it will be interpreted that elongate means lengthened or extended, shown in Fig. 7).
With respect to claim 18, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 1 applied above. In the embodiment of Fig. 7, Guerrero further discloses the first end of the straw is spaced from the uppermost edge in a direction away from the second end of the straw along the longitudinal axis (shown in Fig. 7). In the embodiment of Fig. 1, Guerrero further discloses at least one of the plurality of side openings has an uppermost edge (annotated in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image7.png
565
506
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Guerrero discloses a filter assembly (annotated in Fig. 7) comprising:
a housing (62, Fig. 7) having an outer surface (external surface of housing 62, shown in Fig. 7) and an inner surface defining an interior (internal surface of housing 62, shown in Fig. 7), the housing defines a side opening (annotated in Fig. 7) and a top opening (annotated in Fig. 7), the top opening is configured to be coupled to a straw (shown in Fig. 7); and
a filter (64, Fig. 7) received within the housing, the filter extends across and covers the side opening of the housing (shown in Fig. 7).
However, Guerrero does not disclose the housing defines a plurality of side openings in one embodiment. In the embodiment of Fig. 1, Guerrero discloses a filter assembly (10, Fig. 1) comprises a housing (12, Fig. 1) defines a plurality of side openings (13, Fig. 1).
Guerrero is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the plurality of side openings in the filter assembly of the embodiment of Fig. 1 in Guerrero to the filter assembly of the embodiment of Fig. 7 to Guerrero, to have the housing defines a plurality of side openings and the filter extends across and covers the plurality of side openings of the housing. Doing so provides for additional openings for the fluid to pass through (Paragraph 0036).
However, Guerrero does not disclose the inner surface of the housing comprises one or more female threads at the top opening as claimed in both embodiments. Seamons teaches an inner surface (internal surface of housing 12, shown in Fig. 1) of a housing (12, Fig. 1) comprises one or more female threads (24, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0026) at the top opening (top opening of housing 12, shown in Fig. 1).
Guerrero and Seamons are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filter assemblies for drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the housing taught in Seamons’ filter assembly to Guerrero’s filter assembly, to have the inner surface of the housing comprising one or more female threads at the top opening. Doing so provides a sealed connection between the elongate body and the housing (Seamons, Paragraph 0026).
In regards to claim 22, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 13 (interpreting as claim 1, since claim 13 has been canceled) applied above. Seamons further teaches the elongate body (14, Fig. 1) comprises a widened lower portion (lower portion of cover 14, shown in Fig. 1), the widened lower portion (lower portion of cover 14, shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
a cylindrical circumferential surface (cover 14 has a cylindrical surface in the lower portion, shown in Fig. 1); and
the one or more male threads (22, Fig. 1),
when the straw (14, Fig. 1) is coupled to the housing (12, Fig. 1) of the filter assembly (16, 36, Fig. 1), the cylindrical circumferential surface of the widened lower portion (shown in Fig. 1) of the straw (14, Fig. 1) is flush with the cylindrical circumferential surface (top surface of the housing 12, shown in Fig. 1) of the housing (12, Fig. 1) of the filter assembly (16, 36, shown in Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 25, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 1. However, Guerrero does not disclose the straw comprises a radially extending flange, wherein the radially extending flange has:
a planar top surface;
a first cylindrical circumferential surface having a first radius; and
a circumferential edge connecting the planar top surface and the first cylindrical circumferential surface,
wherein the housing has a second cylindrical circumferential outer surface having a second radius that is equal to the first radius.
Seamons teaches a radially extending flange (49, Figs. 1-2), wherein the radially extending flange (49, Figs. 1-2) has:
a planar top surface (top surface of end cap 40, shown in Figs. 1-2);
a first cylindrical circumferential surface (40, Figs. 1-2) having a first radius (radius of end cap 40, shown in Figs. 1-2); and
a circumferential edge (edge connecting end cap 40 and top surface of end cap 40, shown in Figs. 1-2) connecting the planar top surface (top surface of end cap 40, shown in Figs. 1-2) and the first cylindrical circumferential surface (40, shown in Figs. 1-2),
wherein the housing (36, Fig. 1) has a second cylindrical circumferential outer surface (42, shown in Fig. 1) having a second radius (radius of end cap 42, shown in Fig. 1) that is equal to the first radius (radius of end cap 40, shown in Fig. 1).
Guerrero and Seamons are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filter assemblies for drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the radially extending flange and the housing taught in Seamons’ drinking utensil to Guerrero’s drinking utensil, to have the motivation to secure the filter within the drinking utensil (Seamons, Paragraph 0028).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Guerrero (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0182247 A1), embodiment of Fig. 7, in view of Guerrero (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0182247 A1), embodiment of Fig. 1, and Seamons (US 20200086253 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kramer Industries, Inc. (“Mesh Size”, NPL).
With respect to claim 3, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 1 applied above. However, Guerrero and Seamons do not teach the filter is a mesh filter having a mesh number from 80 mesh to 240 mesh. Kramer Industries, Inc. teaches a mesh number from 80 mesh to 240 mesh (Mesh to Micron Conversion Chart).
Guerrero, Seamons, and Kramer Industries, Inc. are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtering devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the mesh size taught by Kramer Industries, Inc. to the drinking utensil taught by Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, to have the filter is a mesh filter having a mesh number from 80 mesh to 240 mesh. Doing so allows for smaller particles to pass through the filter (second paragraph in “Mesh Size”, NPL).
Regarding claim 4, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons and Kramer Industries, Inc., discloses the drinking utensil of claim 3 applied above. Kramer Industries, Inc. further teaches a mesh filter having a mesh number from 100 to 150 mesh (Mesh to Micron Conversion Chart).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Guerrero (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0182247 A1), embodiment of Fig. 7, in view of Guerrero (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0182247 A1), embodiment of Fig. 1, and Seamons (US 20200086253 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Smith (U.S. Patent 5,156,335).
Regarding claim 8, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 1 applied above. However, Guerrero and Seamons do not teach the second end of the straw defines an opening having a major dimension and a minor dimension. Smith teaches the second end of the straw (28, Fig. 5) defines an opening having a major dimension (annotated in Fig. 5) and a minor dimension (annotated in Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image8.png
487
433
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Guerrero, Seamons, and Smith are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the major dimension and a minor dimension in Smith’s drinking utensil to the drinking utensil taught by Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, to have the second end of the straw defines an opening having a major dimension and a minor dimension, and the major dimension is at least twice the minor dimension. Although Smith does not explicitly teach the major dimension is at least twice the minor dimension, there is an “obvious to try” motivation as suggested by Smith above that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, that would lead to the conclusion of having the major dimension is at least twice the minor dimension. Doing so allows for the mouthpiece to fit more comfortably in the user’s mouth (Smith, Col. 3, Ln. 1-2).
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Guerrero (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0182247 A1), embodiment of Fig. 7, in view of Guerrero (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0182247 A1), embodiment of Fig. 1, and Seamons (US 20200086253 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shafik (U.S. Patent 6,142,384).
With respect to claim 10, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 1 applied above. However, Guerrero and Seamons do not teach the filter assembly defines at least one bottom opening on a bottom end of the housing opposite the top opening, and the filter extends across the at least one bottom opening. Shafik teaches the filter assembly (61, Figs. 10-11) defines at least one bottom opening (65, Figs. 10-11) on a bottom end of the housing (annotated in Fig. 10) opposite the top opening (annotated in Fig. 10), and the filter extends across the at least one bottom opening (shown in Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image9.png
464
512
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Guerrero, Seamons, and Shafik are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the at least one bottom opening in Shafik’s filter assembly to Guerrero’s filter assembly, as modified by Seamons, to have the filter assembly defines at least one bottom opening on a bottom end of the housing opposite the top opening, and the filter extends across the at least one bottom opening. Doing so provides for more openings in the filter, which increases efficiency of the fluid to be filtered.
In regards to claim 11, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons and Shafik, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 10 applied above. In the embodiment of Fig. 1, Guerrero discloses the plurality of side openings (13, Fig. 1). However, Guerrero and Seamons do not teach at least one opening at the bottom end of the housing and the plurality of side openings cooperate to define an area of at least 300 square millimeters. Shafik teaches at least one opening at the bottom end of the housing (65, annotated in Figs. 10-11) and the filter device can have any desired length (Col. 8, Ln. 55-58).
Guerrero, Seamons, and Shafik are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the at least one opening at the bottom end of the housing in Shafik’s drinking utensil to Guerrero’s drinking utensil, as modified by Seamons, to have at least one opening at the bottom end of the housing and the plurality of side openings cooperate to define an area of at least 300 square millimeters. Although Shafik does not explicitly state values for the area defined by the at least one opening at the bottom end and the at least one side opening, there is an “obvious to try” motivation as suggested by Shafik above that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, that would lead to the conclusion of having the area of at least 300 square millimeters. Doing so provides a sufficient surface area for filtration (Shafik, Col. 8, Ln. 55-58).
With respect to claim 12, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons and Shafik, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 11 applied above. In the embodiment of Fig. 1, Guerrero discloses the plurality of side openings (13, Fig. 1). However, Guerrero and Seamons do not teach at least one opening at the bottom end of the housing and the plurality of side openings cooperate to define an area of at least 400 square millimeters. Shafik teaches at least one opening at the bottom end of the housing (65, annotated in Figs. 10-11) and the filter device can have any desired length (Col. 8, Ln. 55-58).
Guerrero, Seamons, and Shafik are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the at least one opening at the bottom end of the housing in Shafik’s drinking utensil to Guerrero’s drinking utensil, as modified by Seamons, to have at least one opening at the bottom end of the housing and the plurality of side openings cooperate to define an area of at least 400 square millimeters. Although Shafik does not explicitly state values for the area defined by the at least one opening at the bottom end and the at least one side opening, there is an “obvious to try” motivation as suggested by Shafik above that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, that would lead to the conclusion of having the area of at least 400 square millimeters. Doing so provides a sufficient surface area for filtration (Shafik, Col. 8, Ln. 55-58).
Regarding claim 14, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 13 applied above. Guerrero further teaches the housing has a bottom surface (annotated in Fig. 7), and the cylindrical circumferential surface and the bottom surface intersect at a bottom edge (annotated in Fig. 7). However, Guerrero and Seamons do not teach the cylindrical circumferential surface and the bottom surface intersect at a bottom edge having an outer radius of at least 1 mm and less than 10 mm. Shafik teaches that the radial dimensions and configuration of the filter device are limited by the straw, and filter device can have any desired length (Col. 8, Ln. 51-58).
Guerrero, Seamons, and Shafik are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the dimensions taught in Shafik’s drinking utensil to Guerrero’s drinking utensil, as modified by Seamons, to have the cylindrical circumferential surface and the bottom surface intersect at a bottom edge having an outer radius of at least 1 mm and less than 10 mm. Although Shafik does not explicitly state values for the outer radius, there is an “obvious to try” motivation as suggested by Shafik above that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, that would lead to the conclusion of having the outer radius being at least 1 mm and less than 10 mm. Doing so optimizes the speed of the fluid passing through, decreasing the preparation time, and reduces the weight and manufacturing costs of the filter.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Guerrero (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0182247 A1) in view of Seamons (US 20200086253 A1), and in further view of Manning (U.S. Patent 5,718,681).
With respect to claim 15, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 1 applied above. However, Guerrero and Seamons do not teach the straw has a top portion, a bottom portion, and the top portion and bottom portion intersect at an obtuse angle. Manning teaches a drinking utensil (100, Fig. 1B) comprising a straw (102, Fig. 1B), the straw (102, Fig. 1B) has a top portion (annotated in Fig. 1B) and a bottom portion (annotated in Fig. 1B), and the top portion and bottom portion intersect at an obtuse angle (annotated in Fig. 1B).
PNG
media_image10.png
691
652
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Guerrero, Seamons, and Manning are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the top portion and the bottom portion in Manning’s drinking utensil to the drinking utensil taught by Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, to have the straw have a top portion, a bottom portion, and the top portion and bottom portion intersect at an obtuse angle. Doing so allows the mouthpiece to fit more comfortably in the user’s mouth.
Claims 19 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Guerrero (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0182247 A1) in view of Seamons (US 20200086253 A1), and further in view of Inaba (U.S. Patent 5,039,012).
Regarding claim 19, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 1 applied above. However, Guerrero and Seamons do not teach the plurality of side openings has a circumferential edge defining a chamfer. Inaba teaches the plurality of side openings (34, Fig. 9) has a circumferential edge defining a chamfer (annotated in Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image11.png
759
609
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Guerrero, Seamons, and Inaba are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the plurality of side openings has a circumferential edge defining a chamfer in Inaba’s drinking utensil to the drinking utensil taught by Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, to have at least one of the at least one side openings has a circumferential edge defining a chamfer. Doing so reduces the stress concentration of the edges in the at least one of the at least one side openings as fluid flows through, improving the structural longevity of the filter.
With respect to claim 23, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 1 applied above. However, Guerrero and Seamons do not teach the straw comprises a widened upper portion defining two recessed grooves. Inaba teaches a drinking utensil (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising a straw (1, Fig. 1) comprising a widened upper portion (annotated in Fig. 1) defining two recessed grooves (annotated in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image12.png
660
438
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Guerrero, Seamons, and Inaba are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the elongate body in Inaba’s drinking utensil to the drinking utensil taught by Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, to have the elongate body comprises a widened upper portion defining two recessed grooves. Doing so allows the drinking utensil to fit in the mouth of the user better while allowing for a more secure connection to prevent leaking during use.
Regarding claim 24, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 1. However, Guerrero and Seamons do not teach the housing of the filter assembly comprises:
a first edge and a second edge, wherein the first and second edges are spaced along the longitudinal axis, and wherein the first and second edges extend circumferentially about the longitudinal axis;
first and second arcuate edges that extend from opposite ends of the first edge; and
third and fourth arcuate edges that extend from opposite ends of the second edge,
wherein the first edge, the second edge, and the first, second, third, and fourth arcuate edges cooperate to surround at least a portion of a first opening of the plurality of openings.
Inaba teaches the housing (21, Figs. 5-6) of the filter assembly (4, 21, Figs. 5-6) comprises:
a first edge and a second edge (annotated in Fig. 5), wherein the first and second edges are spaced along the longitudinal axis (annotated and shown in Fig. 5), and wherein the first and second edges extend circumferentially about the longitudinal axis (annotated and shown in Fig. 5);
first and second arcuate edges (annotated in Fig. 5) that extend from opposite ends of the first edge (annotated and shown in Fig. 5); and
third and fourth arcuate edges (annotated in Fig. 5) that extend from opposite ends of the second edge (annotated and shown in Fig. 5),
wherein the first edge, the second edge, and the first, second, third, and fourth arcuate edges (annotated in Fig. 5) cooperate to surround at least a portion of a first opening (4, Fig. 4) of the plurality of openings (4, Figs. 5-6).
PNG
media_image13.png
821
563
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Guerrero, Seamons, and Inaba are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the first edge, the second edge, and the first, second, third, and fourth arcuate edges in Inaba’s drinking utensil to the drinking utensil disclosed by Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, to have the motivation of providing positive ventilation within the drinking utensil (Inaba, Col. 4, Ln. 17-22).
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Guerrero (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0182247 A1) embodiment of Fig. 7, in view of Guerrero (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0182247 A1), embodiment of Fig. 1, and Zaccheo (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0155500).
Regarding claim 21, Guerrero discloses a drinking utensil (61, Fig. 7) having a longitudinal axis (annotated in Fig. 7), the drinking utensil (61, Fig. 7) comprising:
an straw (annotated in Fig. 7) having a first end (annotated in Fig. 7) and an opposing second end spaced from the first end along the longitudinal axis (annotated in Fig. 7), the straw (annotated in Fig. 7) defines a lumen (interpreting as the bore of a tube, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, internal space within straw 61, annotated in Fig. 7) therethrough from the first end to the second end (annotated and shown in Fig. 7);
a filter housing (62, Fig. 7) having an outer surface (external surface of housing 62, shown in Fig. 7) and an inner surface defining an interior (internal surface of housing 62, shown in Fig. 7), the filter housing (62, Fig. 7) defines a side opening (annotated in Fig. 7) and a top opening (annotated in Fig. 7) that is in communication with the lumen (annotated in Fig. 7) of the straw (61, fluid flows from the frame 62 through the top opening of the frame 62 through the internal space of the drinking straw 61 to the user’s mouth, annotated and shown in Fig. 7, Paragraph 0045); and
a filter (64, Fig. 7) received within the interior of the filter housing (62, shown in Fig. 7), the filter (64, Fig. 7) extends across and covers the side opening (63, large square opening on the side within the frame 62, annotated in Fig. 7) of the filter housing (62, shown in Fig. 7), the filter is removable from the filter housing (a filter is disposed within the frame, and the filter does not need to be replaced after every use, suggesting that the filter is used for a long time before it is removed from the frame, Paragraphs 0006-0008).
However, Guerrero does not disclose the housing defines a plurality of side openings in one embodiment. In the embodiment of Fig. 1, Guerrero discloses a filter assembly (10, Fig. 1) comprises a housing (12, Fig. 1) defines a plurality of side openings (13, Fig. 1).
Guerrero is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the plurality of side openings in the filter assembly of the embodiment of Fig. 1 in Guerrero to the filter assembly of the embodiment of Fig. 7 to Guerrero, to have the housing defines a plurality of side openings and the filter extends across and covers the plurality of side openings of the housing. Doing so provides for additional openings for the fluid to pass through (Paragraph 0036).
However, Guerrero does not disclose the filter housing is integrally formed with the straw as a unitary, monolithic structure as claimed. Zaccheo teaches a drinking utensil (10, Fig. 1) comprising the filter housing (external surface of the straw 10 at the bottom end including the annotated filter, annotated and shown in Fig. 1) is integrally formed with the straw (external surface of the straw 10, shown in Fig. 1) as a unitary, monolithic structure (interpreting as a structure of or relating to a unit and cast as a single piece, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, shown in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image14.png
437
647
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Guerrero and Zaccheo are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtered drinking utensils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the filter housing and elongate body in Zaccheo’s drinking utensil to Guerrero’s drinking utensil to have the filter housing is integrally formed with the elongate body as a unitary, monolithic structure. Doing so reduces the bulkiness of the straw and facilitates easier manufacturing (Zaccheo, Paragraphs 0006-0007).
In regards to claim 26, Guerrero, as modified by Zaccheo, discloses the drinking utensil of claim 21. Guerrero further discloses in the embodiment of Fig. 1 the plurality of side openings (13, Fig. 1) are elongate along the longitudinal axis (annotated and shown in Fig. 1 under claim 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Seamons does not disclose a straw defining threads, see Remarks, pg. 9, Guerrero, as modified by Seamons, discloses this feature. Guerrero discloses a straw (61, Fig. 7) as claimed referenced in the above 103 rejection for independent claim 1. However, Guerrero does not disclose the inner surface of the housing comprises one or more female threads that receive the male threads of the straw, thereby coupling the filter assembly to the straw. Seamons teaches a cover (14, Fig. 1) comprises one or more male threads (22, Fig. 1) at the first end (bottom end of cover 14, shown in Fig. 1), the inner surface (internal surface of filter housing 12, shown in Fig. 1) of the housing (12, Fig. 1) comprises one or more female threads (24, Fig. 1) that receive the male threads (22, Fig. 1) of the cover (14, Fig. 1), coupling the filter assembly (16, 36, Fig. 1) to the cover (14, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0026). The one or more male threads taught in Seamons would be placed externally at the bottom end of the drinking straw 61 disclosed in Guerrero in the embodiment of Fig. 7, and the one or more female threads taught in Seamons would be placed internally at the top end of the frame 62 disclosed in Guerrero in the embodiment of Fig. 7, in order to couple the filter assembly to the elongate body. Seamons provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these features to Guerrero because doing so provides a sealed connection between the elongate body and the housing (Seamons, Paragraph 0026).
In response to applicant's argument that Seamons is nonanalogous art to Guerrero, see Remarks, pg. 9-10, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, the particular problem of the current invention is a need for a portable device and method to prepare turbid beverages. Guerrero discloses a beverage filter assembly having a frame with at least one opening and a wire cloth filter disposed within the frame (Paragraph 0006). Seamons teaches a filter assembly that has a filter housing and a cover with threaded couplings to facilitate replacement of the filter element (Paragraph 0002). The filter element serves to separate unfiltered fluid in a dirty area of the housing from the filtered fluid in a clean area of the housing (Paragraph 0002). The structure taught in Seamons provides a portable device and method to prepare turbid beverages because it provides a filter element to separate unfiltered fluid in a dirty area of the housing from the filtered fluid in a clean area of the housing and allows replacement of the filter element without taking apart other parts of the filter assembly. This is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem to the current invention because one of ordinary skill would attempt to find a structure that would allow filtering of a turbid beverage to prepare it and easier replacement of the filter while being portable.
In response to applicant's argument that the structure of Seamons is inapplicable to Guerrero, see Remarks, pg. 10-11, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, see Remarks, pg. 11, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Seamons provides a motivation to combine the one or more male threads and the one or more female threads because doing so provides a sealed connection between the elongate body and the housing (Seamons, Paragraph 0026). Seamons states in paragraph 0026 that the threads allow tightening of the cover.
In response to applicant’s argument that Zaccheo does not teach a filter housing, see Remarks, pg. 13-14, Zaccheo does teach this feature. Zaccheo teaches a drinking utensil (10, Fig. 1) comprising the filter housing (external surface of the straw 10 at the bottom end including the annotated filter, annotated and shown in Fig. 1) is integrally formed with the elongate body (external surface of the straw 10, shown in Fig. 1) as a unitary, monolithic structure (interpreting as a structure of or relating to a unit and cast as a single piece, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, shown in Fig. 1). It is interpreted that the filter housing is formed as a unit with the elongate body as a structure of a unit and cast as a single piece (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). It is annotated and shown in Fig. 1 of Zaccheo that Zaccheo teaches and meets this limitation.
PNG
media_image14.png
437
647
media_image14.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s argument that none of the references teach a filter that is removable from the filter housing, see Remarks, pg. 14, Guerrero does disclose this feature. Specifically, Guerrero discloses the filter is removable from the filter housing. Guerrero states a filter is disposed within the frame, and the filter does not need to be replaced after every use, suggesting that the filter is used for a long time before it is removed from the frame (Paragraphs 0006-0008).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 /STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights