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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 06/10/2026. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 5-6, 16 have been amended.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Final Office Action dated 12/10/2025.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 12/10/2025. However, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/10/2025 have created another 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections, see details below in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C.103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but are moot. In view of the amendments to the claims filed on 06/10/2025, the rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.103 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “a liquid in the first cup body” in line 3. Since “a liquid in the first cup body” already recited in claim 6 (line 16), therefore, the limitation “a liquid in the first cup body” recited in claim 15 should be changed to “[[a]] the liquid in the first cup body”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-19 are 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 1 recites the limitation “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of the heating plate wherein the heating plate is in direct contact with the bottom of the cup body” in lines 30-32. The limitation “the heating plate is in direct contact with the bottom of the cup body” is supported by the originally filed disclosure, specifically, Par.0038 of the specification of the Instant Application describes this limitation. However, the originally filed disclosure does not describe or otherwise reasonably convey that “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of the heating plate” as recited in claim 1. In particular, Par.0028 describes “The heater body 21 has a peripheral ring 210 that has a convex connecting surface 211” and identifies heating plate 24 as a separate component of heating module 2. Pars.0036 & 0038 further describe the relationship between the cup body 1 and the heating plate 24, including the contact between cup bottom 13 and heating plate 24. However, these portions of the written description do not state that the top portion of convex connecting surface 211 and the top portion of the heating plate 24 are level, coplanar, positioned at the same height, or otherwise have the particular relative dimensional relationship as required by the claim. In addition, Fig.6 of the drawings of the Instant Application illustrates convex connecting surface 211 and heating plate 24 in relation to cup body 1, however, the drawings do not identify the top portion of convex connecting surface 211 as being level with the top portion of the heating plate 24. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2125 II., “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. “[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977).”. See MPEP 2125 II. In this case, the drawings of the Instant Application do not identify the top portion of convex connecting surface 211 as being level with the top portion of the heating plate 24, and the specification of the Instant Application does not indicate that Fig.6 or other figures are drawn to scale, nor does the written description provide dimensions, measurements, tolerances, or other disclosure establishing that the top portion of the convex connecting surface 211 is level with the top portion of the heating plate 24. Accordingly, the limitation “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of the heating plate” is not described in the specification or in the drawings of the Instant Application, and thus, claim 1 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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of a heating plate of the heating module wherein the heating plate is in direct contact with a bottom of the first cup body” in lines 11-13. The limitation “the heating plate is in direct contact with a bottom of the first cup body” is supported by the originally filed disclosure, specifically, Par.0038 of the specification of the Instant Application describes this limitation. However, the originally filed disclosure does not describe or otherwise reasonably convey that “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of a heating plate of the heating module” as recited in claim 6. In particular, Par.0028 describes “The heater body 21 has a peripheral ring 210 that has a convex connecting surface 211” and identifies heating plate 24 as a separate component of heating module 2. Pars.0036 & 0038 further describe the relationship between the cup body 1 and the heating plate 24, including the contact between cup bottom 13 and heating plate 24. However, these portions of the written description do not state that the top portion of convex connecting surface 211 and the top portion of the heating plate 24 are level, coplanar, positioned at the same height, or otherwise have the particular relative dimensional relationship as required by the claim. In addition, Fig.6 of the drawings of the Instant Application illustrates convex connecting surface 211 and heating plate 24 in relation to cup body 1, however, the drawings do not identify the top portion of convex connecting surface 211 as being level with the top portion of the heating plate 24. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2125 II., “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. “[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977).”. See MPEP 2125 II. In this case, the drawings of the Instant Application do not identify the top portion of convex connecting surface 211 as being level with the top portion of the heating plate 24, and the specification of the Instant Application does not indicate that Fig.6 or other figures are drawn to scale, nor does the written description provide dimensions, measurements, tolerances, or other disclosure establishing that the top portion of the convex connecting surface 211 is level with the top portion of the heating plate 24. Accordingly, the limitation “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of a heating plate of the heating module” is not described in the specification or in the drawings of the Instant Application, and thus, claim 6 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.
Claims 7-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 6.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of the heating plate of the heating module wherein the heating plate is in direct contact with a bottom of the cup body” in lines 16-18. The limitation “the heating plate is in direct contact with a bottom of the cup body” is supported by the originally filed disclosure, specifically, Par.0038 of the specification of the Instant Application describes this limitation. However, the originally filed disclosure does not describe or otherwise reasonably convey that “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of the heating plate of the heating module” as recited in claim 16. In particular, Par.0028 describes “The heater body 21 has a peripheral ring 210 that has a convex connecting surface 211” and identifies heating plate 24 as a separate component of heating module 2. Pars.0036 & 0038 further describe the relationship between the cup body 1 and the heating plate 24, including the contact between cup bottom 13 and heating plate 24. However, these portions of the written description do not state that the top portion of convex connecting surface 211 and the top portion of the heating plate 24 are level, coplanar, positioned at the same height, or otherwise have the particular relative dimensional relationship as required by the claim. In addition, Fig.6 of the drawings of the Instant Application illustrates convex connecting surface 211 and heating plate 24 in relation to cup body 1, however, the drawings do not identify the top portion of convex connecting surface 211 as being level with the top portion of the heating plate 24. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2125 II., “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. “[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977).”. See MPEP 2125 II. In this case, the drawings of the Instant Application do not identify the top portion of convex connecting surface 211 as being level with the top portion of the heating plate 24, and the specification of the Instant Application does not indicate that Fig.6 or other figures are drawn to scale, nor does the written description provide dimensions, measurements, tolerances, or other disclosure establishing that the top portion of the convex connecting surface 211 is level with the top portion of the heating plate 24. Accordingly, the limitation “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of the heating plate of the heating module” is not described in the specification or in the drawings of the Instant Application, and thus, claim 16 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.
Claims 17-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 16.
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 1-5, 8-13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the heater body having an outer ring; the outer ring having a convex connecting surface” in lines 24-25. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because the exact same limitation was recited previously in claim 1, specifically, claim 1 already recites “the heater body having an outer ring; the outer ring having a convex connecting surface” in lines 15-16. Therefore, it is unclear why this limitation is repeated again.
Claims 2-5 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a heating plate” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 8 depends on claim 6; however, claim 6 already recites “a heating plate” in lines 11-12. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same heating plate, or different heating plates. For examination purposes, the limitation “a heating plate” recited in claim 8 will be interpreted as to refer to the limitation “a heating plate” recited in claim 6.
Claims 9-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 8.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a connection hole” in line 20. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 16 already recites “a connection hole” previously in line 12. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same connection hole, or different connection holes. For examination purposes, the limitation “a connection hole” recited in claim 16 (line 20) will be interpreted as to refer to the limitation “a connection hole” recited in claim 16 (line 12).
Claims 17-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art Ganahl et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0333007 A1, previously cited) discloses a thermostatic cup structure, comprising: a cup body; a cup cover; the cup body selectively attachable to the cup cover; the cup body having a bottom; the cup body having a connecting recess; a heating module; the bottom having a connection between the connecting recess and the heating module; the cup body having an inside surface and an outside surface; the inside surface having an insulation layer; the outside surface having an insulation layer; the heating module selectively detachable from the cup body; a heater body; the heater body having an outer ring; the heater body having an inner wall; a first conductive column; a base unit that can be selectively separated and connected from and to the heating module; the base unit configured to hold a battery; a secondary conductive column; the heating module connects to the base unit; the cup body is fitted to the heating module; and a control circuit board having a control chip.
Additionally, the prior art Alba-Rivera et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,772,464 B1, previously cited) discloses a thermostatic cup structure, comprising: the heating module selectively detachable from the cup body; a heater body; the heater body having an outer ring; the outer ring having a convex connecting surface; the heater body having a connection hole; the heater body having an inner wall; the inner wall has at least one base buckle tab; the at least one base buckle tab has a positioner feature; a fixing plate connected to the heater body; the fixing plate has a conductive element; the connection hole surrounding and housing the conductive element; a heat shield covering the fixing plate; the heating plate covering a portion of the heat shield, and electrically connected with the conductive element; and the heating plate is in direct contact with the bottom of the cup body.
Furthermore, the prior art Bedi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0183730 A1, previously cited) discloses a thermostatic cup structure, comprising: a conductive plate.
It is noted that Alba-Rivera explicitly discloses that the heating plate of Alba-Rivera is raised above the convex connecting surface of the heating module housing and is the uppermost surface of the apparatus. This arrangement allows the heating module housing of the apparatus to be inserted within the perimeter of a bottom rim of the beverage container so that the heating plate releasably contacts a bottom wall of the container. Thus, modifying the heating module housing such that the top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with the top portion of the heating plate would be contrary to Alba-Rivera’s disclosed arrangement and would hinder the heating plate from contacting the recessed bottom wall as intended. Therefore, there would have been no apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification to arrive at the claimed limitation “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of the heating plate” as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, when consider Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, Applicant(s)’ claim 1 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant(s)’ claim 1 recites: “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of the heating plate”.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-5 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 1 if claim 1 is rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art Ganahl et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0333007 A1, previously cited) discloses a thermostatic cup structure, comprising: a first cup body; the first cup body having a connecting recess; a heating module; the heating module comprising a heater body; the heater body having an outer ring; the outer ring having a convex connecting surface; the first cup body selectively attachable to the heating module; the convex connecting surface sets into the connecting recess when the first cup body is attached to the heating module; a base unit; the heating module connected to the base unit; the heating module configured to heat a liquid in the first cup body; a second cup body; the second cup body different than the first cup body; the second cup body selectively attachable to the heating module when the first cup body is not attached to the heating module.
Additionally, the prior art Alba-Rivera et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,772,464 B1, previously cited) discloses a thermostatic cup structure, comprising: a heating module selectively detachable from a cup body; a heater body; the heater body having an outer ring; the outer ring having a convex connecting surface; and the heating plate is in direct contact with the bottom of the cup body.
It is noted that Alba-Rivera explicitly discloses that the heating plate of Alba-Rivera is raised above the convex connecting surface of the heating module housing and is the uppermost surface of the apparatus. This arrangement allows the heating module housing of the apparatus to be inserted within the perimeter of a bottom rim of the beverage container so that the heating plate releasably contacts a bottom wall of the container. Thus, modifying the heating module housing such that the top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with the top portion of the heating plate would be contrary to Alba-Rivera’s disclosed arrangement and would hinder the heating plate from contacting the recessed bottom wall as intended. Therefore, there would have been no apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification to arrive at the claimed limitation “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of a heating plate of the heating module” as required by claim 6.
Accordingly, when consider Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, Applicant(s)’ claim 6 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant(s)’ claim 6 recites: “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of a heating plate of the heating module”.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 7-15 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 6 if claim 6 is rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 16, the closest prior art Ganahl et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0333007 A1, previously cited) discloses a thermostatic cup structure, comprising: a heating module; a base unit; a cup body; a secondary conductive column; a heater body; a first conductive column; the base unit is selectively attachable to the heating module; a connecting column of the base unit passes through a connection hole of the heating module when the base unit is attached to the heating module; a rotation of either the heating module or base unit enables a base buckle tab of the base unit to interface with a buckle tab of the heating module to provide vertical orientation of the base unit and the heating module; a base convex positioner of the base unit engages a buckle concave receiver of the heating module to radially locate the base unit and the heating module and provide a fixed stop position and prevent accidental disassembly of the heating module and the base unit; and a control circuit board having a control chip.
Additionally, the prior art Alba-Rivera et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,772,464 B1, previously cited) discloses a thermostatic cup structure, comprising: the heating module selectively detachable from the cup body; a heater body; the heater body having an outer ring; the outer ring having a convex connecting surface; the heater body having a connection hole; the connection hole surrounding and housing the conductive element; the heater body having an inner wall; the inner wall has at least one base buckle tab; the at least one base buckle tab has a positioner feature; a fixing plate connected to the heater body; the fixing plate has a conductive element; a heat shield covering the fixing plate; the heating plate covering a portion of the heat shield, and electrically connected with the conductive element; and the heating plate is in direct contact with the bottom of the cup body.
Furthermore, the prior art Bedi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0183730 A1, previously cited) discloses a thermostatic cup structure, comprising: a conductive plate.
It is noted that Alba-Rivera explicitly discloses that the heating plate of Alba-Rivera is raised above the convex connecting surface of the heating module housing and is the uppermost surface of the apparatus. This arrangement allows the heating module housing of the apparatus to be inserted within the perimeter of a bottom rim of the beverage container so that the heating plate releasably contacts a bottom wall of the container. Thus, modifying the heating module housing such that the top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with the top portion of the heating plate would be contrary to Alba-Rivera’s disclosed arrangement and would hinder the heating plate from contacting the recessed bottom wall as intended. Therefore, there would have been no apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification to arrive at the claimed limitation “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of the heating plate of the heating module” as required by claim 16.
Accordingly, when consider Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, Applicant(s)’ claim 16 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant(s)’ claim 16 recites: “a top portion of the convex connecting surface is level with a top portion of the heating plate of the heating module”.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 17-19 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 16 if claim 16 is rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Alexander (U.S. Patent No. 9,814,331 B2) discloses an actively heated or cooled food or beverage container. The heating system comprises one or more heating elements configured to heat one or more surfaces of the receiving portion of the body, one or more power storage elements, and a wireless power receiver configured to wirelessly receive power from a power source. The heating system further comprises control circuitry electrically connected to the wireless power receiver, the control circuitry configured to charge the one or more power storage elements and to control the delivery of electricity from the one or more power storage elements to the one or more heating elements.
Montana (U.S. Patent No. 8,274,016 B2) discloses a cup holder comprising a heating surface that is configured to receive a cardboard cup. The cup holder has an outside surface that is concentric with the heating surface. A heating element is disposed between the heating surface and the outside surface, and the heating element is configured to heat the heating surface. Insulation may be located between the heating surface and the outside surface, and the insulation may be configured to maintain the outside surface at an outside temperature lower than a heating temperature of the heating surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 08/22/2026
Prosecution Insights