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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0081595 to Li in view of US Patent No. 4,415,097 to Meins or US Patent No. 6.752,287 to Lin.
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses a tumbler with vent shield comprising a tumbler body (3) comprising a base and at least one side wall extending upwardly from a periphery of the base to a rim (Fig 1), a cover (1) comprising a periphery sized and shaped to selectively engage the rim (Fig 4), the cover (1) comprising a spout opening (13) adjacent the cover periphery (Fig 1), a vent opening (15) spaced from the spout opening (13), a spout cap (2) selectively movable from closed configuration (Fig 2) blocking the spout opening and an open configuration (Fig 5) allowing dispensing from the spout opening, the spout cap comprising a frame (24) extending therefrom, a vent shield (22) extending from the frame, the vent shield being sized and positioned on the frame to overlay the vent opening (15) with the spout cap is in closed configuration (Fig 4, €0058). Li does not teach the shield spaced upwardly from the vent opening. However, Meins discloses a drink container (Fig 1) comprising a vent opening (44) and in particular discloses a closed configuration (Fig 5) where a vent shield (55) is spaced axially a distance away from vent opening (54) while leaving the vent opening (54) open in closed configuration (Fig 5) wherein spacing the vent shield from the vent opening allows spray to exit the tumbler to reduce pressure within the tumbler in closed configuration since it has the structure as recited. Lin discloses a drink container having vent opening (52) and in particular discloses a vent shield (58) spaced axially a distance away from the vent openings (52) when in closed configuration (Fig 4) wherein spacing the vent shield from the vent opening allows spray to exit the tumbler to reduce pressure within the tumbler in closed configuration since it has the structure as recited. In particular, Lin discloses when the vent shield covers the vent, a splash proof closure is formed that prevent liquid from sloshing and limiting spillage when the travel mug is inadvertently tipped over. Since there is limited spillage due to the vent not being sealed, then the shield must be spaced axially a distance away from the vent opening to cause the limited spillage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the vent shield of Li spaced from vent opening in closed configuration as suggested by Meins or Lin if sealing the vent opening was not desired or necessary. The modification would have resulted in the tumbler allowing spray to exit the tumbler body and reduce pressure within the tumbler since it has the structure as recited.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0146593 to Forsyth et al. (Forsyth) in view of US Patent No. 4,415,097 to Meins or US Patent No. 6.752,287 to Lin.
Regarding claim 10, Forsyth discloses a tumbler (10, Fig 1) with vent shield comprising a tumbler body (12) comprising a base (36) and at least one side wall (20) extending upwardly from a periphery of the base to a rim (26), a cover (16) comprising a periphery sized and shaped to selectively engage the rim (Fig 12), the cover (16) comprising a spout opening (72) adjacent the cover periphery (Fig 1), a vent opening (66) spaced from the spout opening (72), a spout cap (18) selectively movable from closed configuration (Fig 11) blocking the spout opening (72) and an open configuration (Fig 1) allowing dispensing from the spout opening, the spout cap comprising a frame (76) extending therefrom (Fig 9), a vent shield (84) extending from the frame, the vent shield being sized and positioned on the frame to overlay the vent opening (66) with the spout cap is in closed configuration (Fig 11, €00543). Forsyth does not teach the shield spaced upwardly from the vent opening. However, Meins discloses a drink container (Fig 1) comprising a vent opening (44) and in particular discloses a closed configuration (Fig 5) where a vent shield (55) is spaced axially a distance away from vent opening (54) while leaving the vent opening (54) open in closed configuration (Fig 5) wherein spacing the vent shield from the vent opening allows spray to exit the tumbler to reduce pressure within the tumbler in closed configuration since it has the structure as recited. Lin discloses a drink container having vent opening (52) and in particular discloses a vent shield (58) spaced axially a distance away from the vent openings (52) when in closed configuration (Fig 4) wherein spacing the vent shield from the vent opening allows spray to exit the tumbler to reduce pressure within the tumbler in closed configuration since it has the structure as recited. In particular, Lin discloses when the vent shield covers the vent, a splash proof closure is formed that prevent liquid from sloshing and limiting spillage when the travel mug is inadvertently tipped over. Since there is limited spillage due to the vent not being sealed, then the shield must be spaced axially a distance away from the vent opening to cause the limited spillage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the vent shield of Forsyth spaced from vent opening in closed configuration as suggested by Meins or Lin if sealing the vent opening was not desired or necessary. The modification would have resulted in the tumbler allowing spray to exit the tumbler body and reduce pressure within the tumbler since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 11, Forsyth discloses the tumbler of claim 10 and further discloses the cover (16) comprising a pin opening (68) located between the spout opening (72) and vent opening (66), the spout cap (18) further comprising a mounting pin (90) extending from the frame, the mounting pin (90) being received within the pin opening (68) such that the spout cap oscillates about the axis of the mounting pin between open configuration (Fig 1) and closed configuration (Fig 11) (€0046).
Regarding claim 12, Forsyth discloses the tumbler of claim 11 and further discloses upper surface of the cover (16) comprising a funnel depression (52, Fig 7) centered on the vent opening for directing liquid flow into the vent opening (intended use).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that none of the prior art teach a vent shield axially away from a vent opening to reduce pressure build up within a tumbler when a spout cap is in closed configuration blocking a spout opening. This is not persuasive because Li discloses blocking a vent opening (54, 64) without sealing it to leave a gap (as shown in Fig 5, 7). Applicant argues that an adhesive is used to hold the mouthpiece in fold-over state. However, the adhesive holds the mouthpiece down but does not seal the vent opening as shown in Figs 5, 7. Lin also discloses blocking a vent opening (52) with a slidable vent shield, wherein the vent shield merely covers the opening and does not seal the opening (abstract). In particular, Lin discloses closing the vent hole to prevent liquid from sloshing from the lid closure and limiting spillage. Applicant argues that the closure slide is in intimate contact with the lid to provide a splash proof covering the prevent any unwanted liquid loss. However, the claims only require that the vent shield is spaced upwardly from the vent opening. Lin discloses the vent shield spaced upwardly from the vent opening because the shield does not seal the opening but rather limits the amount of spillage when the mug having the lid closure attached is inadvertently tipped over. Lin further discloses that the closure is sealed with the mug and thus spillage would only occur from the drink opening and vent opening because the shield, although in intimate contact with the lid, does not seal the openings, thus allowing spray to exit the tumbler and reduce pressure from within the tumbler in closed configuration. In particular, Lin discloses that the closure prevents liquid from sloshing from the lid closure but it limits spillage, and does not prevent spillage, when the mug is tipped over (abstract). Applicant argues that there is no motivation to reduce pressure build up within a tumbler; however, so long as prior art has the structure of a vent shield spaced from the opening so as to not seal the opening, then the prior art would be capable of performing the recited function of reducing pressure build up since it has the structure of the tumbler as recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights