DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 5, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on February 5, 2026, the claim objections and the 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 09/09/2025), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 22-23 have been amended,
Claims 1-21 and 24-26 have been cancelled,
Claims 27-41 were and still are withdrawn from further consideration, and
Claims 42-44 have been newly added.
Therefore, claims 22-23 and 42-44 are currently pending.
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 22-23 and 42-44 is/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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 22, ln. 14-15, the phrase, “…remains a separate and unattached element relative to the beverage cup and is not bonded, sealed, or welded thereto…” IS NOT supported in the original disclosure (dated 11/09/2022); emphasis added.
As for claims 23 and 42-44, due to their dependencies from claim 22, they too have these deficiencies.
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 22-23 and 42-44 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 22, ln. 14-16, the phrase, “…remains a separate and unattached element relative to the beverage cup and is not bonded, sealed, or welded thereto and is not sealed or otherwise secured…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
As for claims 23 and 42-44, due to their dependencies from claim 22, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 22-23 and 43 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reid et al. (US 4658568 A; hereinafter Reid).
Regarding claim 22, Reid discloses a spill resistant beverage container embodiment (33; as shown in Fig. 3) comprising:
a beverage cup (i.e. in the form of a mason jar) having an open top;
an insert cover (i.e. in the form of a cling covering film (37)) comprising a sheet of food grade material disposed over the open top of the beverage cup; and
a sealing lid (i.e. in the form of cap closure (35)) disposed over the insert cover and secured to the beverage cup, thereby capturing the insert cover between the sealing and the open top of the beverage cup;
wherein the insert cove is a sheet of food grade material which is larger or equivalent in diameter to a top of the beverage cup;
wherein the insert cover is located between the top of the beverage cup and the sealing lid;
wherein the insert cover remains a separate and unattached element relative to the beverage cup and is not bonded, sealed, or welded thereto (see Reid Col. 1 ln. 33-35) and is not sealed or otherwise secured to the beverage cup prior to placing the sealing lid onto the beverage cup and is only inserted after a beverage has been dispense into the beverage cup (Reid Col. 2 ln. 65 – Col. 3 ln. 11).
Regarding claim 23, Reid further discloses wherein the insert cover is selected from the group consisting of a composite sheet or polymer film-based insert (i.e. cling covering film; Reid Col. 2 ln. 65 – Col. 3 ln. 11).
Regarding claim 43, Reid further discloses wherein the sheet of food grade material of the insert cover is a continuous, non-perforated sheet (see Reid Fig. 3, specifically mason jar embodiment).
Alternative art rejection(s):
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 22-23 and 42-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 203461314 U – art of record; hereinafter Lin) in view of Mantis (US 7451889 B2; hereinafter Mantis).
Regarding claim 22, Lin teaches a spill resistant beverage container (1) comprising:
a beverage cup (11) having an open top (12 and 13);
an insert cover (2) comprising a sheet of food grade material (see Lin [0023]) disposed over the open top of the beverage cup; and
a sealing lid (3) disposed over the insert cover and secured to the beverage cup, thereby capturing the insert cover between the sealing and the open top of the beverage cup;
wherein the insert cove is a sheet of food grade material which is larger or equivalent in diameter to a top of the beverage cup;
wherein the insert cover is located between the top of the beverage cup and the sealing lid (Lin [0021-0028] and Figs. 1-4).
However, Lin fails to teach wherein the insert cover remains a separate and unattached element relative to the beverage cup and is not bonded, sealed, or welded thereto and is not sealed or otherwise secured to the beverage cup prior to placing the sealing lid onto the beverage cup and is only inserted after a beverage has been dispense into the beverage cup.
Mantis is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Lin, which is a spill-resistant container. Mantis teaches a spill-resistant container embodiment (i.e. in the form of a carry-out food container (10); as shown in Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a container (i.e. tray (11)) having an open top;
an insert cover (25) comprising a sheet of food grade material (specifically wax paper) disposed over the open top of the container; and
a sealing lid (i.e. lid (12)) disposed over the insert cover and secured to the container, thereby capturing the insert cover between the sealing lid and the open top of the container;
wherein the insert cover is located between the top of the container and the sealing lid (as shown in Mantis Fig. 3);
wherein the insert cover remains a separate and unattached element (see Mantis Col. 3 ln. 64 – Col. 4 Ln. 4 and Fig. 5) relative to the container and is not bonded, sealed, or welded thereto and is not sealed or otherwise secured to the container prior to placing the sealing lid onto the container and is only inserted after a food item has been dispense into the container (Mantis Col. 3 ln. 19 – Col. 4 ln. 4).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the insert cover (of Lin) out of a similar material (i.e. wax paper) AND removable (i.e. not bonded, sealed, welded or secured; as taught by Mantis) to accommodate larger items stored within the overall container [or cup].
Since, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(V)(C)
Regarding claims 23 and 42, modified Lin as above further teaches wherein the insert cover is selected from the group consisting of a wax paper insert (Mantis Col. 3 ln. 50 – Col. 4 ln. 4).
Regarding claim 43, modified Lin as above further teaches wherein the sheet of food grade material of the insert cover is a continuous, non-perforated sheet (see Lin Figs. 1-4 OR Mantis Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 44, modified Lin as above further teaches wherein the beverage cup comprises paper (Lin [0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736