DETAILED ACTION
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 7 – 10,14 – 17, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauldin et al. US 2006/0286219 in view of Schleider WO 99/09871.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Mauldin discloses a method of producing a beverage container having an open-ended cylindrical rim which rim is pre-coated with salt, i.e. a flavoured solid substance, the method comprising the steps of providing a food-grade adhesive solution in a first reservoir, wherein the food-grade adhesive solution is characterized as having a surface and providing a supply of margarita salt, i.e., a flavoured solid substance, in a second reservoir. The beverage container has a first end, i.e., an open-ended cylindrical rim, a second end, and an interior and is inverted so that said rim, i.e., the first end, of said container is oriented downwardly just above the surface of the food-grade adhesive solution in the first reservoir and the open-ended cylindrical rim, that is the first end, is moved downwardly until the open-ended cylindrical rim makes contact below the surface of the food-grade adhesive solution causing the open-ended cylindrical rim to become coated with the food-grade adhesive solution both on the exterior and interior thereof. The open-ended cylindrical rim, that is the first end, is then moved upwardly away from the surface of the food-grade adhesive solution while the open-ended cylindrical rim is maintained in the inverted position. The open-ended cylindrical rim is then moved downwardly until the exterior and interior of the coated rim makes contact below the margarita salt, i.e., the flavoured solid substance, and the margarita salt, i.e., the flavoured solid substance, adheres to the coated exterior and interior of the rim of the open-ended cylindrical rim. Subsequently the open-ended cylindrical rim is moved upwardly away from the margarita salt, that is, the flavoured solid substance, and the open-ended cylindrical rim is inverted so that said rim, that is the first end, is oriented upwardly until the food grade adhesive dries (paragraph [0027] – [0037] and fig. 3 – 9).
Claim 1 differs from Mauldin in the open-ended cylindrical rim, that is the first end, being the first end of a beverage straw.
Schleider discloses that it was conventional and well established in the art to produce a beverage straw (the straw is a hollow tube) (10), which straw would necessarily have a first end (18) and a second end (page 2, ln 1 – 2 and page 5, ln 14). In one embodiment Schleider discloses the straw to be a hollow tube which, as shown in figure 1, would be open at both ends. Since Schleider discloses the straw to be a hollow tube that is open at both ends (fig. 1), it is obvious that by providing a food grade adhesive solution (carrier adhesive) and moving the beverage straw to apply the food grade adhesive solution to the first end (outer surface) of said straw that some of said adhesive would also coat the interior of the first end as well, and moving the beverage straw downwardly until said straw makes contact below the salt that the salt would also adhere to the first end as well as the interior of the first end of the beverage straw.
Schleider is producing a beverage straw having a first end pre-coated with salt or another flavoured solid substance for the art recognized as well as applicant’s intended function, which is to flavour the mouth as liquids are consumed through the beverage straw and to flavour liquids that would be stirred with the beverage straw. To therefore modify Mauldin and produce a beverage straw having a first end and interior pre-coated with salt or another flavoured solid substance as taught by Schleider to flavour the mouth as liquids are consumed and/or to flavour liquids that would be stirred with the beverage straw would have been an obvious matter of choice and/ or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Mauldin in view of Schleider discloses the food-grade adhesive solution would comprise of gelatin dissolved in water (‘219, claims 2 and 9).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, it is not seen that patentability would be conferred based on the specific shape of the beverage straw as the particular shape would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV.B.). Nevertheless, Mauldin in view of Schleider discloses the straw would have a length and a diameter making it obvious that the straw of Mauldin in view of Schleider would be cylindrical in shape (‘871, page 5, ln 10 and 11).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Mauldin in view of Schleider discloses the food-grade adhesive solution would consist of a mixture of water, fructose, high-gelling soy protein, and carrageenan (‘219, claims 7 and 14).
Regarding claim 15, Mauldin in view of Schleider discloses the sloid substance further comprises sugar sprinkles (‘219, claim 15).
Regarding claim 16, Mauldin in view of Schleider discloses the solid substance further comprises a mixture of sugar and cocoa (‘219, claim 16).
Regarding claim 17, Mauldin in view of Schleider discloses the solid substance further comprises chopped nuts (‘219, claim 17).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, since Mauldin in view of Schleider have disclosed the method of producing the beverage straw, that is the beverage straw having a pre-coated end capable of being used with alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages with the straw comprising a first end, a second end, an interior, food particles comprising salt, and that a food grade adhesive would attach the food particles to the first end and interior of the first end of the beverage straw it is obvious that the beverage straw as claimed would necessarily have to be present.
Claims 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauldin et al. US 2006/0286219 in view of Schleider WO 99/09871 as further evidenced by Cahoon US 2016/0220051.
Regarding claims 18 – 20, Mauldin in view of Schleider discloses the particular material the straw, would be made from would be based on the safety considerations, i.e., that is the material would be paper or plastic when used, for example, in a backyard or around a swimming pool and that other materials would be used in more formal settings (‘219, paragraph [0046]) which would obviously include metal. Cahoon provides further evidence that it was well known in the art that a typical straw would be manufactured from paper, metal, or plastic (paragraph [0019]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 August 2025 have been fully and carefully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant urges that Schleider teaches that the interior of the beverage straw is not coated with an adhesive and food. This urging is not deemed persuasive.
While Schleider discloses in a preferred embodiment the inner surface of the beverage straw could be untreated Schleider specifically discloses that the beverage straw is a hollow tube that may, in a preferred embodiment be closed at one end or both ends but also discloses that in one embodiment said straw body would comprise a hollow tube, that is one that would not be closed at one end or both ends. In reciting the term “preferred” Schleider is not precluding the straw from being open at both ends, in which case the interior of the straw being treated would comprise an adhesive and food particles (page 5, ln 14 – 16). Further, Mauldin clearly discloses that it was well established in the art to coat the interior of a cylindrical tube, which is what a straw is, with an adhesive and food particles and applying the same technique of the method of Mauldin to a beverage straw would necessarily result in the interior of said straw being coated both with an adhesive and food particles.
It is also noted that applicant has urged Schleider separately and alone when the rejections have been made over a combination of references, that is Mauldin in view of Schleider.
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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 18 November 2025
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792