DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 difference of shape and size of the walls must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Without the figures, it is not clear which dimensions should be greater, is the first wall longer? Does it have a bigger diameter? 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, applicant does not disclose how sealing members increase a pressure by covering openings. What aspect of the sealing members causes pressure increase? Closing the openings may allow a pressure level within a container to build but claim 13 is unclear since the sealing members per se do not increase pressure level, closing the openings via the sealing members only allows the pressure to increase if there is some temperature change or some chemical reaction, like sealing the opening of a container holding a carbonated beverage. A characteristic is not inherent unless it happens in every situation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 3076575).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a drinkware connector to connect a first drinkware 1 to a second drinkware 2, the universal drinkware connector comprising:
a central aperture (within 17, fig. 1, 17 is referred to as a “thickened central portion”),
a beverage container is fully capable of receiving a beverage container (fig. 1 shows a beverage container 4 within the thickened central portion);
a first wall at 15 circumferentially disposed around the central aperture at a first end of the central aperture to removably connect to the first drinkware, such that a first outer surface of the first wall is configured to couple to an inner surface of the first drinkware, fig. 1, col. 2: 58-65;
a second wall 16 circumferentially disposed around the central aperture at a second end of the central aperture to removably connect to the second drinkware, such that a second outer surface of the second wall is configured to couple to an inner surface of the second drinkware, fig. 1, col. 2: 58-65;
the thickness of 17 forms an outer barrier disposed between the first wall and the second wall to separate the first drinkware from the second drinkware while the first drinkware and the second drinkware are connected to the outer barrier.
Regarding the limitation, “wherein the inner surface of the first drinkware has a size greater than the inner surface of the second drinkware.” The first and second drinkware are recited in terms of the function of the connector; the preamble recites “a drinkware container.” With this in mind, the claims are directed toward only the drinkware connector, not a combination of the connector and the drinkware. The comparative sizes of the inner surfaces of the drinkware do not specify any particular dimension. A drinkware that has a taller inner surface than another would meet the limitation, “a size greater than”; a drinkware having a different diameter, or cross-sectional area would also meet the limitation.
The first and second wall of the connector of Smith is capable of connecting with an inner surface of drinkware that has any height, and therefore is capable of functioning to connect to the inner surface of drinkware that have different inner surface sizes.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Said (US 2009/0178940).
Regarding claim 1, Said discloses a drinkware connector to connect a first drinkware to a second drinkware, the universal drinkware connector comprising:
a central aperture at 41, fig. 5A capable of receiving a beverage container therethrough;
a first (U-shaped) wall at 30 fig. 9E circumferentially disposed around the central aperture at a first end of the central aperture to removably connect to the first drinkware 22, such that a first outer surface (at 31, fig. 6) of the first wall is configured to couple to an inner surface of the first drinkware, fig. 5A;
a second wall at 44, fig. 4, circumferentially disposed around the central aperture at a second end of the central aperture to removably connect to the second drinkware, 60, such that a second outer surface of the second wall is configured to couple to an inner surface of the second drinkware, fig. 5A.
The inner surface of the drinkware 22 has a larger diameter than the inner diameter of the drinkware 60, as best seen in fig. 6, 8F, and 9E.
Regarding claim 2, the first wall of Said has a greater diameter than the second wall, best seen in fig. 6, 8F and 9E.
Regarding claim 3, Said discloses that the first wall has a U-shape, the U-shape is different than the linear shape of the second wall, fig. 6, 8F, and 9E.
Regarding claim 5, Said discloses that the first wall connects to the first drinkware differently than the second wall connects to the second drinkware. As seen in fig. 4, the first drinkware (22) is connected within a u-shaped portion while the second drinkware (60) is only attached to an outer circumference of the second wall.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith or Said as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farmer et al. (US 9687094).
Regarding claim 4, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach that the outer surface of the first wall tapers from a center of the central aperture toward the first end of the central aperture.
Farmer is analogous art in regard to drinkware connectors 10 and teaches a connector that has a first wall and a second wall. Farmer teaches that the outer surfaces at 16 of the walls taper from a central region toward an end region, fig. 9. Farmer further teaches that a taper helps to guide the stacking device onto the drinkware (mug), col. 4: 1-5.
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 modify the outer surfaces of the walls of Smith or Said in order to guide the connectors onto the drinkware as per the teaching of Farmer.
Claim(s) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie-Smith (US 3076575) in view of Indrunas (US 3156272) and Grady (US 1525032).
Regarding claims 11-15, Smith discloses a universal drinkware connector to connect a first container/drinkware to a second container/drinkware, the universal drinkware connector comprising, fig. 1:
a central aperture (within 17) to receive a beverage container 4 therethrough;
a first wall circumferentially 15 disposed around the central aperture at a first end of the central aperture to removably connect to the first drinkware via threads;
a second wall 16 circumferentially disposed around the central aperture at a second end of the central aperture to removably connect to the second drinkware;
an outer barrier 17 disposed between the first wall and the second wall to separate the first drinkware from the second drinkware while the first drinkware and the second drinkware are connected to the outer barrier.
Regarding the limitation, “wherein the inner surface of the first drinkware has a size greater than the inner surface of the second drinkware.” The first and second drinkware are recited in terms of the function of the connector; the preamble recites “a drinkware container.” With this in mind, the claims are directed toward only the drinkware connector, not a combination of the connector and the drinkware. The comparative sizes of the inner surfaces of the drinkware do not specify any particular dimension. A drinkware that has a taller inner surface than another would meet the limitation, “a size greater than”; a drinkware having a different diameter would also meet the limitation.
The first and second wall of the connector of Smith is capable of connecting with an inner surface of drinkware that has any height, and therefore is capable of functioning to connect to the inner surface of drinkware that have different inner surface sizes.
Smith does not disclose openings in the outer barrier, a pressure switch, or a plurality of sealing members.
Indrunas teaches a drinkware connector 10, fig. 1, with a plurality vent openings 20, col. 2: 32-35 circumferentially around an outer barrier that separates a first 12 and second 14 wall. The vent openings allow entrapped air to exit, col. 2: 30-33. The outer barrier of Indrunas separates a first 34 and second 36 drinkware, fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer barrier of Smith to include vent openings in order to allow entrapped air to exit as per the teaching of Indrunas.
Indrunas does not teach seals or switches for closing the vent openings.
Grady teaches a pressure release switch 16, fig. 2, that is pushed (moved) to operate distanced sealing valves 11 and 12 for opening and closing distanced valve openings at 7 and 10 in order to equalize pressure within a vessel at 1 in response to opening or covering the openings, col 2: 35-105 of Grady.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer barrier of Smith as modified above to include a pressure switch and seals for opening/closing the plurality of circumferential openings 20 around the perimeter of the outer barrier such that the openings can be closed off to allow pressure equalization as per the teaching of Grady and prevent liquid from being released.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument against the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection, that sealing the members inherently causes pressure to build up – is there some chemical reaction? Is there a thermodynamic reaction? If I put my finger over a vent hole of a cup or close the opening of a cup, there is no inherent pressure unless something else is happening – the beverage is carbonated, or the container has a change in altitude, or the temperature within or exterior to the container changes in some way, or if closing the seal somehow changes the volume inside the container.
In response to applicant's argument that Smith does not include two separate circumferential walls hat have the ability to couple to two inner surfaces such that the inner surfaces have two differing sizes, examiner disagrees. The claim requires that the inner surfaces have different sizes with no particular dimension. With this in mind, the size could be different in that the inner surfaces are longer, for example a short cup or a longer cup. If applicant wishes to claim a particular size or dimension that is different, applicant should claim the size or shape of the claimed structure and not what the structure is capable of being attached to since the claims do not positively claim the drinkware.
In response to applicant's argument that the walls of Smith are not walls at all but are threads, examiner disagrees, even the instant application has threads on the walls [000166]. The threads of Smith don’t occur in space, they are formed on the first and second walls in the same way applicant has threads formed on the walls. With this in mind, applicant’s argument that Smith has threads and not a wall is not found persuasive.
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 MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799