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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,549,902 B1 to Brown, II et al. (“Brown”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,097,876 B2 to Chalermwinsuekun (“Chalermwinsuekun”) further in view of U.S. PGPUB 2023/0015234 A1 to Causey (“Causey”).
As to claim 1, Brown teaches a no spill open cup comprising: a container (beverage container system 2) suitable for holding liquids, the container having a smooth sidewall (wall 130), a neck (upper surface 118) adjacent the sidewall, an opening (opening 115) defined by the neck and an inner sidewall having an inside diameter; a sealing ring (lid 300) having a ringwall, an outer wall (sidewall 316) having a taper (Brown Fig. 5 shows the lid 300 has an outer wall 316 with a taper), with an outer wall diameter, the outer wall diameter is equal to or greater than the opening inside diameter and is adapted to form a press fit seal between the outer wall and inner sidewall (Brown, col. 8, line 61-col. 9, line 2); but does not teach a sealing ring having a ringwall and an internal flange, the ringwall has an inner wall with an inner wall diameter; the internal flange is located on the inner wall and has a plurality of flange openings; and a disk having a handle, a disk rim, an upper surface and a lower surface, fittings adapted to hold the disk within the sealing ring, the disk having a plurality of disk openings, and the disk rim having a rim diameter equal to or less than an inside diameter of sealing ring.
Chalermwinsuekun teaches a sealing ring (collar 14) having a ringwall (Chalermwinsuekun Fig. 2F shows the collar 14 has a ringwall) and an internal flange (base 22), the ringwall has an inner wall (interior surface 32) with an inner wall diameter (Chalermwinsuekun Fig. 2F shows the interior surface 32 ha an inner diameter); the internal flange is located on the inner wall and has a plurality of flange openings (apertures 38); and a disk (twist fastener 18) having a handle (tab 26), a disk rim (Chalermwinsuekun Fig. 2F shows the twist fastener 18 has an outer rim), an upper surface and a lower surface (Chalermwinsuekun Fig. 2F shows the twist fastener 18 has an upper surface and a lower surface), fittings (external threads 68) adapted to hold the disk within the sealing ring (Chalermwinsuekun, col. 10, lines 25-31), and the disk rim having a rim diameter equal to or less than an inside diameter of sealing ring (Chalermwinsuekun Fig. 2F shows the diameter of the twist fastener 18 is less than the inner diameter of the interior surface 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the connection between the collar and the twist fastener of Chalermwinsuekun with the connection of the lid to the cup as taught by Brown to provide an opening for adding contents to the container without removing the sealing element or collar (Chalermwinsuekun, abstract).
Causey teaches the disk 34 (Causey Fig. 2 shows the upper lid 202 having a bottom surface) having a plurality of disk openings 46 (Causey Fig. 2 show the upper lid 202 has a bottom surface with slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the slots of Causey with the disk as taught by Brown modified by Chalermwinsuekun to allow for the flow of liquids through the slots (Causey, pg. 3, ¶ 0026).
As to claim 2, Brown modified by Chalermwinsuekun and Causey teaches the no spill open cup of claim 1, wherein the disk fittings are comprised of a hard material (Chalermwinsuekun, col. 12, lines 52-55).
As to claim 4, Brown modified by Chalermwinsuekun and Causey teaches the no spill open cup of claim 1, wherein the sealing ring is comprised of a rigid material and an elastomeric material (Brown, col. 9, lines 15-20).
As to claim 5, Brown modified by Chalermwinsuekun and Causey teaches the no spill open cup of claim 1, wherein the disk is comprised of a thermoplastic material (Causey, pg. 2-3, ¶ 0025).
As to claim 6, Brown modified by Chalermwinsuekun and Causey teaches the no spill open cup of claim 1, wherein the sealing ring is comprised of an elastomeric material (Brown, col. 9, lines 15-20).
As to claim 7, Brown modified by Chalermwinsuekun and Causey teaches the no spill open cup of claim 1, wherein the sealing ring is constructed of silicone (Brown, col. 9, lines 15-20).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalermwinsuekun in view of Causey further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,749,491 to Wylder et al. (“Wylder”).
As to claim 3, Brown modified by Chalermwinsuekun and Causey teaches the no spill open cup of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising a sealable opening J501 for receiving a straw.
Wylder teaches further comprising a sealable opening 50 for receiving a straw (Wylder, col. 2, lines 61-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the opening of Wylder with the cup as taught by Brown modified by Chalermwinsuekun and Causey to allow drinking of the container through the straw (Wylder, col. 2, lines 61-63).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference.
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.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON LYNN POOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7427. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 10-3 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/M.L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 18 May 2026
Prosecution Insights