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 Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 18-31 have been renumbered as claims 16-29, respectively.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 7-8 provide a series of three limitations which have not been appropriately distinguished by placing a comma after “top wall” in line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, lines 7-11 provide a series of five limitations which have been appropriately distinguished by placing commas in the appropriate places. However, the word “and” before the word “inset” in line 8 is inappropriate and should be omitted. Claim 12, lines 12-15 provide a series of five limitations which have not been appropriately distinguished by placing commas in the appropriate places. In line 13, the word “and” before “centered should be omitted and a comma should be added.
Claims 13, 21 and 22 are objected to for similar reasoning as claims 1 and 12 because the series of limitations have not been appropriately separated.
All the claims (claims 1-29) are objected to because all of the independent claims are objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 22-29 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22, line 20, discusses an effective angle. There is no support for an “effective angle.”
Claim 22, line 21, discusses an effective angle. There is no support for an “effective angle.”
Claims 26 and 28, line 2 of each claim discusses an effective amount. There is no support for an “effective amount.”
This is a new matter rejection.
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 1-11 and 14-29 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said selected effective-projected area of a projected area of said vent opening" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a previous reference to “a selected effective-projected area of said drinking opening” in lines 10-11 of claim 1.
Claim 20 doesn’t make any sense. Does the air blown by a user’s breath pass along the underside surface of the lid then onto the outer surface of the lid’s convex annular side wall? Or, maybe it is the baffle’s which have a convex wall surface?
The Office suggests:
“Claim 20. The removable vented lid of claim 21, wherein said removable lid having a contoured underside surface with said first baffle and said second baffle and a concave side wall surface that collective direct cooler air from said user's breath to contact said surface of said hot beverage at the farthest point from said vent opening enabling cooler air from the user's breath to spread across an entire surface area of said hot beverage.”
Claim 21 recites the limitation "said selected effective-projected area of said vent opening" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a previous reference to “a selected effective-projected area of said drinking opening” in lines 10-11 of claim 21.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "said selected effective-projected area of said vent opening" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a previous reference to “a selected effective-projected area of said drinking opening” in lines 10-11 of claim 1.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "said projected area of said drinking opening" in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "said projected area of said vent area vent opening" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, lines 13-17 do not provide a clear meaning and grammar errors are present. Both baffles extend downward from an underside of said top wall. It is not clear which baffle is being described in lines 13-14 by the “extending downward … “ language. Claim 1 is indefinite. Note that claims 21 and 22 are indefinite and are similar to claim 1 in this respect. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected. Also, it appears there is a series of limitations which have not been appropriately distinguished by a comma to separate the limitations in the series.
The Office suggests:
“a second baffle opposite said first baffle, said second baffle extending downward from an underside of said top wall, centered with said vent opening, having a base disposed radially inward of said vent opening and flaring outward at an angle sufficient to overlap a selected effective-projected area of said vent opening extending a distance no greater than said length of said annular side wall.”
Claim 22 is repetitious in that the last three lines repeat the flaring outward limitations already present in the claim. What is the purpose of repetition. What is purpose of adding “radially?” What is purpose of changing placement of word “effective?” The metes and bounds of claim 22 can’t be properly determined. Dependent claims 26 and 27, repeat the flaring outward limitations already present in claim 22. What is purpose of adding “effective amount?”
Claim 31 recites the limitation "said arc length of said second baffle" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 3-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (US 2021/0323715) (Woo) in view of Lansky (US 5979689).
Re claim 1, Woo discloses a removeable vented lid as shown in Fig. 23, comprising: an annular mounting portion (first protrusion 610) for engaging a rim of a cup; an annular side wall (side wall of second protrusion 620) extending upwardly from said mounting portion; a top wall (top wall of second protrusion 620) extending across a circular periphery formed by said annular side wall; a drinking opening (through hole 625) adjacent to the periphery of the top wall; a first baffle (remaining side wall 752 and second guide wall 752a combined) extending downward (as wall 752) from an underside of said top wall, centered with said drinking opening, and inset from said annular side wall, having a base (wall 752) disposed radially inward of the drinking opening, and flaring outward at an angle (wall 752a flares outwardly at 90 degrees to wall 752) sufficient to overlap a selected effective-projected area of the drinking opening when extending a distance no greater than the length of the annular side wall.
Woo fails to disclose the vent opening and the second baffle. Lansky teaches a removable vented lid as shown in Fig. 25 and 26 having a passageway means 418 comprising a plurality of openings 419 extending through disk 403 and doors 422, the doors 422 are open as shown in Fig. 26, when the cup and lid are tilted for drinking the beverage flows through the lower oriented opening 419 while air is vented through an upper oriented opening 419. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a vent opening diametrically opposed to the drinking opening to allow for air to enter the drink container to equalize pressure which allows the beverage to flow freely from the drink container.
Lansky teaches the second baffle as the door 422 adjacent to and capable of closing the vent opening. The second baffle is opposite said first baffle, extending downward from the underside of said top wall and centered with said vent opening, having a base disposed radially inward of the vent opening, and flaring outward at an angle sufficient to overlap a selected effective-projected area of the vent opening when extending a distance no greater than the length of the annular side wall. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a second baffle as a means for controlling flow through the vent opening.
Re claim 3, wherein the annular mounting portion includes an inner lip and an overlapping outer lip for engaging the rim of said cup.
Re claims 4 and 16, Woo fails to disclose the hood. Lansky teaches a hood that is formed over the vent opening (see Fig. 26 and top wall extending over opening 419). The hood directs hot vented air away from the user’s face (radially outwardly).
Re claim 5, wherein the hood of Lansky is oriented so that an open face of the hood is directed away from a user's face during use of the vented lid.
Re claim 6, wherein the first baffle flares radially outward at an angle sufficient to overlap at least 25 percent of the projected area of the drinking opening.
Re claim 7, wherein the first baffle flares radially outward at an angle sufficient to overlap at least 50 percent of the projected area of the drinking opening.
Re claim 8, wherein the second baffle flares radially outward at an angle sufficient to overlap at least 25 percent of the projected area of the vent opening.
Re claim 9, wherein the second baffle flares radially outward at an angle sufficient to overlap at least 50 percent of the projected area of the vent opening.
Re claim 10, wherein an arc length of the first baffle is at least as long as a width of the drinking opening (the first baffle extends the length of the drinking opening).
Re claim 11, wherein the arc length of the second baffle is at least as long a width of the vent opening (the door 422 extends the length of the opening 419).
Re claim 12, Woo discloses a removeable vented lid as shown in Fig. 23, consisting of: an annular mounting portion (first protrusion 610) for engaging a rim of a cup; an annular side wall (side wall of second protrusion 620) extending upwardly from said mounting portion; a top wall (top wall of second protrusion 620) extending across a circular periphery formed by said annular side wall; a drinking opening (through hole 625) adjacent to the periphery of the top wall; a first baffle (remaining side wall 752 and second guide wall 752a combined) extending downward (as wall 752) from an underside of said top wall, centered with said drinking opening, and inset from said annular side wall, having a base (wall 752) disposed radially inward of the drinking opening, and flaring outward at an angle (wall 752a flares outwardly at 90 degrees to wall 752) sufficient to overlap a selected effective-projected area of the drinking opening when extending a distance no greater than the length of the annular side wall.
Woo fails to disclose the vent opening and the second baffle. Lansky teaches a removable vented lid as shown in Fig. 25 and 26 having a passageway means 418 comprising a plurality of openings 419 extending through disk 403 and doors 422, the doors 422 are open as shown in Fig. 26, when the cup and lid are tilted for drinking the beverage flows through the lower oriented opening 419 while air is vented through an upper oriented opening 419. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a vent opening diametrically opposed to the drinking opening to allow for air to enter the drink container to equalize pressure which allows the beverage to flow freely from the drink container.
Lansky teaches the second baffle as the door 422 adjacent to and capable of closing the vent opening. The second baffle is opposite said first baffle, extending downward from the underside of said top wall and centered with said vent opening, having a base disposed radially inward of the vent opening, and flaring outward at an angle sufficient to overlap a selected effective-projected area of the vent opening when extending a distance no greater than the length of the annular side wall. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a second baffle as a means for controlling flow through the vent opening.
Re claim 14, said annular side wall is convex on its exterior surface.
Re claim 15, this claim discusses a functional intended use of the lid and how air flows through the lid when the user blows into the drinking opening. Air blown into the drinking opening of Woo will be directed or redirected by the first baffle towards the inside surface of the annular sidewall, then flows along an inner wall and exits through the vent opening as claimed. This cools the beverage and relieves pressure to prevent a pressure build up which could lead to the lid popping off the cup.
Re claim 17, said second baffle preventing a hot beverage from spattering from said vent opening because the second baffle partially blocks fluid flow through the vent opening.
Re claim 18, said second baffle functions as a venturi tube (insofar as claimed wherein no venturi tube is actually formed and the passageway of air narrows to effect an increase in air flow speed and a decrease in air pressure) increasing the volume of air flowing over said hot beverage by combining air from a users' breath with air between said hot beverage and said lid increasing a cooling capacity of said user's breath.
Re claim 19, said air flowing over said surface of said hot beverage follows a curved flow path (as air flows along the curved interior annular side wall surface and between the curved interior annular side wall surface and the baffles) created by said first baffle and said second baffle to increase residence time and surface area of said air with said hot beverage.
Re claim 20, wherein said removable lid of Woo having a contoured bottom lid with a first baffle and a second baffle and convex side wall directs cooler air from said user's breath to contact a surface of said hot beverage at the farthest point from said vent opening enabling cooler air from the user's breath to spread across an entire surface area of said hot beverage insofar as this claim is understood.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo in view of Lansky as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Chou et al. (US 2019/0084731) (Chou).
The combination fails to disclose a recessed circular region. Chou teaches a similarly constructed lid with a sidewall and top wall with a predominate, concentric recessed circular region which is concentric with said side wall and forms a concave region. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a recessed circular region to provide a recessed region for trapping liquid that may escape through an opening in the lid and to retain this fluid from spilling over an edge of the cup and soiling a support surface of the cup.
Claim(s) 13 and 22-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo in view of Lansky and Chou.
These references are combined as previously stated.
No art rejection for claims 21 and 31.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 31 has a new matter rejection. Claim 31 can’t be allowed with new subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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’s analysis is rather dismissive of Woo’s structure. Hardly discussing the lid of Woo and concentrating on the double-wall insulated body of the cup of Woo rather than the lid of Woo.
It is not enough for applicant to point to a reference such as Woo and describe the reference differently from the Office’s description. There must be some indication that the Office’s description or reasoning is incorrect. Applicant’s response contains no reasoning, no argument and no indication that applicant read what was written by the Office.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733