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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/16/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 2 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 upper cup portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “more significant” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “appropriately secured” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “adequately secured” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said upper cup bottom" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said cup" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "base portions" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said upper part" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said recess" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the combination" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "said cup portion top lid" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the opening" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “narrower” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “deep plate” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
(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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Buck (US-20130056463-A1).
Buck discloses a vehicle mug adapted to fit within a vehicle-mounted cup receptacle (Fig. 12A) comprising: an upper cup portion (100c) having a circumferential side wall and a bottom portion; A handle member mounted on said cup portion top lid and extending outward beyond the opening of the vehicle-mounted cup receptacle (Fig. 12B); a narrower base with a separate compartment to store cutlery and a variety of articles; a detachable body wherein the base portion is to be utilized as a cup and the upper portion is to be used as a deep plate (Fig. 12B).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck.
Buck discloses a travel mug adapted to fit within a vehicle-mounted cup receptacle (Fig. 12) comprising: an upper mug portion (100c) having a circumferential side wall and a bottom, said upper cup portion having a diameter more significant than the diameter of the vehicle-mounted cup receptacle; a base portion (130) having a circumferential side wall and a bottom, said base portion having a diameter approximately comparable to the diameter of the vehicle-mounted cup receptacle (par. 0080); a top lid with a structure allowing the upper portion of a mug to be appropriately secured; a bottom lid with a structure allowing the base portion to be adequately secured; a coupling means integral with said upper cup bottom and base portion side wall for separably joining said cup and base portions, said upper part of said base portion side wall being adapted to fit within said recess so that the combination can be carried in a vehicle-mounted cup receptacle (par. 0092).
Buck fails to specifically teach wherein the structures are threaded but further teaches that threaded structures can be used for securing (par. 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the mug with threads, since such a modification would be the use of known connection structures to secure components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, 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 on (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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733