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 § 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 1-36 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.
The claims use the term “either or both” and “and/or”: to define a plurality of unrelated structures. Based on the breadth of the structures covered under “and/or” it is unclear what features are present or optional in the claims.
Claims 6 and 24 recite wherein the beads are “embedded within the inner liner”. It is unclear how the beads can be embedded within the liner when they are within the base on the outer shell of the cup. Furthermore it is unclear if the beads embedded the inner liner are the same as the beads in the base or if there are beads on the base/outer shell and beds on the inner liner.
The remainder of the office action is based on the examiner’s best understanding of the claims.
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, 2, 5-7, 13-16, 19, 23-25, 30-32 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankcomb (US-11040819-B1) in view of Tham-itthisak (US-20020175169-A1).
Frankcomb discloses a reusable cup (10) comprising: an inner liner (23) comprising a cavity that is configured to contain a fluid therein; an outer shell (22) with a base and a circumferential wall attached over an external surface of the inner liner (col. 2, lines 24-31; Fig. 5); and a bottle opener (42), wherein the inner liner is formed as a conformal layer over an internal surface of the outer shell (Fig. 5, col. 2, lines 19-31), wherein: the outer shell comprises a base (36), which has a bottom surface that defines a bottom of the cup; and the bottle opener is in a form of a recess (40) that is formed in and extends away from the bottom surface of the outer shell, in a manner such that the recess is internal to the base of the outer shell, the recess being configured for engaging with a bottle cap for removing the bottle cap from a bottle (Fig. 4), a plurality of beads (37, 44, inner edge of 44) within a base of the cup to resist the cup from tipping over, wherein the plurality of beads are also adjacent to and vertically along a portion of an inner circumferential wall of the inner liner (Fig. 6), a hollow region (25) formed between the inner liner and the outer shell, wherein the hollow region insulates the fluid, at a top surface of the cup, an annular rim (top edge of 22) that defines an opening (24) of the cup, the opening being formed such that fluid can be introduced into and extracted from the cavity through the opening, wherein: the rim is a widest portion of the cup (Figs. 1, 2), wherein the cup is in the form of a cup (Fig. 2). The method claimed is within the structure taught by Frankcomb. Furthermore, note that the claims do not require all of the features claimed in the alternative.
Frankcomb fails to teach wherein the base is a narrowest part of the cup; and the circumferential wall that extends between the base and an opening of the cup, wherein the opening is a widest part of the cup, such that the circumferential wall has a tapered shape between the base and the opening.
Tham-itthisak teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture cups with tapered shapes (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the cup with tapered shapes, in order to fit the cup in different spaces and since such a modification would have been a change in shape of an existing component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 17, 18, 20-22, 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankcomb and Tham-itthisak in view of Choate (US-20080098853-A1).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 17 and 18, the modified cup of Frankcomb fails to teach wherein: the bottle cap comprises a plurality of vertically oriented ridges formed around an outer circumferential surface thereof; the recess is formed such that a plurality of vertically oriented ridges are formed around an inner circumferential surface thereof; the ridges are formed and spaced about the inner circumferential surface of the recess such that a corresponding one of the ridges of the bottle cap can be inserted therein; and when the cup and the bottle are twisted relative to each other along a longitudinal axis of the cup, the bottle opener is configured to twist the bottle cap off of the bottle; and/or wherein the can opener comprises a slot that is formed in an outer circumferential surface of the base, the slot extending radially inwardly from the outer circumferential surface, wherein: the slot is configured such that a pull tab of a can is insertable at least partially into the slot such that, by moving the can relative to the cup about a pivot point of the pull tab, the cup is configured to actuate the pull tab for opening the can; and/or the can opener comprises a hole or second slot configured for draining from the slot a fluid and/or debris contained within the slot during a cleaning process of the cup, comprising, formed in the base, a lever-style bottle opener configured to pry a bottle cap off a bottle by engagement of the bottle cap within a recess of the lever-style bottle opener and against a lever arm of the lever-style bottle opener to exert a removal force on the bottle cap, wherein the removal force is a moment exerted about an edge of the lever arm.
Choate teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture an opened structure on the bottom of a container (Fig. 6c) wherein the bottle cap comprises a plurality of vertically oriented ridges formed around an outer circumferential surface thereof; the recess is formed such that a plurality of vertically oriented ridges (47) are formed around an inner circumferential surface thereof; the ridges are formed and spaced about the inner circumferential surface of the recess such that a corresponding one of the ridges of the bottle cap can be inserted therein (Fig. 5B); and when the cup and the bottle are twisted relative to each other along a longitudinal axis of the cup, the bottle opener is configured to twist the bottle cap off of the bottle; and/or wherein the can opener comprises a slot (42) that is formed in an outer circumferential surface of the base, the slot extending radially inwardly from the outer circumferential surface (Fig. 5a), wherein: the slot is configured such that a pull tab of a can is insertable at least partially into the slot such that, by moving the can relative to the cup about a pivot point of the pull tab, the cup is configured to actuate the pull tab for opening the can (par. 0034); and/or the can opener comprises a hole or second slot configured for draining from the slot a fluid and/or debris contained within the slot during a cleaning process of the cup, comprising, formed in the base, a lever-style bottle opener (44) configured to pry a bottle cap off a bottle by engagement of the bottle cap within a recess of the lever-style bottle opener and against a lever arm of the lever-style bottle opener to exert a removal force on the bottle cap, wherein the removal force is a moment exerted about an edge of the lever arm (par. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the container with the opening structures taught by Choate, so that different types of containers could be easily opening with the cup.
Regarding claims 20-22, 35 and 36, the modified structure of Frankcomb teaches the method, as disclosed in the structure taught above, and wherein: the outer shell comprises a base, which has a bottom surface that defines a bottom of the cup; and the bottle opener is in a form of a recess that is formed in and extends away from the bottom surface of the outer shell, in a manner such that the recess is internal to the base of the outer shell; the method comprising: engaging a bottle cap attached to a bottle in the recess; and twisting the bottle relative to the cup to remove the bottle cap from the bottle (Choate, par. 0036), wherein: the bottle cap comprises a plurality of vertically oriented ridges formed around an outer circumferential surface thereof; the recess is formed such that a plurality of vertically oriented cavities are formed around an inner circumferential surface thereof; the cavities are formed and spaced about the inner circumferential surface of the recess such that a corresponding one of the ridges of the bottle cap can be inserted therein; and when the cup and the bottle are twisted relative to each other along a longitudinal axis of the cup, the bottle opener twists the bottle cap off of the bottle; and/or wherein the can opener comprises a slot that is formed in an outer circumferential surface of the base, the slot extending radially inwardly from the outer circumferential surface (Choate, par.0036), wherein: the method comprises inserting a pull tab of a can at least partially into the slot such that, by moving the can relative to the cup about a pivot point of the pull tab, the cup actuates the pull tab for opening the can; and/or the can opener comprises a hole or second slot for draining from the slot a fluid and/or debris contained within the slot during a cleaning process of the cup (Choate, par. 0034).
Claim(s) 8-12, 26-29 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankcomb and Tham-itthisak in view of Jacob (US-10005608-B1).
Regarding claims 8 and 25, Frankcomb fails to teach wherein the hollow region is vacuum sealed to be devoid of air, liquid, and/or solid within the hollow region.
Jacob teaches that it is now in the art to manufacture double walled container with a vacuum (col. 6, ll. 64 – col. 7, ll. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the container with a vacuum in order to improve insulation.
Regarding claims 9-12, 26-29 and 33, Frankcomb fails to teach wherein the outer shell comprises, formed over a portion of an outer circumferential surface thereof, a plurality of protrusions for aiding manual gripping of the cup by a person, comprising a plurality of annular ridges about the outer circumferential surface of the outer shell for aiding a person in gripping the cup, wherein the portion of the outer circumferential surface of the outer shell, over which the plurality of protrusions are formed, is formed of a different material than a remaining portion of the outer circumferential surface of the outer shell, wherein the different material comprises silicone, rubber, plastic, and/or metal.
Jacob teaches that it is known in the arty to manufacture a container wherein the outer shell comprises, formed over a portion of an outer circumferential surface thereof, a plurality of protrusions (402) for aiding manual gripping of the cup by a person, comprising a plurality of annular ridges (400) about the outer circumferential surface of the outer shell for aiding a person in gripping the cup, wherein the portion of the outer circumferential surface of the outer shell, over which the plurality of protrusions are formed, is formed of a different material than a remaining portion of the outer circumferential surface of the outer shell (col. 5, ll. 65 – col. 6, ll. 3), wherein the different material comprises silicone, rubber, plastic, and/or metal (col. 9, lines 32-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the container with the grip structure taught by Jacob, in order to make the container easier for a user to hold.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine used above is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been addressed in the modified rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733