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 .
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 eyelet on the top surface and the plurality of attachment points for a straw on a top surface of the lid body must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 46 says element number 168 is “an eyelet” and “the opening”, however it is unclear if the element number is for an eyelet or an opening.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7-8, 10-12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,464,896 B2 to Beary (“Beary”) in view of U.S. PGPUB 2006/0180593 A1 to White (“White”).
As to claim 1, Beary teaches a beverage lid device with straw holding structure comprising: a lid body (lid 11) comprised of a top surface (Beary Fig. 1 shows the lid 11 has a top surface where the straw hole 13 is located) and a side surface (outer vertical lip 12); a straw opening (straw hole 13) positioned on the top surface (Beary Fig. 1 shows the lid 11 has a top surface where the straw hole 13 is located); a straw (straw 15); and an attachment point (straw supporting structure 14) that receives the straw (Beary Fig. 1 shows the straw supporting structure 14 receives the straw 15), wherein the attachment point is at least one eyelet (Beary Fig. 1 shows the straw supporting structure 14 is an eyelet); but does not teach wherein the at least on eyelet is positioned on the top surface of the lid body.
White teaches wherein the at least on eyelet is positioned on the top surface of the lid body (White Fig. 8 show the clips 27 are on the top surface of the lid 11).
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 position of the clips of White with the lid as taught by Beary to allow the user to grab the cup without accidentally grabbing the straw.
As to claim 7, Beary modified by White teaches a beverage lid device with straw holding structure of claim 1, wherein an opening of the eyelet receives the straw (Beary Fig. 1 shows the straw 15 inserted into the opening of the straw supporting structure 14).
As to claim 8, Beary modified by White teaches a beverage lid device with straw holding structure of claim 1, wherein the straw is enclosed in a wrapper (“drinking straw 13 is removably encased within a straw wrapper”, White, pg. 4, ¶ 0072).
As to claim 10, Beary teaches a beverage lid device with straw holding structure comprising: a lid body (lid 11) comprised of a top surface (Beary Fig. 1 shows the lid 11 has a top surface where the straw hole 13 is located) and a side surface (outer vertical lip 12); a straw opening (straw hole 13) positioned on the top surface (Beary Fig. 1 shows the lid 11 has a top surface where the straw hole 13 is located); a straw (straw 15); an attachment point (straw supporting structure 14) that receives the straw (Beary Fig. 1 shows the straw 15 inserted into the opening of the straw supporting structure 14); and a cup (container 10) comprised of an opening (Beary, col. 4, lines 53-57); but does not teach wherein the attachment point is at least one adhesive fastener positioned on the top surface of the lid body.
White teaches wherein the attachment point is at least one adhesive fastener (White, pg. 4, ¶ 0074) positioned on the top surface of the lid body (White Fig. 11 show the straw 13 are on the top surface of the lid 11).
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 adhesive of White to attach the straw as taught by Beary to detachably adhere the straw to the lid (White, pg. 4, ¶ 0074).
As to claim 11, Beary modified by White teaches a beverage lid device with straw holding structure of claim 10, wherein the cup is comprised of a first lip (Beary, col. 4, lines 53-57).
As to claim 12, Beary modified by White teaches a beverage lid device with straw holding structure of claim 11, wherein the lid is comprised of a second lip that attaches over the first lip (Beary, col. 4, lines 53-57).
As to claim 18, Beary teaches a method of using a beverage lid device with straw holding structure, the method comprising the following steps: providing a beverage lid device with straw holding structure comprised of a lid body (lid 11) comprised of attachment point (straw supporting structure 14) for a straw (straw 15); attaching the lid body to a cup (Beary, col. 4, lines 53-57 ); attaching the straw to the attachment point (Beary, col. 5, lines 23-28); and removing the straw from the attachment point and placing the straw into a straw opening of the lid body (Beary, col. 2, lines 3-6); but does not teach a lid body comprised of a plurality of attachment points for a straw positioned on a top surface of the lid body; and wherein the plurality of attachment points comprise at least one prong fastener and at least one adhesive fastener.
White teaches a lid body (container lid 11) comprised of a plurality of attachment points (small clips 27) for a straw (straw 13) positioned on a top surface of the lid body (White Fig. 7-8 shows the clips 27 on the top surface of the lid 11); and wherein the plurality of attachment points comprise at least one prong fastener (White Fig. 7-8 shows the clips 27 on the top surface of the lid 11) and at least one adhesive fastener (White, pg. 4, ¶ 0074).
Since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
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 adhesive and the position of the attachment points of White to attach the straw as taught by Beary to detachably adhere the straw to the lid (White, pg. 4, ¶ 0074).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beary in view of White further in view of U.S. PGPUB 2012/0261417 A1 to Tabor et al. (“Tabor”).
As to claim 16, Beary modified by White teaches a beverage lid device with straw holding structure of claim 10, but does not teach wherein the top surface is comprised of a content indicator.
Tabor teaches wherein the top surface (elevated basin 215) is comprised of a content indicator (deformable product-identification dome 68).
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 product-identification dome of Tabor with the lid as taught by Beary modified by White to allow a user to apply a force to the deformable product-identification dome causing it to extend downwardly (Tabor, pg. 3-4, ¶ 0051).
As to claim 17, Beary modified by White teaches a beverage lid device with straw holding structure of claim 10, but does not teach wherein the top surface is comprised of an indicia.
Tabor teaches wherein the top surface is comprised of an indicia (Tabor Fig. 16 shows indicia, i.e. caution hot, other, decaf, oj, and tea, on the top surface of the lid).
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 indicia of Tabor with the lid as taught by Beary modified by White to allow for the user to know that the contents are hot or what liquid is inside the cup.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to 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.
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).
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.
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 06 October 2025