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
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, 5-10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US-10669081-B2) in view of Pickles (US-20060201947-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan discloses:
1. A container assembly (Fig. 1) comprising: a bottom panel (122) that defines a bottom-most surface; a rotational axis around which the bottom panel is centered (Fig. 2); a wall (108) extending upwardly from the bottom panel, the wall extending around the rotational axis, the wall and bottom panel collectively partially defining a storage compartment (112), the wall defining an upper opening (118) opposite the bottom panel; a lid (403) centered on the rotational axis, the lid comprising a lower portion (462) and an upper portion (470) above the lower portion (Fig. 18A), the lid comprising a drinking aperture (452) providing fluid communication between the storage compartment and an exterior of the wall; a first helical threading (466) extending from the lower portion of the lid away from the rotational axis (Fig. 18C), the lid threadably engaging with the wall via the first helical threading; a second helical threading (474) extending from the upper portion of the lid away from the rotational axis (Fig. 18C); and a cover (401) centered on the rotational axis and comprising an inner wall (420), an outer wall (438), and a third helical threading (421), the third helical threading extending from the inner wall towards the rotational axis (Fig. 17D) and engaging with the second helical threading to couple the cover to the lid, the cover sealing the drinking aperture when the cover is coupled to the lid, the inner wall radially closer to the rotational axis than the outer wall, the cover comprising one or more chambers (424) defined at least in part by the inner wall and the outer wall, the one or more chambers providing thermal insulation between the inner wall and the outer wall (col. 13, ll. 36 – col. 14, ll. 17).
Sullivan fails to teach the cover comprising a plurality of support walls extending radially from the inner wall to the outer wall, wherein all of the plurality of support walls extending radially from the inner wall to the outer wall are equally spaced from each other.
Pickles teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a cover with a plurality of support walls (53) extending radially from an inner wall to an outer wall, wherein the plurality of support walls are equally spaced from each other along sides of the cover (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the cover with support walls, in order to reinforce the cover. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured all of the support walls to be equally spaced, as shown by Pickles, in order to make the reinforcement of the cover uniform. Note that modified cover of Sullivan would be round and there would be no corners. Therefore the support walls of the modified cover would be radial.
Regarding claims 2, 5-10 and 21, the modified container of Sullivan teaches:
2. The container assembly of claim 1, the cover comprising a handle (440) extending upward away from the lid, the handle configured to be grasped by a user to carry the cover.
5. The container assembly of claim 3, wherein at least one of the one or more chambers are defined at least in part by one or more of the plurality of support walls (Fig. 17D).
6. The container assembly of claim 1, the upper portion of the lid comprising a first cylindrical wall (472) extending away from the lower portion of the lid, the first cylindrical wall defining the drinking aperture.
7. The container assembly of claim 6, wherein the first cylindrical wall circumferentially surrounds the drinking aperture (Fig. 18D).
8. The container assembly of claim 6, the cover comprising a second cylindrical wall (Fig. 17D) that interfaces with the first cylindrical wall to seal the drinking aperture when the cover is coupled to the lid.
9. The container assembly of claim 6, the cover comprising a recess (423) that extends circumferentially around the rotational axis, wherein the recess receives the first cylindrical wall to seal the drinking aperture when the cover is coupled to the lid (Fig. 17D).
10. The container assembly of claim 1, the lid comprising an annular wall (414) that extends radially away from the rotational axis, wherein the annular wall is between the upper portion and the lower portion, and wherein the annular wall extends radially further from the rotational axis than each of upper portion and the lower portion (Fig. 18C).
21. The container assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of support walls comprise at least three support walls (Pickles, Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 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).
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 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
Prosecution Insights