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 .
Response to Arguments
All previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 in response to Office Action 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 18, Applicant argues that none of the prior art teaches the reinstated limitation of gauge range as amended (page 7 para last). Examiner disagrees, pointing out the analysis uses Madden in the rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 2722086 issued to Mullen (hereinafter “Mullen”) in view of US Pat 1920091 issued to Madden (hereinafter “Madden”) in view of US Pat 9730539 issued to Bolland (hereinafter “Bolland”).
Regarding claim 1, Mullen teaches a drinking vessel (see examiner annotated Mullen Figures 5-6, hereinafter “EAFM56”; EAFM56, drinking vessel shown) to be used by a drinker for drinking liquids (col 1, line 40, holds “liquid” so is necessarily capable of being drunk by a user) with a pass-through chamber to receive and support cigars (EAFM56, pass-through chamber, is necessarily capable of receiving/supporting cigars);
a. the drinking vessel comprising a primary wall (EAFM56), a lip (EAFM56), a base (EAFM56), and a vessel cavity (EAFM56);
i. the lip configured to be in contact with a drinker's mouth (EAFM56 shows lip is capable of contacting a drinker’s mouth);
iii. the vessel cavity having a center (EAFM56), the center being equidistant from opposite portions of the primary wall (EAFM56, center, is necessarily equidistant because the chamber/hole 10 is centered in between opposite portions of the vessel’s primary wall; “hole is shown substantially in the center of the flask, but for retaining it in an upright or inverted desired position on a peg, its position could of course be changed”, col 2, lines 64-69);
b. the pass-through chamber (EAFM56) comprising a wall (a wall of the chamber is shown), a first and second opening (EAFM56, a first opening, is shown opposed along an axis by a second opening), and a chamber cavity (EAFM56, chamber cavity);
iii. the first and second openings each being disposed at a different position on the primary wall (EAFM56, first opening is at different position);
v. the chamber cavity being substantially cylindrical (EAFM56, the chamber cavity of the pass-through chamber is shown substantially cylindrical);
PNG
media_image1.png
619
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Mullen does not explicitly teach that vi. the substantially cylindrical chamber cavity has grooves or ridges configured to hold/grip/support a cigar, nor vii. the chamber cavity having a cross-section diameter configured to receive a cigar between 34 and 54 gauge.
Madden, however, teaches a similar tobacco stick holding vessel comprising:
a chamber cavity including a plurality of grooves or ridges configured to grip a cigar (Figs 1-3, groove 5a or grooves/ridges 5b are capable of holding a cigar because, col 3, lines 3-10, the formations 5a and 5b of a vessel chamber cavity defined by opening 5 are “for the reception of cigarettes or diminutive cigars”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the chamber cavity of Mullen to have the grooves/ridges of Madden in order to advantageously be able to better secure cigars in the chamber cavity, or beneficially allow securement of other articles the user does not wish to hold. Wherein the gripping of cigarettes is similar to gripping of nails or pegs, because each is a cylindrical projection, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that modification of Mullen in view of Madden will not render Mullen unsuitable for its intended purpose the hole – with grooves/ridges – capable of being received by a nail or peg for hanging therefrom.
Madden also teaches the chamber cavity diameter having any cigar size (page 2 col 1 lines 60-65, “In Fig. 8, the opening… is of a shape to grasp, as it were, any cigarette or cigar, regardless of whether it be large or small… [or] a match, if desired”; wherein Fig 8 shows such a large or small enough diameter opening 5 at least incorporating 34 gauge to 54 gauge (34/64 inches to 54/64 inches, which is about half inch to one inch)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the chamber cavity having a cross-section diameter configured to receive a cigar between 34 and 54 gauge, since it has been held that the configuration of the container (i.e. this hole diameter) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV-B. In addition, similarly, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A.
But Mullen/Madden does not explicitly teach a double-walled vessel and a double-walled chamber.
Bolland, however, teaches a similar drinking vessel with a pass-through chamber (Figs 1, 2b & 3b, a drinking vessel 100 with pass-through chamber 103 having chamber cavity 104 through vessel cavity of 100, that comprises glass 110 having side 111 and glass 120 having side 121; all of continuous “unitary” “molded” glass, col 4, lines 56-57; wherein 110/111, 120/121 and 103 are double walled with space in between "throughout", col 4, lines 35-38 and its paragraph) comprising:
a. the drinking vessel (see examiner annotated Bolland Figure 1, hereinafter “EAFB1” with drawn in hole and Figure 2b, hereinafter “EAFB2b”; EAFB1, drinking vessel shown) comprising an inner primary wall (EAFB2b, inner primary (Mullen side)), an outer primary wall (EAFB2b, outer primary (Mullen side)), a lip (EAFB1, lip), a vessel cavity (EAFB2b, vessel cavity);
ii. the inner primary wall and outer primary wall being disposed between and connecting the lip and the base (EAFB2b – wherein Bolland modifies Mullen – shows that the inner primary wall and outer primary wall are between the lip and the base, and connect the lip to the base (Mullen side)), the inner primary wall having an inner face oriented toward the vessel cavity (EAFB2b, an inner face of the inner primary wall is shown oriented toward the vessel cavity (Mullen side)), the outer primary wall having an outer face configured to be in contact with the drinker's hand (EAFB2b, an outer face of the outer primary wall is shown necessarily capable of contact with a drinker’s hand (Mullen side)), the base having a top face and a bottom face, the bottom face oriented toward a surface and the top face oriented toward the vessel cavity (EAFB2b, base has a top face, top, and a bottom face, which is the bottom of the base, wherein the top face is shown oriented toward the vessel cavity, and the bottom face is shown oriented toward a resting surface/facing downward (Mullen side));
iii. the vessel cavity being disposed within a boundary formed by the lip, the inner face, and the base (EAFB2b, the lip, the inner face of the inner primary wall, and the base together form a boundary of the vessel cavity (Mullen side)), and having a center being equidistant from opposite portions (EAFM56, the center is shown equidistant from opposite portions of the primary wall, as above) of the inner primary wall (EAFB2b, shows that double-walling (i.e. making the one primary wall into an outer primary and an inner primary wall with a hollow space in between) does not change Mullen’s teaching (above, ‘primary wall’) of the center of the vessel cavity being equidistant, now to the “inner primary wall” portions (Mullen side));
b. the pass-through chamber (EAFB2b, pass-through chamber) comprising an inner wall (EAFB2b, inner wall), an outer wall (EAFB2b, outer wall), the inner and outer walls defining a space disposed between the inner wall and the outer wall (EAFB2b, a space for “containing a liquid” (merely proving “space”) is shown between the inner and outer wall “throughout [110/111, 120/121] and bridge 103”; col 4, lines 20-22 & 35-38),
i. the inner wall facing the chamber cavity and being continuous with the outer primary wall (EAFB2b, the inner wall faces the chamber cavity, and is continuous with the outer primary wall (Mullen side));
ii. the outer wall at least partially facing the vessel cavity (EAFB2b, the outer wall at least partially faces the vessel cavity (Mullen side));
iii. the first and second openings each being disposed at a different position on the outer primary wall (EAFB2b shows Mullen’s two openings at different positions on the vessel’s outer primary wall);
iv. the chamber cavity (EAFM56, chamber cavity) formed by the inner wall (EAFB2b, inner wall forms chamber cavity (Mullen side));
PNG
media_image2.png
772
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
556
770
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one wall vessel and chamber of Mullen to be an outer primary and inner primary wall with a space in between them of the vessel, and an outer wall and an inner wall with a space in between them of the chamber all being continuous (chamber cavity outer wall to vessel inner primary wall, chamber cavity inner wall to vessel outer primary wall, and vessel space to chamber space) as taught by Bolland, as it is no more than a simple substitution of one wall for another (i.e. single wall to double wall) that is known in the art for insulation and would only produce the predictable results of improving the insulation of the vessel and chamber thereby beneficially reducing degradation of Mullen’s contents. MPEP 2143 I-B.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via Mullen’s vessel and chamber being double walled as Bolland shows is obvious to do, thereby reading on the limitations “a. iii. …the center being equidistant from opposite portions (Mullen) of the inner primary wall (Bolland)”, and “b. iii. the first and second openings each being disposed at a different position on the primary wall (Mullen openings on both walls (inner and outer primary walls as obviated by Bolland) that comprise Mullen’s primary wall (via art combination))”.
Regarding claim 2, Mullen/Madden/Bolland does not explicitly teach the drinking vessel being substantially cylindrical.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of Mullen to be cylindrical in, since it has been held that the shape of the claimed container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV-B), in order to advantageously enhance aesthetics and grip feel because the cylindrical shape is more natural to a human hand gripping shape than a rectangular shape. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation ([0013] any shape).
Regarding claim 5, Mullen further teaches the drinking vessel having a substantially polygonal cross-section (EAFM56 shows vessel is substantially polygonal).
Regarding claim 6, Mullen further teaches the substantially polygonal cross-section having at least three sides, each side forming a juncture with its adjacent side (EAFM56, junctures, are created by at least three sides (e.g. four sides being substantially rectangular) of the substantially polygonal cross-section).
Regarding claim 10, Mullen further teaches the chamber cavity having an axis which intersects the first and second openings and intersects at least two sides of a cross-section of the drinking vessel (EAFM56, axis, shown straight horizontal) at 90 degrees each (EAFM56, axis, shown intersecting two sides of the vessel at 90 degrees, since the vessel is a “somewhat generally rectangular and generally flat glass”, col 1, line 73).
Regarding claim 13, Mullen further teaches the chamber cavity being substantially parallel with the base (EAFM56, chamber cavity is shown substantially parallel with the base).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 2722086 issued to Mullen (hereinafter “Mullen”) in view of US Pat 1920091 issued to Madden (hereinafter “Madden”) in view of US Pat 9730539 issued to Bolland (hereinafter “Bolland”) in view of US Pub 20090095703 by Keeler (hereinafter “Keeler”).
Regarding claim 4, Mullen/Madden/Bolland does not explicitly teach the chamber cavity not passing through the vessel cavity center.
Keeler, however, teaches a similar drinking vessel with an off-center pass-through chamber comprising: the chamber cavity not passing through the vessel cavity center (Fig 1, shows “internal finger channel” [0017] is “off-center” [0019], wherein an adult-sized index finger or thumb can go through the hole [0018] [0020], necessarily meaning a length of at least an inch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chamber cavity of Mullen to be off-center and at least one inch as taught by Keeler in order to advantageously make the vessel more convenient and stable to hold and carry by providing “[the] channel [/chamber cavity] in a stable location and allows the hand and remaining fingers to grasp a center, and thus stable, section of the container” (Keeler [0019]). Wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that modification of Mullen in view of Keeler would not render it unsuitable for its intended purpose, because an off-center hole is still capable of being received by a nail or peg for hanging therefrom.
Regarding claim 12, Mullen further teaches the chamber cavity having a length spanning from the first to the second openings (EAFM56, chamber cavity shown spanning the openings along its length, first opening to second opening).
But Mullen/Madden/Bolland does not explicitly teach that a cavity length spanning from the first to the second openings is at least one inch.
Keeler, however, teaches a similar drinking vessel with an off-center pass-through chamber of at least an inch in length at full span (Fig 1, shows “internal finger channel” [0017] is “off-center” [0019], wherein an adult-sized index finger or thumb can go through the hole [0018] [0020], necessarily meaning a length of at least an inch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chamber cavity of Mullen to be off-center and at least one inch as taught by Keeler in order to advantageously make the vessel more convenient and stable to hold and carry by providing “[the] channel [/chamber cavity] in a stable location and allows the hand and remaining fingers to grasp a center, and thus stable, section of the container” (Keeler [0019]). Wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that modification of Mullen in view of Keeler would not render it unsuitable for its intended purpose, because an off-center hole is still capable of being received by a nail or peg for hanging therefrom.
Claims 7-9, 14, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 2722086 issued to Mullen (hereinafter “Mullen”) in view of US Pat 1920091 issued to Madden (hereinafter “Madden”) in view of US Pat 9730539 issued to Bolland (hereinafter “Bolland”) in further view of US D221515 issued to Betka (hereinafter “Betka”).
Regarding claim 7, Mullen/Madden/Bolland does not explicitly teach the chamber cavity being disposed between the vessel cavity center and at least one juncture.
Betka, however, teaches a similar substantially polygonal drinking vessel with an off-center pass-through chamber comprising: the chamber cavity being disposed between the vessel cavity center and at least one juncture (see examiner annotated Betka Figures 1 & 4, hereinafter “EAFB14”; EAFB14, a chamber cavity is shown off-center between the substantially polygonal vessel’s cavity center and two junctures, at an intersection angle of about 45 degrees)
Therefore also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chamber cavity axis of intersection of Mullen/Bolland to be off-center (between center and one juncture) as taught by Betka in order to advantageously make the vessel more convenient and stable to hold and carry by providing the chamber cavity in a location that allows the hand and remaining fingers to grasp around a vessel center, and thus more stably hold the whole container for tilting during pouring versus having the cavity pass through center. Wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that modification of Mullen to provide an offset opening for receiving a hand does not render it unsuitable for its intended purpose of hanging from a nail or peg, because the nail or peg can be passed through the opening to hang the container.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the substantially polygonal shape of Betka applied to Mullen’s vessel sides, along with the off-center position of the chamber cavity of Betka applied to Mullen/Bolland’s chamber.
PNG
media_image4.png
518
628
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Mullen further teaches the chamber cavity having an axis which intersects the first and second openings and intersects at least two sides of the substantially polygonal cross-section (EAFM56, axis, intersects the openings and at least two sides of the vessel).
But Mullen/Madden/Bolland does not explicitly teach the intersection at an angle between 30 and 60 degrees.
Betka, however, teaches a similar substantially polygonal drinking vessel with an off-center pass-through chamber comprising: the chamber cavity at an intersection angle between 30 and 60 degrees each (EAFB14, a chamber cavity is shown off-center between the substantially polygonal vessel’s cavity center and two junctures, at an intersection angle of about 45 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an intersection angle between 30 and 60 degrees, since it has been held that the configuration of the container (i.e. particular angling) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV-B.
Therefore also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chamber cavity axis of intersection of Mullen/Bolland to be off-center as taught by Betka in order to advantageously make the vessel more convenient and stable to hold and carry by providing the chamber cavity in a location that allows the hand and remaining fingers to grasp around a vessel center, and thus more stably hold the whole container for tilting during pouring versus having the cavity pass through center. Wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that modification of Mullen to provide an offset opening for receiving a hand does not render it unsuitable for its intended purpose of hanging from a nail or peg, because the nail or peg can be passed through the opening to hang the container.
Regarding claim 9, Mullen further teaches the substantially polygonal cross-section having at least four sides (EAFM56, vessel has four sides).
But Mullen/Madden/Bolland does not explicitly teach the chamber cavity being disposed between the vessel cavity center and at least two junctures.
Betka, however, teaches a similar substantially polygonal drinking vessel with an off-center pass-through chamber comprising: the chamber cavity being disposed between the vessel cavity center and at least two junctures (EAFB14, a chamber cavity is shown off-center between the substantially polygonal vessel’s cavity center and two junctures, at an intersection angle of about 45 degrees)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chamber cavity axis of intersection of Mullen/Bolland to be off-center as taught by Betka in order to advantageously make the vessel more convenient and stable to hold and carry by providing the chamber cavity in a location that allows the hand and remaining fingers to grasp around a vessel center, and thus more stably hold the whole container for tilting during pouring versus having the cavity pass through center. Wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that modification of Mullen to provide an offset opening for receiving a hand does not render it unsuitable for its intended purpose of hanging from a nail or peg, because the nail or peg can be passed through the opening to hang the container.
Regarding claim 14, Mullen teaches a drinking vessel (EAFM56, drinking vessel shown) to be used by a drinker for drinking liquids (col 1, line 40, holds “liquid” so is necessarily capable of being drunk by a user) with a pass-through chamber to receive and support cigars (EAFM56, pass-through chamber, is necessarily capable of receiving/supporting cigars);
a. the drinking vessel comprising a base (EAFM56), a primary wall (EAFM56), a vessel cavity (EAFM56), and a lip (EAFM56), and having a center, the center being equidistant from opposite portions of the primary wall (EAFM56, center, is necessarily equidistant because the chamber/hole 10 is centered in between opposite portions of the vessel’s primary wall; “hole is shown substantially in the center of the flask, but for retaining it in an upright or inverted desired position on a peg, its position could of course be changed”, col 2, lines 64-69);
b. the pass through chamber (EAFM56) comprising a first and a second opening (EAFM56, a first opening, is shown opposed along an axis by a second opening), and a chamber cavity (EAFM56, chamber cavity);
iii. the chamber cavity being substantially cylindrical (EAFM56, the chamber cavity of the pass-through chamber is shown substantially cylindrical);
But Mullen does not explicitly teach that iv. the substantially cylindrical chamber cavity has grooves or ridges configured to hold/grip/support a cigar, nor v. the chamber cavity having a cross-section diameter configured to receive a cigar between 34 and 54 gauge.
Madden, however, teaches a similar tobacco stick holding vessel comprising:
a chamber cavity including a plurality of grooves or ridges configured to grip a cigar (Figs 1-3, groove 5a or grooves/ridges 5b are capable of holding a cigar because, col 3, lines 3-10, the formations 5a and 5b of a vessel chamber cavity defined by opening 5 are “for the reception of cigarettes or diminutive cigars”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the chamber cavity of Mullen to have the grooves/ridges of Madden in order to advantageously be able to better secure cigars in the chamber cavity, or beneficially allow securement of other articles the user does not wish to hold. Wherein the gripping of cigarettes is similar to gripping of nails or pegs, because each is a cylindrical projection, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that modification of Mullen in view of Madden will not render Mullen unsuitable for its intended purpose the hole – with grooves/ridges – capable of being received by a nail or peg for hanging therefrom.
Madden also teaches the chamber cavity diameter having any cigar size (page 2 col 1 lines 60-65, “In Fig. 8, the opening… is of a shape to grasp, as it were, any cigarette or cigar, regardless of whether it be large or small… [or] a match, if desired”; wherein Fig 8 shows such a large or small enough diameter opening 5 at least incorporating 34 gauge to 54 gauge (34/64 inches to 54/64 inches, which is about half inch to one inch)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the chamber cavity having a cross-section diameter configured to receive a cigar between 34 and 54 gauge, since it has been held that the configuration of the container (i.e. this hole diameter) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV-B. In addition, similarly, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A.
But Mullen/Madden does not explicitly teach a double-walled vessel and a double-walled chamber.
Bolland, however, teaches a similar drinking vessel with a pass-through chamber (Figs 1, 2b & 3b, a drinking vessel 100 with pass-through chamber 103 having chamber cavity 104 through vessel cavity of 100, that comprises glass 110 having side 111 and glass 120 having side 121; all of continuous “unitary” “molded” glass, col 4, lines 56-57; wherein 110/111, 120/121 and 103 are double walled with space in between "throughout", col 4, lines 35-38 and its paragraph) comprising:
a. the drinking vessel (EAFB1, drinking vessel shown) comprising a primary wall including an inner primary wall (EAFB2b, inner primary (Mullen side)), an outer primary wall (EAFB2b, outer primary (Mullen side)), a vessel cavity (EAFB2b, vessel cavity), and a lip (EAFB1, lip), the vessel cavity being disposed within a boundary formed by the lip, the inner primary wall, and the base (EAFB2b, the lip, the inner face of the inner primary wall, and the base together form a boundary of the vessel cavity (Mullen side)), and having a center, the center being equidistant from opposite portions (EAFM56, the center is shown equidistant from opposite portions of the primary wall) of the inner primary wall (EAFB2b, shows that double-walling (i.e. making the one primary wall into an outer primary and an inner primary wall with a hollow space in between) does not change Mullen’s teaching (above, ‘primary wall’) of the center of the vessel cavity being equidistant, now to the “inner primary wall” portions (Mullen side));
b. the pass through chamber (EAFB2b, pass-through chamber) comprising an inner face (EAFB2b, an inner face of inner wall (Mullen side)) and an outer face (EAFB2b, an outer face of outer wall (Mullen side)), the inner and outer faces defining a space disposed between the inner face and the outer face (EAFB2b, a space for “containing a liquid” (merely proving “space”) is shown between the inner and outer wall “throughout [110/111, 120/121] and bridge 103”; col 4, lines 20-22 & 35-38);
i. the first and second openings being disposed at a first and a second position on the outer primary wall, respectively (EAFB2b, the first (at a first position) and second opening (at a second position) are shown at the outer primary wall (Mullen side));
ii. the chamber cavity formed by the inner face (EAFB2b, the inner face of the inner wall).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one wall vessel and chamber of Mullen to be an outer primary and inner primary wall with a space in between of the vessel and an outer wall and an inner wall with a space in between of the chamber be continuous (chamber cavity outer wall to vessel inner primary wall, chamber cavity inner wall to vessel outer primary wall, and vessel space to chamber space) as taught by Bolland, as it is no more than a simple substitution of one wall for another (i.e. single wall to double wall) that is known in the art for insulation and would only produce the predictable results of improving the insulation of the vessel and chamber thereby beneficially reducing degradation of Mullen’s contents. MPEP 2143 I-B.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via Mullen’s vessel and chamber being double walled as Bolland shows is obvious to do, thereby reading on the limitations “a. …the center being equidistant from opposite portions (Mullen) of the inner primary wall (Bolland)”.
But Mullen/Madden/Bolland does not explicitly teach the chamber cavity at an offset location from a vertical central axis of the vessel cavity.
Betka, however, teaches a similar substantially polygonal drinking vessel with an off-center pass-through chamber comprising: the chamber cavity passing through the vessel at an offset location from a vertical central axis of the vessel cavity (EAFB14, a chamber cavity is shown off-center between the substantially polygonal vessel’s cavity center and two junctures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chamber cavity axis of intersection of Mullen/Bolland to be off-center as taught by Betka in order to advantageously make the vessel more convenient and stable to hold and carry by providing the chamber cavity in a location that allows the hand and remaining fingers to grasp around a vessel center, and thus more stably hold the whole container for tilting during pouring versus having the cavity pass through center. Wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that modification of Mullen to provide an offset opening for receiving a hand does not render it unsuitable for its intended purpose of hanging from a nail or peg, because the nail or peg can be passed through the opening to hang the container.
Regarding claim 16, Mullen/Madden/Bolland does not explicitly teach the chamber cavity intersecting the first and second positions [of the chamber cavity openings] on the primary wall at angles between 30 and 60 degrees each.
Betka, however, teaches a similar substantially polygonal drinking vessel with an off-center pass-through chamber comprising: the chamber cavity at an intersection angle between 30 and 60 degrees (EAFB14, a chamber cavity is shown off-center between the substantially polygonal vessel’s cavity center and two junctures, at an intersection angle of about 45 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an intersection angle between 30 and 60 degrees, since it has been held that the configuration of the container (i.e. particular angling) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV-B.
Regarding claim 17, Mullen/Madden/Bolland/Betka further teaches the chamber cavity intersecting the first and second positions on the primary wall (Bolland, both inner and outer primary walls of Mullen’s (now double walled) primary wall) at angles of approximately 90 degrees each (EAFM56, chamber cavity axis shown intersecting the first and second positions/openings on the primary wall at approximately 90 degrees each, EAFB2b). See details in the parent claim 14 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 19 (depending from claim 8), Mullen/Madden/Bolland does not explicitly teach that the chamber axis (EAFM56, axis) intersects a first side of the substantially polygonal cross section at 30 degrees, and wherein the chamber axis intersects the second side of the substantially polygonal cross-section at 60 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change shape of the chamber’s complimentary intersection angles to be 30 and 60 degrees respectively, having the teachings of Betka before them (see parent claim 8, about 45 degrees), since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed container (vessel or portion of thereof, i.e. chamber) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV-B. (Applicant specification shows not significant: [0034] “may intersect… between 30 and 60 degrees each”, [0035] “at 90 degrees each”, or [0022] “Preferably, the angles of intersection are 45 degrees each”; Fig 1 cylindrical vessel, Fig 14, substantially rectangular vessel, [0013] “any suitable shape… truly cylindrical… polygonal, with three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, or ten sides”, Fig 16, shows about 45 degrees)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 2722086 issued to Mullen (hereinafter “Mullen”) in view of US Pat 1920091 issued to Madden (hereinafter “Madden”) in view of US Pat 9730539 issued to Bolland (hereinafter “Bolland”) in view of US Pat 4967918 issued to Long (hereinafter “Long”).
Regarding claim 18, Mullen teaches a vessel (EAFM56, drinking vessel shown), comprising: a base (EAFM56), a lip (EAFM56), and a primary wall interconnecting the lip and the base (EAFM56, primary wall interconnects lip and base);
a pass-through chamber formed within vessel and disposed below the lip and above the base (EAFM56, pass-through chamber shown below lip and above base), the pass-through chamber having a first opening opposite a second opening, the first opening being separated from the second opening by a length (EAFM56, a first opening, is shown opposed along a length of an axis by a second opening), wherein the pass-through chamber is substantially cylindrical (EAFM56, the chamber cavity of the pass-through chamber is shown substantially cylindrical),
But Mullen does not explicitly teach that the substantially cylindrical chamber cavity has grooves or ridges configured to hold/grip/support a cigar, nor the chamber cavity having a cross-section diameter configured to receive a cigar between 34 and 54 gauge.
Madden, however, teaches a similar tobacco stick holding vessel comprising:
a chamber cavity including a plurality of grooves or ridges configured to grip a cigar (Figs 1-3, groove 5a or grooves/ridges 5b are capable of holding a cigar because, col 3, lines 3-10, the formations 5a and 5b of a vessel chamber cavity defined by opening 5 are “for the reception of cigarettes or diminutive cigars”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the chamber cavity of Mullen to have the grooves/ridges of Madden in order to advantageously be able to better secure cigars in the chamber cavity, or beneficially allow securement of other articles the user does not wish to hold. Wherein the gripping of cigarettes is similar to gripping of nails or pegs, because each is a cylindrical projection, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that modification of Mullen in view of Madden will not render Mullen unsuitable for its intended purpose the hole – with grooves/ridges – capable of being received by a nail or peg for hanging therefrom.
Madden also teaches the chamber cavity diameter having any cigar size (page 2 col 1 lines 60-65, “In Fig. 8, the opening… is of a shape to grasp, as it were, any cigarette or cigar, regardless of whether it be large or small… [or] a match, if desired”; wherein Fig 8 shows such a large or small enough diameter opening 5 at least incorporating 34 gauge to 54 gauge (34/64 inches to 54/64 inches, which is about half inch to one inch)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the chamber cavity having a cross-section diameter configured to receive a cigar between 34 and 54 gauge, since it has been held that the configuration of the container (i.e. this hole diameter) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV-B. In addition, similarly, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 IV-A.
But Mullen/Madden does not explicitly teach a double-walled vessel and a double-walled chamber.
Bolland, however, teaches a similar drinking vessel with a pass-through chamber (Figs 1, 2b & 3b, a drinking vessel 100 with pass-through chamber 103 having chamber cavity 104 through vessel cavity of 100, that comprises glass 110 having side 111 and glass 120 having side 121; all of continuous “unitary” “molded” glass, col 4, lines 56-57; wherein 110/111 and 120/121 are double walled with space in between "throughout" but “while 103 is not double walled”, col 4, lines 38-41 and its paragraph) comprising:
a lip (EAFB1, lip), and an inner primary wall and an outer primary wall interconnecting the lip and the base (EAFB2b – wherein Bolland modifies Mullen – shows that the inner primary wall and outer primary wall are between the lip and the base, and connect the lip to the base (Mullen side)), wherein the outer primary wall has an outer surface and the inner primary wall has an inner surface (EAFB2b, an outer surface of the outer primary wall and an inner surface of the inner primary wall (Mullen side)), the inner surface bounding a cavity in the vessel (EAFB2b, the inner surface of the inner primary wall forms a boundary of a vessel cavity (Mullen side));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one wall vessel of Mullen to be an outer primary and inner primary wall with a space in between of the vessel and the chamber be continuous (chamber cavity wall through vessel inner primary wall to vessel outer primary wall) as taught by Bolland, as it is no more than a simple substitution of one wall for another (i.e. single wall to double wall) that is known in the art for insulation and would only produce the predictable results of improving the insulation of the vessel and chamber thereby beneficially reducing degradation of Mullen’s contents. MPEP 2143 I-B.
But Mullen/Madden/Bolland does not explicitly teach that the vessel is cup-shaped.
Long, however, teaches a similar drinking vessel with a pass-through chamber (Fig 1, 30), wherein the vessel is cup-shaped (Title, Fig 1, 20 is a drinking vessel cup).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vessel of Mullen/Bolland to be cup-shaped as taught by Long in order to advantageously increase ease of pouring more volume of contents and beneficially allow users to save time pouring out from a wide mouth/lip versus a narrower bottle mouth.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via Mullen’s vessel being double walled as Bolland shows is obvious to do, and the chamber grip capable of holding cigars, with Mullen’s vessel having the cup shape of Long.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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 on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights