DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 in response to Office Action 7/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that primary prior art Eyal does not teach an insulated container (page 5, para 2). Examiner disagrees, pointing out that the cited container 20 necessarily provides insulation by being made of material.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Eyal does not teach rotation of the lid because it appears to be a plug (page 5, para 3). However the lid is not claimed to rotate in claim 1. Examiner notes the closure not the lid is later claimed to rotate.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the thread of secondary prior art Seiders would inhibit or denigrate or teach away from the container-to-lid sealing of Eyal because a vertical neck surface isn’t the same as angled, so threads cannot transfer one to the other (page 5 para 4 & page 6 para 4). Examiner points out threads increase sealing. Next, in response to applicant's argument that threads on a container neck would not work simply because a thread is on a vertical wall versus tapered (or any shape), 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). In other words, it would be obvious to a POSITA how to add threads.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that a thread does not necessarily always seal and adding the one cited would interfere with the threads (page 6, para 1). Examiner disagrees, threads mean engagement which reasonably means nothing passes between. Applicant has not provided any evidence that this particular seal would interfere, so the argument is mere allegation and there is no response the examiner can make. The rejection below contains evidence. Also, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton (so would know how not to make the seal interfere even if it could). MPEP 2141.03.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues neck thickness of Lonneman (page 6, paras 2-3). Examiner points out that thickness is not claimed in claim 1. If Applicant means to discuss claim 10, that is properly read on by Seiders there.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant states their neck outer surface above the thread 66 (Fig 4), as amended, varies in thickness because of the claimed taper and Lonneman does not (page 7, para 2). Examiner points out that thickness is not claimed in claim 1. If Applicant means to discuss claim 10, that is properly read on by Seiders there. If it is determined that Applicant means the combination, examiner points out the combination reads on the amendment as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues Seiders handle attaches to the lid and not the body as claimed, so cannot be used (page 7, para 3). Examiner points out Ronn teaches the handle attached to the body that merely uses the anchors from Seiders handle as a facet common to handles.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1-4, 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20150136771 by Eyal (hereinafter “Eyal”) in view of US Pub 20170043916 by Seiders et al. (hereinafter “Seiders”) in view of US Pat 5545315 issued to Lonneman (hereinafter “Lonneman”) in view of US Pub 20010043972 by Tomlinson (hereinafter “Tomlinson”).
Regarding claim 1, Eyal teaches an insulated liquid container (Title, beverage container 20, Fig 1, shows said beverage is necessarily insulated while inside walls of container 20), comprising:
a body having a base (Fig 1, base of 20) and a surrounding wall extending from a periphery of said base (Fig 1, base-surrounding frustoconical peripheral wall of 20);
said base having an upper portion, a lower portion, said lower portion having a diameter capable of positioning in a cup holder (Fig 1, body has an upper and lower portion, wherein the lower portion is necessarily capable of fitting in a cup holder);
a lid (Fig 1, lid 12),
But Eyal does not explicitly teach a particular thread connection lid to body.
Seiders, however, teaches a similar multi-closure comprising:
a threaded neck at an upper end of said body (Fig 4, inward facing neck thread 162);
a lid which is threadably connectable to said body (Fig 4, lid threaded inner wall 164), said lid having an upper surface, a depending radially inner wall (164), and a depending radially outer wall (166); said depending radially inner wall having a lid thread which engages said threaded neck of said body on a radially inward surface of said threaded neck (162); said depending radially depending outer wall disposed radially outwardly of said threaded neck such that said threaded neck is disposed between said depending radially depending inner wall and said depending radially outer wall (162 is between 166 and 164).
The purpose of a thread connection is to get a tight secure seal. 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 undisclosed attachment surfaces of lid and body of Eyal with a thread as taught by Seiders in order to advantageously increase lid secureness against jostling over Eyal’s fit.
But Eyal/Seiders does not explicitly teach a particular neck shape, and body shoulder.
Lonneman, however, teaches said threaded neck being tapered from a wider lower end to a narrower upper end (see examiner annotated Lonneman Figure 3, hereinafter “EAFL3” below; EAFL3, tapered threaded neck) and an outer surface of said threaded neck being angled from said wider lower end to a location above a thread of said threaded neck (EAFL3 shows a neck portion above its threading is tapered/angled too including its outer face).
The purpose of a taper is to reduce risk of toppling. 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 neck of Eyal/Seiders with a taper as taught by Lonneman in order to advantageously reduce risk of toppling from jostling due to less weight and more central weight in the top of the container.
Also, Lonneman teaches a body shoulder between upper and lower portions (EAFL3, shoulder).
The purpose of a shoulder is to improve grip. 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 body of Eyal with a shoulder as taught by Lonneman in order to advantageously improve ease of gripping and holding by a user during jostling versus an otherwise smooth surface without a shoulder.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the threaded neck of Eyal/Seiders being tapered as modified by Lonneman, and the body of Eyal having a shoulder as added by Lonneman between upper and lower portions of the body of Eyal.
PNG
media_image1.png
564
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Eyal/Seiders/Lonneman does not explicitly teach that said depending outer wall of said lid (Seiders, Fig 4, 166) being transparent makes the body threaded neck visible within said depending outer wall.
Tomlinson, however, teaches the lid outer wall is transparent ([0032] lid of transparent material (e.g. polymer or metal); thereby including its outer wall).
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 lid outer wall of Eyal/Seiders (Seiders, [0071] lid of polymer or metal) to be transparent as taught by Tomlinson in order to advantageously to verify the contents inside like how much a salad is mixed or freshness of contents within, or see the fit on the container body is secure to visually confirm the tactile feeling (Tomlinson, Abstract, Fig 7).
Regarding claim 2, Eyal further teaches said surrounding wall of said body having an outer body wall (Fig 1, outer dashed line) and an inner body wall (Fig 1, inner dashed line) spaced from said outer body wall by a gap (Fig 1, space in between shown).
Regarding claim 3, Eyal further teaches said surrounding wall having a first lower diameter and a second upper diameter (Fig 1 shows an upper diameter of the body proximal the lid/mouth, and a lower diameter of the body proximal the base).
Regarding claim 4, Eyal further teaches said first lower diameter being smaller than said second upper diameter (Fig 1 shows lower base diameter as smaller than upper mouth diameter).
Regarding claim 9, Eyal/Seiders further teaches said inner wall of said lid disposed radially inwardly of said threaded neck (Seiders, Fig 4, 164 is inward of 162). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 10, Eyal does not explicitly teach a particular body neck taper shape.
Seiders, however, teaches a threaded neck being tapered from a thicker lower portion to a thinner upper portion (Fig 15, neck 1430 is thicker in a lower portion than an upper portion).
The purpose of a taper is to be more aesthetically pleasing (Seiders, Fig 14, flush lid to body appearance). 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 threaded neck of Seiders Fig 4 with the tapered threaded neck as taught by Seiders Fig 15 in order to advantageously be more marketable by being more aesthetically pleasing to more users, and beneficially reinforce the neck versus damage from dropping the container by having the thicker portion.
Regarding claim 11, Eyal further teaches said lid having an opening in the upper surface for liquid (Figs 1 and 2A, straw opening 16).
Regarding claim 12, Eyal further teaches a rotatable closure to open and close access for said opening (Figs 2A-2C shows a closure 14 rotating to open (2A) and close (2B/2C) access to 16).
Regarding claim 13, Eyal further teaches said lid having a hub in which said rotatable closure rotates (Fig 6B, a central aperture 29 acts as/is a hub, and closure 14 rotates/pivots around it, Figs 2A-2C).
Regarding claim 15, Eyal further teaches said lid (Fig 1, lid 12) having a channel with stops (Figs 1-2, stops 15 and 18 are shown in a channel defined by the stops) to limit rotation of said rotatable closure at specific positions (15 and 18 limit rotation of closure 14).
Claims 5-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20150136771 by Eyal (hereinafter “Eyal”) in view of US Pub 20170043916 by Seiders et al. (hereinafter “Seiders”) in view of US Pat 5545315 issued to Lonneman (hereinafter “Lonneman”) as evidenced by US Pub 20010043972 by Tomlinson (hereinafter “Tomlinson”) in view of US Pub 20050006386 by von Ronn et al. (hereinafter “Ronn”).
Regarding claim 5, Eyal/Seiders/Lonneman/Tomlinson does not explicitly teach a particular handle placement.
Ronn, however, teaches a similar multi-closure comprising:
a handle extending from on a surrounding wall of a container body (Fig 1, handle 3 extends from a body surrounding wall).
The purpose of a handle is to increase ease of handling. 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 body wall of Eyal with a body handle placement as taught by Ronn in order to advantageously improve grip of the body against condensation by eliminating the need to hold the body itself while pouring, thereby preventing spills or drops from any slipperiness of the body.
Regarding claim 6, Eyal/Ronn does not explicitly teach said handle being three separate distinct portions (“distinct” in light of the Applicant’s specification).
Seiders, however, teaches a handle (Fig 13, 106) comprising an inner portion (grip structure 158 is inner relative to the outer portion, of wood [0071], wherein examiner notes that the materials listed for “cannister 300” of Figure 3, necessarily translates for Figure 13 “cannister 1300”, evidenced by [0078] 1300 is “similar to 300”), a middle portion (u-shaped handle body of 106 is in the middle of the inner and outer portions, of metal [0071]), and an outer portion (hook 154, of polymer [0078]).
The purpose of multiple distinct portions of the handle is to increase utility. 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 handle of Ronn to be multiple parts as taught by Seiders in order to advantageously be a magnetic handle for increased ease of attaching to other surfaces (Seiders, [0073]) or hook onto a fence (Seiders, Fig 13) while remaining comfortable to hold.
Regarding claim 7, Eyal/Seiders/Lonneman/Tomlinson/Ronn further teaches said inner portion and said outer portion being formed of differing materials (Seiders, Fig 13, [0071] [0078], inner grip portion 158 of wood, differs in material from outer hook portion 154 of polymer). See details in the parent claim 6 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 16, Eyal/Seiders/Lonneman/Tomlinson does not explicitly teach a particular handle placement.
Ronn, however, teaches a similar multi-closure comprising:
a handle extending from on a surrounding wall of a container body (Fig 1, handle 3 extends from a body surrounding wall).
The purpose of a handle is to increase ease of handling. 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 body wall of Eyal with a body handle placement as taught by Ronn in order to advantageously improve grip of the body against condensation by eliminating the need to hold the body itself while pouring, thereby preventing spills or drops from slipperiness.
But Eyal/Ronn does not explicitly teach particular handle anchors.
Seiders, however, teaches handle anchors (Fig 2, fasteners 150 anchor through a handle 106, via screws [0075]).
The purpose of anchor and fastener is to make the assembly modular. 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 handle of Ronn with anchors and fasteners as taught by Seiders in order to advantageously increase ease of manufacture and decrease cost of material and parts by using commercially available fasteners, and increase ease of placement in a car cup holder should the user decide to remove the fasteners, and allow for repairs of only the handle should it become damaged from incidental or long term use.
Regarding claim 17, Eyal/Seiders/Lonneman/Tomlinson/Ronn further teaches fasteners disposed through (Seiders, Fig 2, 150 anchor through a handle 106, and has screw fasteners through 106 [0075]) a handle (Ronn, Fig 1, handle 3) and engaging said anchors of said body (Seiders, Fig 2, [0075], screws engage anchors 150). See details in the parent claim 16 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20150136771 by Eyal (hereinafter “Eyal”) in view of US Pub 20170043916 by Seiders et al. (hereinafter “Seiders”) in view of US Pat 5545315 issued to Lonneman (hereinafter “Lonneman”) as evidenced by US Pub 20010043972 by Tomlinson (hereinafter “Tomlinson”) in view of US Pub 20030209547 by Lin (hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 14, Eyal/Seiders/Lonneman/Tomlinson does not explicitly teach said hub (Eyal, Fig 6B, lid central hub 29) having a plurality of positive feedback structure.
Lin, however, teaches a similar multi-closure lid (Fig 13, lid 20) comprising:
a hub having one of scallops or protuberances (Fig 13, lid body 22 having a hub central aperture 24 having reliefs (i.e. “scallops”) formed by shoulder protuberances 26 (i.e. both/either claimed limitations “scallops” and “protuberances”)) to provide a positive feedback in a closure position (Fig 13, feedback is provided via lug protuberances 68 of a closure knob 64 for at least two positions shown (left and right from viewer perspective), [0036] while 64 indexes during rotating and holding it in the lid).
The purpose of positive feedback structures is to more easily discern a closure position. 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 hub of Eyal with scallops/protuberances as taught by Lin in order to advantageously provide intermediate (between open and closed) indexing (Lin, [0036]), and beneficially increase ease of user’s determination of the position of the closure by removing the need for visual confirmation.
Conclusion
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
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733
28 January 2026