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 .
Response to Arguments
The specification objection has been overcome in the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2025 in response to Office Action 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that since secondary prior art Zabaleta teaches the elongate protrusion’s width along the circumferential direction of a lid, it cannot be read on by primary prior art Larsen since the protrusion must be on a container sidewall as claimed (page 10 para 4 “First”). Examiner points out this is merely piecemeal analysis since primary art Larsen teaches the protrusion being on a container sidewall first. Zabaleta then is modifying the protrusion in a similar bayonet type threading, not the wall it is on.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that secondary prior art Zabaleta’s protrusion-to-track fastening arrangement is opposite of the claim because the protrusion is not on a sidewall inner surface of a cup (pages 10-11, para “Second”). In other words, since Zabaleta’s protrusions are on a cap, even though that cap is welded to the container, it cannot be used to modify the protrusions of Larsen. Examiner points out this is merely piecemeal analysis since primary art Larsen teaches the protrusion being on a cup sidewall inner surface first. Zabaleta then is modifying the protrusion in a similar bayonet type threading, not the wall it is on.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Zabaleta’s other disclosure does not read on the claim limitations (page 11 para 1 “Third”). Examiner points out that this anticipatory argument is moot since nothing argued is in the rejection analysis below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the same thing again (please see above), and that since the simple substitution rationale lacks a motivation/reason it is improper (page 11 remaining). Examiner points out it is proper without a reasoning because it is simple substitution.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that: Larsen’s protrusion geometry change via Zabaleta would render Larsen inoperable through Larsen’s channels, and simply substituting in a seemingly conclusory manner is impermissible hindsight (page 12 para 1). Examiner points out that Larsen as modified would be operable to a POSITA, and the simple substitution is not conclusory, it is properly written (as stated above). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Meaning Zabaleta was known, and Larsen was known, and since they’re both the same type (bayonet/multi-thread, as cited) nothing was gleaned from Applicant’s disclosure. In other words, a POSITA need only choose simple structure in order to substitute the threading structure for expected results.
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 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 5702020 issued to Larsen (hereinafter “Larsen”) in view of US Pub 20230021579 by Zabaleta et al. (hereinafter “Zabaleta”).
Regarding claim 1, Larsen teaches a beverage container assembly (Title, Fig 1, a beverage container assembly is a drinking mug), comprising:
a cup (Fig 1, 1), comprising:
a first end having a base (Fig 1, the base of 1), a second end having a rim that defines an opening (Fig 2, a rim is edge 9 defining an opening), and a sidewall extending between the first end and the second end (Fig 1, the sidewall of 1), the sidewall having
an inner surface with a plurality of elongated protrusions spaced about a circumference of the inner surface, each elongated protrusion having a width greater than a height and extending at least partially towards a central axis of the cup (see examiner annotated Larsen Figures 1-2, hereinafter “EAFL12”; EAFL12, elongated protrusions 11 spaced about a circumference inner surface are shown with width greater than height); and
a lid (Fig 1, 3), comprising:
a plurality of channels configured to receive the plurality of elongated protrusions and spaced about a circumference of the lid, each channel having an opening that is alignable with one of the plurality of elongated protrusions (Fig 1, a plurality of channels about a circumference of 3 that are alignable are cutouts 30), wherein inserting the plurality of protrusions into the elongated protrusions of channels removably couples the lid to the cup (Fig 2, 11 inserted into 30 shown removably coupled).
PNG
media_image1.png
613
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Larsen does not explicitly teach that the width extends along a circumferential direction of the cup inner surface.
Zabaleta, however, teaches a similar multi-start threaded type lid for a cup comprising:
each width extends along a circumferential direction (Figs 1, 13 & 15, elongate protrusions in a circumferential width direction are translative motion guide feature 152 as a “rectangle with rounded ends”, [0656]; wherein in light of dependent claims 2-3, 152 slopes towards its apex from its top (or bottom), and the apex of 152 has a substantially flat surface, Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elongate width direction of Larsen’s elongate protrusion to be circumferential instead of radial, having the teachings of Zabaleta (as above, and discloses the same shape ([0656] considers 152 to be other shapes including a “circular protrusion”) as from Larsen), as it is no more than a simple substitution of one multi-start/bayonet fastener protrusion type for another that is known in the art for securing a multi-start/bayonet threaded lid and would only produce the predictable results of securing closed the lid. MPEP 2143 I-B.
(wherein in light of related elements in dependent claims 2-5, Zabaleta further teaches:
Fig 1, 152 slopes towards its apex from its top (or bottom);
Fig 6, the apex of 152 has a substantially flat outer surface;
Figs 4 & 6, each 152 is circularly curved from the circular surface it extends from, thereby positioned as such on Larsen’s cup inner surface)
Regarding claim 2, Larsen/Zabaleta further teaches each elongated protrusion slopes as it transitions towards its apex (Zabaleta, Fig 1, 152 slopes towards its apex from its top (or bottom)). 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 3, Larsen/Zabaleta further teaches each elongated protrusion comprises an outer surface that is substantially flat (examiner notes that “substantially flat” includes “generally curved” by Applicant definition [0031]; Zabaleta, Fig 6, the apex of 152 has a substantially flat outer surface). 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 4, Larsen/Zabaleta further teaches each elongated protrusion has a circular shape on the inner surface (Zabaleta, Figs 4 & 6, each 152 is circularly curved from the circular surface it extends from, thereby positioned as such on Larsen’s cup inner surface). 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 5, Larsen/Zabaleta further teaches each elongated protrusion has an elongated shape on the inner surface (Zabaleta, Figs 1 & 4, elongate protrusion elongate in the circumferential width direction 152). 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 6, Larsen further teaches the plurality of channels each include a channel wall that is at least partially sloped (Fig 2B, inclined section 41 of 30), such that translating the plurality of elongated protrusions through the plurality of channels shifts the lid along the central axis (Fig 2A, 11 translated through 30 shifts the lid about its central axis) thereby increasing a pressure of the lid against the rim (col 4, lines 13-15, Fig 2A, the lid exerts pressure on the rim, “sealing ring 29… of elastomer material… ensures that the joint between the lid 3 and the cup 1 is airtight”, since the joint/engagement cannot be airtight if not exerting pressure on the elastomer (examiner notes also that threading is well-known to apply pressure)).
Regarding claim 7, Larsen further teaches the lid comprises a ring of compressible material that compresses against the rim as the plurality of elongated protrusions are translated through the plurality of channels (see claim 6 above, “sealing ring of elastomer material”, is pressured against the rim).
Regarding claim 8, Larsen further teaches each elongated protrusion, upon insertion into one of the plurality of channels, has a friction fit (col 2, lines 25-30, though the joint is formed “relatively smooth” without “great frictional forces arising”, this disclosure necessarily means that frictional forces do arise, though not great, and the source of the friction is the elongated protrusions and channels, meaning reasonably they are friction fit).
Regarding claim 10, Larsen further teaches the plurality of elongated protrusions comprise at least four elongated protrusions that are spaced about the inner surface by approximately equal circumferential distances, each of the four elongated protrusions also spaced a distance from the rim along the central axis (col 3, lines 58-60, “Along the [rim] edge 9 of the cup and at a short distance from the edge 9 there are four pins 11 which are arranged at mutually equal distances.”).
Regarding claim 11, Larsen teaches a sealable container assembly (Title, Fig 1, a beverage container assembly is a drinking mug, sealable by sealing ring 29), comprising:
a container (Fig 1, 1), comprising:
a first end having a base (Fig 1, the base of 1), a second end having a rim that defines an opening (Fig 2, a rim is edge 9 defining an opening), and a sidewall extending between the first end and the second end (Fig 1, the sidewall of 1), the sidewall comprising
an inner surface having a plurality of protrusions spaced about a circumference of the inner surface, each protrusion having a width greater than a height and extending at least partially toward a central axis of the container (EAFL12, elongated protrusions 11 spaced about a circumference inner surface are shown with width greater than height); and
a lid (Fig 1, 3), comprising:
a plurality of channels configured to receive the plurality of protrusions and spaced about a circumference of the lid, each channel having an opening that is alignable with one of the plurality of protrusions (Fig 1, a plurality of channels about a circumference of 3 that are alignable are cutouts 30), wherein inserting the plurality of protrusions into the plurality of channels removably couples the lid to the container (Fig 2, 11 inserted into 30 shown removably coupled).
But Larsen does not explicitly teach that the width extends along a circumferential direction of the cup inner surface.
Zabaleta, however, teaches a similar multi-start threaded type lid for a cup comprising:
each width extends along a circumferential direction (Figs 1, 13 & 15, elongate protrusions in a circumferential width direction are translative motion guide feature 152 as a “rectangle with rounded ends”, [0656]; wherein in light of dependent claims 2-3, 152 slopes towards its apex from its top (or bottom), and the apex of 152 has a substantially flat surface, Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elongate width direction of Larsen’s elongate protrusion to be circumferential instead of radial, having the teachings of Zabaleta (as above, and discloses the same shape ([0656] considers 152 to be other shapes including a “circular protrusion”) as from Larsen), as it is no more than a simple substitution of one multi-start/bayonet fastener protrusion type for another that is known in the art for securing a multi-start/bayonet threaded lid and would only produce the predictable results of securing closed the lid. MPEP 2143 I-B.
Regarding claim 12, Larsen further teaches the plurality of protrusions comprise at least four protrusions spaced apart on the inner surface by approximately equal circumferential distances (col 3, lines 58-60, “Along the [rim] edge 9 of the cup and at a short distance from the edge 9 there are four pins 11 which are arranged at mutually equal distances.”).
Regarding claim 13, Larsen further teaches the lid includes a ring of compressible material, and wherein the plurality of channels each include a channel wall that is at least partially sloped (Fig 2B, inclined section 41 of 30), so that translating the plurality of protrusions through the plurality of channels shifts the lid along the central axis (Fig 2A, 11 translated through 30 shifts the lid), increasing a pressure on the compressible material located between the lid and the rim (col 4, lines 13-15, Fig 2A, the lid exerts pressure on the rim, “sealing ring 29… of elastomer material… ensures that the joint between the lid 3 and the cup 1 is airtight”, since the joint/engagement cannot be airtight if not exerting pressure on the elastomer).
Regarding claim 14, Larsen further teaches the plurality of protrusions are integrally formed with the inner surface, such that a surface of each protrusion and the inner surface of the sidewall are co-extensive (Figs 1-2, protrusions 11 are shown integral, thereby coextensive with the container inner surface).
Regarding claim 15, Larsen further teaches a sidewall of each channel is at least partially non-linear, such that shifting the plurality of protrusions through the plurality of channels translates the lid along the central axis (Fig 2B, inclined section 41 of 30, being angled therefore partially non-linear, shows translating the lid upward along the cup central axis).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 5702020 issued to Larsen (hereinafter “Larsen”) in view of US Pub 20230021579 by Zabaleta et al. (hereinafter “Zabaleta”) in view of US Pub 20080257849 by Farrar et al. (hereinafter “Farrar”).
Regarding claim 9, Larsen further teaches the plurality of channels (Fig 1, 30) each comprise a length such that (Fig 2B, a length of 30), when the plurality of elongated protrusions are inserted into the plurality of channels (Fig 2, inserted), the lid rotates into a locked position in which each elongated protrusion is abutted against an end of a corresponding channel (Fig 2B, 11 is abutted against an end of 30, lid rotates into locked position).
But Larsen/Zabaleta does not explicitly teach a particular lid rotation range.
Farrar, however, teaches similar thread segments of 15 degrees or less for travel of protrusion in channel (Fig 3, [0022] “thread segments [21] preferably each extend no more than 30 degrees, more preferably no more than 15 degrees, especially no more than 10 degrees of arc around the internal circumference of the container body”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as taught by Farrar (15 or 10 degrees of extension i.e. travel during rotation), to optimize and arrive at 15 degrees or less, recognizing that a decrease in required rotation is directly correlated to an increase in quickness of connection thereby increased ease of use, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US 5542206 - circumferentially elongate protrusion 56 of container cup rim slides in lid channel 54 (Figs 2 & 4-5)
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 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 16 April 2026
Prosecution Insights