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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 in response to Office Action 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that previously secondary prior art Zabaleta protrusions 152 are not the claimed channels (page 12, C, para 2). Examiner points out it never was cited to be so. Applicant argues that Zabaleta does not teach the claimed channels in general (page 12, C, para 3 to page 13 para’s end). Examiner disagrees, pointing to the new grounds necessitated by amendment, and allowed by RCE regardless, using different aspects of Zabaleta which is now the primary prior art in the analysis in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues previous primary prior art Larsen (pages 9-12, B), previous combination Larsen/Zabaleta (pages 13-14, C), said combination’s simple substitution rationale (pages 14-15, D), previous combination Larsen/Zabaleta motivation (pages 15-17, E), claim 9 with respect to previous combination Larsen/Zabaleta (page 17, F) and dependents referring to previous combination Larsen/Zabaleta (pages 18-21, G). However, the arguments are moot over the new grounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The elongate protrusions have an elongate shape width greater than height on the inner surface from parent claim 1, so cannot be a circle as claimed “circular”, as circles are by definition never elongate.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The elongated protrusion is already of an elongate shape on the inner surface in parent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, 14, 21-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub 20230021579 by Zabaleta et al. (hereinafter “Zabaleta”).
Regarding claim 1, Zabaleta teaches a beverage container assembly (Fig 64, 300), comprising:
a cup (Fig 64, a cup is container component 301 shown as a cup shape), comprising:
a first end having a base (Fig 64, annular base 304 in a first cup end), a second end having a rim that defines an opening (Fig 64, a rim of 301 is shown labeled 308 defining an opening in a second cup end), and a sidewall extending between the first end and the second end (Fig 64, sidewall 302), 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, wherein each width extends along a circumferential direction of the inner surface (Fig 64, a plurality of elongated protrusions are translative motion guide features 352, spaced along an inner surface of 301, Fig 66, each 352 elongate by having a circumferential width greater than its vertical height, and each 352 at least partially extends toward the central axis of 301); and
a lid (Figs 62 & 64, a lid cap 360), comprising:
a plurality of channels (Fig 64, a plurality of channels is translative motion guide features 381) configured to receive the plurality of elongated protrusions and spaced about a circumference of the lid (Fig 62, each channel 381 receives each elongated protrusion 352), each channel having an opening sized to receive one of the plurality of elongated protrusions (Fig 62, 381A defines an opening of each channel 381; 381A acts as 181A per [0706], wherein [0653] “A cap translative motion guide feature leader end 181A of the cap translative motion guide feature 181 initially engages the cap translative motion guide feature 181 with the lid translative motion guide feature 152”), an end-surface opposite the opening (Fig 62, an end surface of each 381 is shown proximal label lead line 381E), and an at least partially sloped channel wall between the opening and the end-surface (Fig 62, at least one partially sloped wall of the channel is between 381A and 381E);
a ring of compressible material positioned on the lid (Fig 62, “annular sealing member 365” is a compressible material on the lid; wherein [0706] “The resealable container cap 260 and the resealable container cap 360 include a number of like elements. Like elements are numbered the same, wherein elements of the resealable container cap 360 are preceded by the numeral “3”.”; and so 365 is like 265, since [0699] “the cap upper annular sealing member 265… utilize a compressible material to create the seal between facing surfaces”); and wherein
translating the plurality of elongated protrusions through the plurality of channels after the plurality of elongated protrusions are inserted through the openings shifts the lid along the central axis of the cup (Fig 67, each protrusion 352 inserts into and translates through each channel 381 via each opening 381A, shifting the lid 360 along the cup central axis; [0709] “each at least one cap translative motion guide feature 381 would be rotationally engaging with a respective nesting container body translative motion guide feature 352 translating the rotational motion into an axial motion”) and compresses the ring of compressible material against the rim (Fig 67 shows 365 compressed against the cup rim 308).
Regarding claim 2, Zabaleta further teaches each elongated protrusion slopes as it transitions towards its apex (Fig 66, 352 slopes towards its apex from its top (or bottom)).
Regarding claim 3, 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]; Fig 66, the apex of 352 has a substantially flat outer surface).
Regarding claim 4, Zabaleta further teaches each elongated protrusion has a circular shape on the inner surface (Figs 66, 352 is circular on the cup sidewall inner surface, because [0656] “152 can be other suitable shapes, such as a circular protrusion, an oval protrusion, an elliptical protrusion, a cam shaped protrusion, or any other suitable shape that is compatible with the cam track”, wherein 352 is like 152, since [0706] “Like elements are numbered the same… preceded by the numeral “3”.”; further disclosed in [0727] [0734]).
Regarding claim 5, Zabaleta further teaches each elongated protrusion has an elongated shape on the inner surface (Figs 66, elongate protrusion 352 is elongate in the circumferential width direction on the cup sidewall inner surface).
Regarding claim 8, Zabaleta further teaches each elongated protrusion, upon insertion into one of the plurality of channels, has a friction fit (Fig 67, said insertion (claim 1) [0709] of each 352 into 381 is “engaging” thereby necessarily has friction making it a friction fit engagement).
Regarding claim 10, Zabaleta 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 (Fig 66, each of at least four 352 shown is axially spaced a distance from the cup rim 308 and from each other on the inner surface circumferentially approximately equally, Fig 50, [0655] “equidistantly spaced between one another”).
Regarding claim 11, Zabaleta teaches a sealable container assembly (Fig 64, “resealable container 300”), comprising:
a container (Fig 64, a cup is container component 301 shown as a cup shape), comprising:
a first end having a base (Fig 64, annular base 304 in a first cup end), a second end having a rim that defines an opening (Fig 64, a rim of 301 is shown labeled 308 defining an opening in a second cup end), and a sidewall extending between the first end and the second end (Fig 64, sidewall 302), 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 towards a central axis of the container, wherein each width extends along a circumferential direction of the inner surface (Fig 64, a plurality of elongated protrusions are translative motion guide features 352, spaced along an inner surface of 301, Fig 66, each 352 elongate by having a circumferential width greater than its vertical height, and each 352 at least partially extends toward the central axis of 301); and
a lid (Figs 62 & 64, a lid cap 360), comprising:
a plurality of channels (Fig 64, a plurality of channels is translative motion guide features 381) configured to receive the plurality of protrusions and spaced about a circumference of the lid (Fig 62, each channel 381 receives each elongated protrusion 352), each channel having an opening sized to receive one of the plurality of protrusions (Fig 62, 381A defines an opening of each channel 381; 381A acts as 181A per [0706], wherein [0653] “A cap translative motion guide feature leader end 181A of the cap translative motion guide feature 181 initially engages the cap translative motion guide feature 181 with the lid translative motion guide feature 152”), an end-surface opposite the opening (Fig 62, an end surface of each 381 is shown proximal label lead line 381E), and an at least partially sloped channel wall between the opening and the end-surface (Fig 62, at least one partially sloped wall of the channel is between 381A and 381E);
a ring of compressible material positioned on the lid (Fig 62, “annular sealing member 365” is a compressible material on the lid; wherein [0706] “The resealable container cap 260 and the resealable container cap 360 include a number of like elements. Like elements are numbered the same, wherein elements of the resealable container cap 360 are preceded by the numeral “3”.”; and so 365 is like 265, wherein [0699] “the cap upper annular sealing member 265… utilize a compressible material to create the seal between facing surfaces”); and wherein
translating the plurality of protrusions through the plurality of channels after the plurality of protrusions are inserted through the openings shifts the lid along the central axis of the container (Fig 67, each protrusion 352 inserts into and translates through each channel 381 via each opening 381A, shifting the lid 360 along the cup central axis; [0709] “each at least one cap translative motion guide feature 381 would be rotationally engaging with a respective nesting container body translative motion guide feature 352 translating the rotational motion into an axial motion”) and compresses the ring of compressible material against the rim (Fig 67 shows 365 compressed against the cup rim 308).
Regarding claim 12, Zabaleta further teaches the plurality of protrusions comprise at least four protrusions spaced apart on the inner surface by approximately equal circumferential distances (Fig 66, each of at least four 352 shown is spaced from each other on the inner surface circumferentially approximately equally, Fig 50, [0655] “equidistantly spaced between one another”).
Regarding claim 14, Zabaleta 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 64 & 66, as said in [0706] 352 is like 152, wherein [0656] each “152 is formed… emboss.” Meaning each 352 on the inner surface has a surface shown integrally co-extensive with the inner surface, because it must by being an emboss (i.e. intersecting surface portions of exact same extent)).
Regarding claim 21, Zabaleta further teaches the at least partially sloped channel wall is at least partially curved or contoured (Fig 66, each partially sloped wall portion of each 381 is shown curved/contoured).
Regarding claim 22, Zabaleta further the ring of compressible material begins to compress against the rim before each elongated protrusion reaches the end-surface of a corresponding channel (Fig 62, as said in [0706] and [0699] (see claim 1 details), 365 necessarily begins to compress during rotation/insertion toward the assembled/locked/end surface position at the end of rotation, as in the said translating because of the axial motion that occurs [0709]).
Regarding claim 24, Zabaleta further teaches the ring of compressible material comprises rubber, foam, soft plastic, or a polymeric material (Fig 62, as said in [0706] and [0699] (see claim 1 details), 365 is further [0699] “low durometer plastic” (soft plastic), “rubber” or a polymeric material “HDPE, LDPE, PET or PEHD”).
Regarding claim 25, Zabaleta further teaches each elongated protrusion is integrally formed with the inner surface through molding, such that a surface of each elongated protrusion and the inner surface of the sidewall are co-extensive (Figs 64 & 66, as said in [0706] 352 is like 152, wherein [0656] each “152 is formed… emboss.” Meaning each 352 on the inner surface has a surface shown co-extensive with the inner surface, because it must by being an emboss (i.e. intersecting surface portions of exact same extent), and emboss meaning integrally molded).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20230021579 by Zabaleta et al. (hereinafter “Zabaleta”) in view of US Pub 20080257849 by Farrar et al. (hereinafter “Farrar”).
Regarding claim 9, Zabaleta further teaches the plurality of channels each comprise a length such that (Fig 66, each channel 381 has a length/width), when the plurality of elongated protrusions are inserted into the plurality of channels, the lid rotates into a locked position in which each elongated protrusion is abutted against the end-surface of a corresponding channel (Fig 67, as said in [0706] each channel end surface proximal 381E acts as 181E and 352 as 152 (claim 1 details), wherein [0653] “Upon engagement of the cap translative motion guide feature locking end 181E with the lid translative motion guide feature 152”, meaning the lid is rotated into a locked position with each protrusion 352 inserted into each channel 381, each 352 abutted to the end surface of 381).
But Zabaleta does not explicitly teach a particular lid rotation range (Zabaleta, [0693] “desired degree of rotation” is merely considered by many factors).
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 before the time the invention was filed, 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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20230021579 by Zabaleta et al. (hereinafter “Zabaleta”).
Regarding claim 23, Zabaleta further teaches the plurality of elongated protrusions spaced about the inner surface by approximately equal circumferential distances (Fig 66, [0706] 352 is like 152; [0655] “six (6) lid translative motion guide features 152 (preferably equidistantly spaced between one another), or any other suitable number of lid translative motion guide features 152”).
But Zabaleta does not explicitly teach eight protrusions.
Zabaleta, however, discloses considering more the plurality of elongated protrusions ([0655]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to have duplicated two of the six to total eight protrusions, since it has been held that although the reference did not disclose the claimed plurality of ribs (i.e. protrusions), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (i.e. lid multi-start threaded sealing with the lid compressible ring still occurs as expected). MPEP 2144.04 VI-B Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
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
Prosecution Insights