DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and species III in the reply filed on 1/7/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5-7 and 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a tapered portion located between the indented sidewall portion and the curved sidewall” but the tapered portion is part of the indented sidewall portion so it is unclear how the tapered portion can be located between itself and something else.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US-20220097916-A1) in view of Whitworth et al. (US-20240400288-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a container (10) , comprising: a canister (12) comprising: a double wall structure (Fig. 4) comprising: an interior lower portion ;an exterior lower portion; a first end (26), configured to support the canister on a surface; and a second end (20), wherein the first end and the second end are separated by a curved sidewall (24) forming a substantially cylindrical shape of the canister (par. 0023), wherein the curved sidewall comprises one or more indented sidewall portions located within a portion of the curved sidewall (Fig. 3), an opening (22) in the second end extending through the double wall structure (Fig. 4); and a neck structure encircling the opening and extending in an axial direction (Fig. 4); and a lid (14) adapted to seal the opening, the lid comprising a threaded sidewall configured to be received onto the neck structure (par. 0023).
Smith fails to teach a cavity located between the interior lower portion and the exterior lower portion, wherein the one or more indented sidewall portions includes a tapered portion located between the indented sidewall portion and the curved sidewall.
Whitworth teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container with a cavity between a double walled structure (par. 0033) and with a tapered portion in the container sidewall (Figs. 2, 5, 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container of Smith with the insulation structure taught by Whitworth, in order to insulate contents of the container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container with the tapered portion taught by Whitworth, in order to make the container easier to grasp.
Regarding claim 2, the modified container of Smith teaches wherein the cavity is filled with one of the following: air to form an air pocket within the cavity or an insulating material, wherein the insulating material is a polymer foam material (Whitworth, par. 0064).
Regarding claim 3, the modified container of Smith fails to teach the specific dimensions, but It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the indent with the claimed size, in order to adjust how easy it was to grasp and since such a modification would have been a change in size of an existing component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US-20220097916-A1) in view of Whitworth et al. (US-20240400288-A1) and Jinkins et al. (US-11447309-B2).
The modified container of Smith teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above, but fails to teach wherein a vacuum is maintained between the interior lower portion and the exterior lower portion forming a vacuum cavity between the interior lower portion and the exterior lower portion.
Jinkins teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a double wall container with a vacuum between walls (co. 15, lines 46-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the container of Smith with the vacuum insulation structure taught by Jinkins, in order to insulate contents of the container and reduce the material used.
Claim(s) 8-9, 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US-20220097916-A1) in view of Whitworth et al. (US-20240400288-A1), as applied above, and further in view of Britto et al. (US-20100170902-A1).
Regarding claim 8, The modified container of Smith teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above and a lid top (Smith, 32), the lid top having a top surface, and a rotatable spout (Smith, 38), wherein the rotatable spout rotates between the closed position (Smith, Fig. 4) and an open position (Smith, Fig. 5), the rotatable spout includes a first end that includes a drinking end and a second end (Smith, 36) opposite the first end that includes a valve that opens and closes with rotation of the rotatable spout (Smith, Fig. 5), wherein the top surface includes a spout slot (Smith, 34) that contains the rotatable spout when the rotatable spout is in the closed position; and a lid bottom that includes a straw (Smith, 46) and a straw port extending from the lid bottom and in communication with the rotating spout, wherein the straw port is sized and shaped to accept the straw configured for dispensing the contents of the container (Fig. 5).
Smith fails to teach a slider to slidably cover the rotatable spout when the rotatable spout is in a closed position, wherein the slider is configured to move between a locked position and an unlocked position to selectively cover or uncover the rotatable spout.
Britto teaches that it is know in the art to manufacture a straw lid with a slider (210) to slidably cover the rotatable spout when the rotatable spout is in a closed position, wherein the slider is configured to move between a locked position and an unlocked position to selectively cover or uncover the rotatable spout (Fugs. 2, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the lid of Smith with a slider, as taught by Britto, in order to protect the straw when not in use.
Regarding claim 9, The modified container of Smith teaches wherein the slider moves along a guide channel located in a central opening on the lid top causing one or more flanges of the slider to uncover the rotatable spout (Britto, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, The modified container of Smith teaches a container (Smith, 10), comprising: a bottom portion, comprising: a double wall insulated structure (Smith, 12, Fig. 4) comprising an interior lower portion, an exterior lower portion, and a cavity located between the interior lower portion and the exterior lower portion (Whitworth, par. 0033); a first end (Smith, 26) configured to support the container on a surface; a second end (Smith, 20) having an opening; a curved sidewall (Smith, 20) extending between the first end and the second end forming a substantially cylindrical shape of the bottom portion (Smith, par. 0033), and a neck structure encircling the opening and extending in an axial direction (Smith, Fig. 4); a lid (Smith, 14) adapted to resealably seal the opening, the lid comprising: a threaded sidewall configured to be received onto the neck structure (Smith, par. 0023); a lid top (Smith, 32), the lid top having a top surface and a slider (Britto, 210) to slidably cover a rotatable spout when the rotatable spout is in a closed position, wherein the rotatable spout rotates between the closed position (Fig. 4) and an open position (Fig. 5), wherein the slider is configured to move between a locked position and an unlocked position to selectively cover or uncover the rotatable spout (Britto, Figs. 2, 3); and a lid bottom that includes a straw (Smith, 46) configured for dispensing the contents of the container; and a carry handle (Smith, 18), rotatably coupled to a cylindrical sidewall of the lid (Smith, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, The modified container of Smith teaches wherein the rotatable spout includes a first end that includes a drinking end and a second end opposite the first end that includes a valve that opens and closes with rotation of the rotatable spout (Smith, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, The modified container of Smith teaches wherein the top surface includes a spout slot (Smith, 34) that contains the rotatable spout when the rotatable spout is in the closed position.
Regarding claim 17, The modified container of Smith teaches wherein the lid bottom includes a straw port extending from the lid bottom and in communication with the rotating spout, wherein the straw port is sized and shaped to accept the straw (Smith, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, The modified container of Smith teaches wherein the slider moves along a guide channel located in a central opening on the lid top causing one or more flanges of the slider to uncover the rotatable spout (Britto, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, The modified container of Smith teaches wherein the carry handle includes at least one fence hook (Smith, 18A) integrated into the carry handle, the at least one fence hook with an arm portion that extends away from the carry handle.
Claims 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US-20220097916-A1) in view of Whitworth et al. (US-20240400288-A1) and Britto et al. (US-20100170902-A1), as applied above, and further in view of Seiders et al. (US-10124942-B2).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the modified container of Smith teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach wherein the lid further comprises one or more magnets, with a first positioning magnet located within the slider, a second positioning magnet and a third positioning magnet located within the lid top, wherein the first positioning magnet aligns with the second positioning magnet to selectively maintain the slider in the unlocked position where the slider uncovers the rotatable spout, and the first positioning magnet aligns with the third positioning magnet to selectively maintain the slider in the locked position.
Seiders teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a slider assembly with one or more magnets, with a first positioning magnet located within the slider, a second positioning magnet and a third positioning magnet located within the lid top, wherein the first positioning magnet aligns with the second positioning magnet to selectively maintain the slider in the unlocked position, and the first positioning magnet aligns with the third positioning magnet to selectively maintain the slider in the locked position (col. 7, lines 34-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the slider and lid with magnets, in order to better secure the slider in different positions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733