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 .
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 1-16 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.
Claim1 recites a “transverse hinge’. It is unclear if a transverse hinge is one that extends along a line that is transverse to the front and back section or if the hinge itself is a straight line that is transverse.
Claim 16 recite wherein the recessed drinking portions is formed in a closed position. It is unclear if these claims are drawn to a process of using the lid, or a process of manufacturing the lid, or if they are drawn to the physical structure of the lid.
The remainder of the office action is based on the examiner’s best understanding of the claims.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wood et al. (US-20190276199-A1).
Wood discloses:
1. A strawless drinking lid (101) for a container (20), comprising: a mounting portion defining (102) an outer perimeter; a perimeter wall (at 103) disposed inwardly from the mounting portion, the perimeter wall extending upwardly relative the mounting portion and having an outer surface facing the mounting portion and an inner surface opposite the outer surface; a center portion extending inwardly from the inner surface of the perimeter wall (par. 0211, Fig. 6); and a recessed drinking portion (107) extending from the center portion (Fig. 6), the recessed drinking portion including an upper surface having a front section (at 108) and a back section (opposite 108) with a transverse hinge therebetween (par. 0100, the hinge extends along a transverse lie so it is transverse to the degree claimed), the front section having a front edge proximate a ledge extending from the inner surface of the perimeter wall (Fig. 5); the recessed drinking portion having a closed configuration with the upper surface having an undeformed concave shape relative to the center portion and the front edge adjacent the ledge extending from the inner surface of the perimeter wall, and the recessed drinking portion having an open configuration (Fig. 6) with the back section of the upper surface deformed upwardly to define an opening between the front edge and the ledge extending from the inner surface of the perimeter wall (par. 0117).
2. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 1, wherein the recessed drinking portion is configured to be moved from the closed configuration toward the open configuration by an external opening force applied on the front section of the upper surface to deform the front section relative to the center portion (par. 0212).
3. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 1, wherein the recessed drinking portion is configured to be moved from the open configuration toward the closed configuration by an external closing force applied on the back section of the upper surface to return the back section to the undeformed concave shape (par. 0212, Fig. 6).
4. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 2, wherein the front section is configured to conform to the hinge in the open configuration, and wherein the front section inverts upwardly as the front section conforms to the hinge (par. 0023, Fig. 6).
5. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 1, wherein the front edge is a curve defined along an interface between the upper surface of the recessed drinking portion and the ledge extending from the inner surface of the perimeter wall (Fig. 5).
6. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 1, wherein the hinge is a curve defined along an interface between the front section and the back section of the upper surface (Fig. 6).
7. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 1, wherein the front edge of the recessed drinking portion is defined by a cut, perforation or score (108).
8. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 1, wherein the perimeter wall has a front wall segment (104) and a back wall segment (105), wherein the front wall segment has a maximum height greater than a maximum height of the back wall segment (par. 0211).
9. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 8, wherein the front wall segment tapers down from the maximum height of the front wall segment to the maximum height of the back wall segment (Fig. 5).
10. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 9, wherein the front wall segment has a maximum height of approximately 0.38 to 0.75 inch relative to a top of the mounting portion (par. 0211, “approximately” allows for variation).
11. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 1, wherein the mounting portion is configured to engage an upper rim of a container (par. 0211).
12. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 1, wherein the mounting portion includes an inner shelf extending radially inward to the outer surface of the perimeter wall (lower edge of 102).
13. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 1, wherein the outer perimeter defined by the mounting portion is circular in plan view (Fig. 6).
14. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 1, wherein the strawless drinking lid consists essentially of a single-piece thermoformed polymer article (par. 0234).
15. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 1, wherein recessed drinking portion is configured to deform past a point of maximum opening stress to hold the lid in the open configuration (the lid is capable of this use based on material and structure).
16. (Original) The strawless drinking lid of claim 1, wherein the recessed drinking portion can be formed in the closed position (product by process)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 13-18 of copending Application No. 18/606,575 in view of Wood et al. (US-20190276199-A1). The copending application claims all the same limitations of the current application with a drinking portion except that the drinking portion is a raised portion rather than a recessed portion with hinge. Wood teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a drinking portion to be a recessed drinking portion as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the copending claims with a recessed drinking portion, in order to adjust the profile of the lid and since such a modification would be a simple substitution of a raised drinking portion for a recessed drinking portion.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The hinge taught by the prior art of record is a transverse hinge to the same degree claimed by applicant and the concavity structure is claimed broadly enough that the structure of the prior at of record meets the limitations. The claims would have to be further amended to more particularly recite the features of the applicant’s invention in order to distinguish of the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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 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