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 § 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(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPUB 2011/0084084 to Berg (“Berg”).
This figure, now referred to as Berg annotated Fig. 7, used for the rejection of claims 1-8 has been replicated below, and the Examiner has added reference points for ease of explanation, and said reference points will be used for the rejection of claims 1-8 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Berg teaches a unitary lid for a cup having a lid vertical axis, comprising: an upper portion (gasket 8) having a flexible valve extending outwardly therefrom, the flexible valve defining an upper outer periphery of the lid (Berg Fig. 7 shows the top of the gasket 8 defining an upper outer periphery of the lid); and a lower portion (splash guard 20) having a baffle (baffle, Berg annotated Fig. 7), the baffle including a top surface having one or more openings (openings 22), the baffle defining a lower outer periphery (lower outer periphery, Berg annotated Fig. 7) such that the one or more openings are disposed radially inward of the lower outer periphery of the baffle (Berg annotated Fig. 7 shows the openings 22 disposed radially inward of the lower outer periphery of the baffle), each of the one or more openings defining an opening vertical axis that is substantially parallel to the lid vertical axis, the lid thereby having one or more opening vertical axes; and a cup connecting means (lid connecting means, Berg annotated Fig. 7) disposed on the lower portion, the cup connecting means extending outward and/or downward from the top surface; wherein the upper portion and the lower portion are connected about a center portion (fastening opening 24, fastening groove 28) of the lid that is inward of the one or more openings (Berg annotated Fig. 7 show the fastening opening 24 and the fastening groove 28 are inward of the openings 22); wherein a clearance includes a clearance height (clearance, Berg annotated Fig. 7) is defined as the distance as measured along the opening vertical axis between the plane defined by the top surface where the one or more openings extends through a lower end of the upper portion that is directly above the one or more openings (Berg annotated Fig. 7 shows a distance between the top of the opening through the bottom of the openings); but does not teach wherein the clearance height of at least one of the one or more openings is between about 0.125 inches and about 1 inches.
Berg discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the clearance height of at least one of the one or more openings is between about 0.125 inches and about 1 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the clearance height is between about 0.125 inches and about 1 inches, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 716.02(b) III.
As to claim 2, Berg teaches the unitary lid for the cup according to claim 1, wherein the lower portion and the upper portion are integral, mechanically fastened (Berg, pg. 2, ¶ 0037), and/or chemically fastened.
As to claim 3, Berg teaches the unitary lid for the cup according to claim 1, a clearance length is defined as the distance between where the flexible valve and the baffle connect to the shorter of the lower outer periphery of the baffle and the upper outer periphery of the flexible valve (Berg annotated Fig. 7 show the clearance length between the gasket 8 and the baffle), and wherein a clearance opening is defined as the distance along a projection between a lower surface of the flexible valve outer upper periphery and the top surface of the baffle lower outer periphery (Berg annotated Fig. 7 show the clearance opening between the lower surface of the gasket 8 and the top surface of the baffle).
As to claim 4, Berg discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the clearance height is between about 0.125 inches about 0.25 inches only if either a clearance length is greater than or equal to about 0.5 inches or a clearance opening is greater than or equal to about 0.5 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the clearance height is between about 0.125 inches and about 0.25 inches or a clearance opening is greater than or equal to about 0.5 inches to allow for fluid to flow through the opening, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 716.02(b) III.
As to claim 5, Berg discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the clearance height is at least 0.125 inches for all of the one or more openings. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the clearance height is at least 0.125 inches for all of the one or more openings to allow a user to drink from any spot of the lid, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 716.02(b) III.
As to claim 6, Berg teaches the unitary lid for the cup according to claim 1, wherein the lower portion and upper portion are sealed (Berg, pg. 2, ¶ 0034) to mitigate against any foreign matter from entering into the center portion where the upper portion and the lower portion are connected (Berg, pg. 2, ¶ 0037).
As to claim 7, Berg teaches the unitary lid for the cup according to claim 1, wherein the cup connecting means disposed such that it does not intersect the one or more opening vertical axes (Berg annotated Fig. 7 shows the cup connecting means does not intersect with the opening 22 vertical axes).
As to claim 8, Berg discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the center portion defines a connecting wall having a connecting height of greater than or equal to 0.25 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the connecting height greater than or equal to 0.25 inches to provide a strong connection, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 716.02(b) III.
As to claim 21, Berg teaches the unitary lid for the cup according to claim 1, wherein the upper portion further comprises a grip feature (mid-section 30).
As to claim 22, Berg teaches the unitary lid for the cup according to claim 21, wherein the grip feature is configured in the center portion (Berg Fig. 4 shows the mid-section 30 is in the center portion).
As to claim 23, Berg teaches the unitary lid for the cup according to claim 22, wherein the upper portion further comprises an upper surface (Berg Fig. 4 shows the upper surface of the gasket 8), wherein the upper surface is downwardly tapered from the upper outer periphery to the center portion (Berg Fig. 4 shows the upper surface is downwardly tapered from the upper outer periphery to the center portion).
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg in view of U.S. PGPUB 2020/0154916 A1 to Cudworth et al. (“Cudworth”).
As to claim 24, Berg teaches the unitary lid for the cup according to claim 23, but does not teach wherein the upper surface is upwardly tapered from the center portion to the grip feature.
Cudworth teaches wherein the upper surface (Cudworth Fig. 1 shows the upper surface of the valve element 110 is upwardly tapered from the center to the sealing cap 150) is upwardly tapered from the center portion to the grip feature (sealing cap 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the upwardly extending sealing cap of Cudworth with the lid as taught by Berg to give structural integrity to the valve assembly while allowing for a soft surface to contact the user’s lips (Cudworth, pg. 7-8, ¶ 0133).
As to claim 25, Berg teaches the unitary lid for the cup according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the cup connecting means includes one or more cup connecting threads.
Cudworth teaches wherein the cup connecting means includes one or more cup connecting threads (screw thread 134).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the screw thread of Cudworth with the lid as taught by Berg to provide a water-tight seal (Cudworth, pg. 6, ¶ 0123).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant teaches in the specification that a “unitary” lid could be the first portion and the second portion attached to each other by mechanical means (Specification ¶ 0060). Therefore the connection of the gasket 8 to the valve element 4 of Berg teaches a unitary lid.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a unitary lid – “the baffle and the flexible valve are in a unitary lid that are not meant to be separated by the user” paragraph 20 specification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
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.
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.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON LYNN POOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7427. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 10-3 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 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.
/M.L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights