uDETAILED 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
Claims 14-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/30/2025.
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 1-8 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 the limitations "the distance" and "the plane" in lines 13 and 14 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3, line 1 the applicant says “The lid for the cup according to claim 1, clearance length is”, however the claim is missing an article before “clearance length”.
Claim 3, line 3 the applicant says, “…and the outer upper periphery…” however it should be “the upper outer periphery” to match claim 1.
Claim 3, line 2-4, the applicant says, “to where the shorter of the lower outer periphery of the baffle and the outer upper periphery of the flexible valve” this limitation is missing a statement of location. Maybe “where” should be deleted.
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 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 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 lid for the cup according to claim 1, clearance length is defined as the distance between where the flexible valve and the baffle connect to where the shorter of the lower outer periphery of the baffle and the outer upper 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 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 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.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPUB 2020/0229625 A1 to Holschumacher et al. discloses a drinking attachment for a drinking vessel.
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
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 4 February 2026