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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/28/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-2, 4-8, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPUB 2019/0092540 A1 to Spivey et al. (“Spivey”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,415,312 to Mueller (“Mueller”) further in view of U.S. PGPUB 2025/0100764 A1 to Wang (“Wang”).
This figure, now referred to as Spivey annotated Fig. 8C, used for the rejection of claims 1-16 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 1-16 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
620
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Spivey teaches a drink container, comprising: a base (drinking vessel 102) having a bottom (bottom 208) and a surrounding wall extending upwardly from said bottom (Spivey Fig. 3 shows the drinking vessel has a wall extending upwardly from the bottom 208); a neck at a top of the surrounding wall (Spivey, pg. 3, ¶ 0036); a lid (lid 104) having a top wall (recess 608) and a peripheral upstanding lid wall (raised edge 604), said lid formed of a first rigid material (Spivey, pg. 3, ¶ 0032); a thread (Spivey, pg. 3, ¶ 0036) disposed on said base and a corresponding thread (sealing members 606) on said lid for threadable engagement of said lid with said base; a centrally located channel (channel, Spivey annotated Fig. 8C) formed in said top wall and a drink aperture (spout opening 830) located within said centrally located channel (Spivey annotated Fig. 8C shows the opening 830 is within the channel); a flap (second cover 612), said flap disposed in said centrally located channel(Spivey annotated Fig. 8C shows the second cover 612 is located in the channel); said flap having a first end and a second end (Spivey annotated Fig. 8C shows the first and second end of the second cover 612), and wherein an other end of said first and second ends includes a plug (plug 860) which passes through said drink aperture (Spivey, pg. 4, ¶ 0046); but does not teach a flap formed of a second flexible material, wherein one end of said first and second ends includes one or more anchors that extend through said top wall of said lid to retain said flap in position; said flap comprising a living hinge disposed between said first end and said second end, said living hinge defining a pivot axis between said one or more anchors and said plug, said pivot axis extending in a direction perpendicular to a direction extending between said first end and said second end of said flap; and, a retaining groove near said other end of said flap between said flap and a tab extending from said flap, said retaining groove receiving said peripheral upstanding lid wall to retain said flap in a folded open position.
Mueller teaches a flap (stopper 100) formed of a second flexible material (Mueller, col. 7, lines 30-32); wherein one end of said first and second ends includes one or more anchors (circular wall 122) that extend through said top wall (lower lid surface 70) of said lid to retain said flap in position (Mueller, col. 9, lines 1-8); said flap comprising a living hinge (hinge 104) disposed between said first end and said second end (Mueller Fig. 15 shows the hinge 104 between the circular wall 122 and the circular wall 106), said living hinge defining a pivot axis between said one or more anchors and said plug (Mueller Fig. 4 shows the stopper 100 with the hinge pivoted to allow the lid to be opened), said pivot axis extending in a direction perpendicular to a direction extending between said first end and said second end of said flap (Mueller Fig. 15 shows the hinge 104 between the circular wall 122 and the circular wall 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the projections extending into the apertures and the hinge of Mueller to replace the projections into holes to connect the second cover to the channel as taught by Spivey to secure the stopper to the lid (Mueller, col. 9, lines 7-8).
Wang teaches a retaining groove (fixed slot, Wang, pg. 2, ¶ 0029) near said other end of said flap between said flap and a tab (end of clamping part 24 that extends away from the lateral side 12 as seen in Wang Fig. 3) extending from said flap, said retaining groove receiving said peripheral upstanding lid wall (first clamp strip 54) to retain said flap in a folded open position (Wang, pg. 2, ¶ 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the fixed slot of Wang to the flap as taught by Spivey modified by Mueller to hold the flap in an open position.
As to claim 2, Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang teaches the drink container of Claim 1, further comprising a thread wall (body 602) depending from said top wall of said lid (Spivey Fig. 6 shows the body 602 has a sealing member 606).
As to claim 4, Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang teaches the drink container of Claim 1, said flap further comprising a grab (locking mechanism 616) extending upwardly from said flap (Spivey Fig. 6 shows the locking mechanism extends upward from the first cover 612).
As to claim 5, Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang teaches the drink container of Claim 4, said grab disposed adjacent to said retaining groove (Spivey Fig. 4 shows the locking mechanism adjacent to the groove 410).
As to claim 6, Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang teaches the drink container of Claim 5, said grab extending to an elevation that is higher than said peripheral upstanding lid wall (Spivey Fig. 6 shows the locking mechanism 616 extends above the raised edge 604).
As to claim 7, Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang teaches the drink container of Claim 1 said peripheral upstanding lid wall being tapered from an upper larger diameter to a lower smaller diameter (Spivey Fig. 7 shows the raised edge 604 is tapered from an upper larger diameter to a lower smaller diameter).
As to claim 8, Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang discloses the claimed invention except for said one or more anchors being two anchors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have two circular walls to connect the stopper to the lid, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) says “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).”
As to claim 12, Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang teaches the drink container of Claim 1, further comprising a trench (first opening 810) disposed centrally in said centrally located channel.
As to claim 14, Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang discloses the claimed invention except for each said neck of each said two anchors having a hole allowing fluid to pass through said neck of each said two anchors and through said trench. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have two circular walls to connect the stopper to the lid, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) says “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).”
Claim(s) 3 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spivey in view of Mueller in view of Wang further in view of U.S. PGPUB 2007/0145082 A1 to Parve (“Parve”).
As to claim 3, Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang teaches the drink container of Claim 1, but does not teach said peripheral upstanding lid wall having a first flat section and a second flat section opposed from said first flat section.
Parve teaches said peripheral upstanding lid wall (vertical surface 114) having a first flat section and a second flat section opposed from said first flat section (Parve Fig. 3 shows projections 117 on opposite sides of the body portion 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the projections of Parve on opposite side of the lid as taught by Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang to provide two sections to grasp when screwing the lid onto the container.
As to claim 9, Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang teaches the drink container of Claim 8, but does not teach each of said two anchors being mushroom shaped in cross section.
Parve teaches each of said two anchors being mushroom shaped in cross section (Parve Fig. 6D shows the projections 72 have a cylindrical base 73 and a lower outer ridge 74 that has a mushroom shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the shape of Parve on the anchors as taught by Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang to retain the flap on the lid (Parve, pg. 4-5, ¶ 0040).
As to claim 10, Spivey modified by Mueller, Wang, and Parve teaches the drink container of Claim 9, each of said two anchors (Parve Fig. 6D shows the projections 72 have a cylindrical base 73 and a lower outer ridge 74) having a head (lower outer ridge 74) and a neck (cylindrical base 73).
As to claim 11, Spivey modified by Mueller, Wang, and Parve discloses the claimed invention except for each of said head being rectangular. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the head rectangular, since applicant has not disclosed that the rectangular shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the circular shape of Mueller.
Claim(s) 13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spivey in view of Mueller in view of Wang further in view of U.S. PGPUB 2005/0045634 A1 to Ward et al. (“Ward”).
As to claim 13, Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang teaches the drink container of Claim 12, but does not teach said trench declined to move fluid toward said drink aperture.
Ward teaches said trench (trench platform portion 22) declined (Ward Fig. 6 shows the platform 22 is declined toward the aperture 38) to move fluid toward said drink aperture (aperture 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the slanted channel of Ward with the channel as taught by Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang to provide ease of passage of liquid through during liquid dispensing from the interior of the container (Ward, pg. 3, ¶ 0031).
As to claim 15, Spivey teaches a lid for a drink container, comprising: said lid (lid 104) having a top wall (recess 608) and a peripheral upstanding lid wall (raised edge 604), said lid formed of a first rigid material (Spivey, pg. 3, ¶ 0032); a centrally located channel (channel, Spivey annotated Fig. 8C) formed in said top wall and a drink aperture (spout opening 830) located within said centrally located channel (Spivey annotated Fig. 8C shows the opening 830 is within the channel); a flap (second cover 612), said flap disposed in said centrally located channel (Spivey annotated Fig. 8C shows the second cover 612 is within the channel); said flap having a first end and a second end (Spivey annotated Fig. 8C shows the first and second end of the second cover 612) wherein the other of the ends includes a plug (plug 860) which passes through said drink aperture (Spivey, pg. 4, ¶ 0046); but does not teach said centrally located channel being declined to direct fluid toward said drink aperture; a flap formed of a second flexible material differing from said first rigid material; said flap having a first end and a second end wherein one of the ends of said flap is anchored by two or more anchors in the centrally located channel and the other of the ends includes a plug which passes through said drink aperture; said flap comprising an integrally formed hinge disposed between said first end and said second end, said hinge axis being oriented transverse to a direction between said first end and said second end, said hinge axis extending in a direction perpendicular to a direction extending between said first end and second end of flap; and, a retaining groove on an opposite side of said flap from said plug along an upper surface of said flap and at an intersection of said flap and a tab extending from said flap, wherein said retaining groove engages said peripheral upstanding lid wall to retain said flap in a folded open position.
Mueller teaches a flap (stopper 100) formed of a second flexible material (Mueller, col. 7, lines 30-32); said flap having a first end and a second end wherein one of the ends of said flap is anchored by an anchor (circular wall 122) in the centrally located channel and the other of the ends includes a plug (circular wall 106) which passes through said drink aperture (drinking hole 80); said flap comprising an integrally formed hinge (hinge 104) disposed between said first end and said second end (Mueller Fig. 15 shows the hinge 104 between the circular wall 122 and the circular wall 106), said hinge axis being oriented transverse to a direction between said first end and said second end (Mueller Fig. 4 shows the stopper 100 with the hinge pivoted to allow the lid to be opened), said hinge axis extending in a direction perpendicular to a direction extending between said first end and said second end of said flap (Mueller Fig. 15 shows the hinge 104 between the circular wall 122 and the circular wall 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the projections extending into the apertures and the hinge of Mueller to replace the projections into holes to connect the second cover to the channel as taught by Spivey to secure the stopper to the lid (Mueller, col. 9, lines 7-8).
Spivey modified by Mueller discloses the claimed invention except for said two or more anchors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have two circular walls to connect the stopper to the lid, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) says “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).”
Wang teaches a retaining groove (fixed slot, Wang, pg. 2, ¶ 0029) on an opposite side of said flap from said plug (Wang Fig. 2B shows the plug hole 21 opposite the elastic clamping part 24) along an upper surface of said flap and at an intersection of said flap and a tab (end of clamping part 24 that extends away from the lateral side 12 as seen in Wang Fig. 3) extending from said flap, wherein said retaining groove engages said peripheral upstanding lid wall (first clamp strip 54) to retain said flap in a folded open position (Wang, pg. 2, ¶ 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the fixed slot of Wang to the flap as taught by Spivey modified by Mueller to hold the flap in an open position.
Ward teaches said centrally located channel (trench platform portion 22) being declined (Ward Fig. 6 shows the platform 22 is declined toward the aperture 38) to direct fluid toward said drink aperture (aperture 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the slanted channel of Ward with the channel as taught by Spivey modified by Mueller and Wang to provide ease of passage of liquid through during liquid dispensing from the interior of the container (Ward, pg. 3, ¶ 0031).
As to claim 16, Spivey modified by Mueller, Wang, and Ward teaches the lid of Claim 15, said top wall being declined (Ward Fig. 6 shows the platform 22 is declined toward the aperture 38) to move said fluid (Ward, pg. 3, ¶ 0031).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 07/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 12, and 14 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference.
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.
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 14 September 2026
Prosecution Insights