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 group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 10 April 2026 is acknowledged. Furthermore, since claims 13-20 were amended to depend from claim 1, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Igawa et al. (JP 5148544).
Regarding claim 1, Igawa teaches a lid (figures 1-8) for a beverage container (figure 3, reference 1), the lid comprising: a lid body (figure 3, reference 2) comprising a spout (figure 3, reference 23); a flip top closure rotatably coupled to the lid body (figure 3, reference 4) and configured to rotate between a closed position in which the closure covers the spout (figure 2) and an open position in which the closure does not cover the spout (figure 3); a latch (figure 3, reference 5/51) configured to move between a first position in which the latch engages with the closure in the closed position (figure 2) and a second position in which the latch does not engage with the closure in the closed position (figure 5); and a lock disposed around the spout (figure 3 and 6, reference 6) and comprising: a ring configured to rotate around the spout (figure 6, reference 6/63) between an unlocked position in which the latch is allowed to move from the first position to the second position (figure 1B and paragraph 29 of the machine translation) and a locked position in which the latch is inhibited from moving from the first position to the second position (figure 1A and paragraph 41 of the machine translation); and an actuator (figure 3, reference 62) extending from the ring (figure 3, reference 6/63) and accessible from a top surface of the lid body (figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, Igawa teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Igawa teaches the ring comprising a tab (figure 1a, 6 and 7, reference 61a) configured to be disposed between the spout and the lock in the locked position (figure 1a), thereby inhibiting the lock from moving from the first position to the second position (paragraph 21 of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Igawa teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Igawa teaches the ring comprising a recess (figure 1b and 5-7, reference 63a) configured to be disposed between the spout and the lock in the unlocked position (figure 1b), wherein the latch moves into the recess to move to the second position (figure 1b and 5 and paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 4, Igawa teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 3, as shown above. Furthermore, Igawa teaches the recess has a shape (figure 1a, 1b and 5-7, reference 63a) corresponding to a shape of at least a part of the latch (figure 1a, 1b and 5-7, reference 52a of latch 5/51).
Regarding claim 5, Igawa teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Igawa teaches the ring comprising two ends configured to be attached together (figure 1a, 1b and 6, reference 61a and 61b and paragraph 35), wherein the actuator extends from one of the two ends (figure 6, reference 62 extending from end 61b).
Regarding claim 8, Igawa teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Igawa teaches the top surface of the lid body comprising a recess (figure 3 and 6, reference 28), wherein the actuator is disposed within the recess (figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, Igawa teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 8, as shown above. Furthermore, Igawa teaches the actuator is lower than a rim of the recess (figure 3 and 6: the recess 28 has an upper rim which is above the actuator 62).
Regarding claim 11, Igawa teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Igawa teaches the closure is biased towards the open position by a spring (figure 4, reference 7 and paragraph 26 of the machine translation).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igawa et al. (JP 5148544).
Regarding claim 7, Igawa teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Igawa teaches the actuator comprises a material (figure 3, reference 62).
Igawa does not explicitly teach the actuator comprises a thermoplastic elastomer. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the lid of Igawa to have the actuator comprises a thermoplastic elastomer because having the actuator made of a thermoplastic elastomer allows for quickly manufacturing the actuator at a low cost.
Claims 12, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igawa et al. (JP 5148544), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Faerber et al. (US 20190344934).
Regarding claim 12, Igawa teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Igawa teaches the spout comprises a first drinking opening (figure 3, and 5, reference 23).
Igawa does not explicitly teach the spout comprising a first drinking opening and a second drinking opening, the second drinking opening configured to attach to a straw. However, Faerber does teach the spout (figure 3A, reference 44) comprises a first drinking opening (figure 3A, reference 50A) and a second drinking opening (figure 3A, reference 50B), the second drinking opening configured to attach to a straw (paragraph 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the lid of Igawa to include the spout comprising a first drinking opening and a second drinking opening, the second drinking opening configured to attach to a straw, as disclosed by Faerber, because including the two drinking openings allows for a user to have options on how to drink the beverage held within the container and further allows a user to drink through one opening while adding contents through the other opening, as explained by Faerber (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 17, Igawa teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Igawa teaches the lid body further comprises a mount (figure 3 and 5, reference 3) and the closure is rotatably coupled to the mount (figure 3 and 5).
Igawa does not explicitly teach the lid body further comprises a pair of mounts and the closure is rotatably coupled to the mounts, and wherein the closure is configured to be removable from the mount only when the closure is retained in an assembling position between the closed position and the open position. However, Faerber does teach the lid body further comprises a pair of mounts (figure 3A, reference 46) and the closure is rotatably coupled to the mounts (figures 2A, 2B, 3A and 5A and paragraphs 35 and 38), and wherein the closure is configured to be removable from the mount only when the closure is retained in an assembling position between the closed position and the open position (paragraphs 35 and 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the lid of Igawa to include the lid body further comprises a pair of mounts and the closure is rotatably coupled to the mounts, and wherein the closure is configured to be removable from the mount only when the closure is retained in an assembling position between the closed position and the open position, as disclosed by Faerber, because including the lid body further comprises a pair of mounts and the closure is rotatably coupled to the mounts, and wherein the closure is configured to be removable from the mount only when the closure is retained in an assembling position between the closed position and the open position allows for more securely supporting the closure and increases aesthetics of the lid.
Regarding claim 20, Igawa, in view of Faerber, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 17, as shown above. Furthermore, Igawa teaches when the closure rotates between the closed position and the open position, the closure does not stop at the assembling position absent application of external force (figures 4 and 5 and paragraph 26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10, 13-16, 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sims (US 20160000245) discloses a lockable flip top lid for a container.
Coon et al. US 20180192800) discloses a flip top lid with an actuator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights