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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 does not end in a period. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first sealing mechanism” and “a second sealing mechanism” in claim 1. Below is the three prong test for the above phrases:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function: The term “mechanism” in the phrases “a first sealing mechanism” and “a second sealing mechanism” is a nonce word for means.
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”: The phrases “a first sealing mechanism” and “a second sealing mechanism” are followed by the phrase “configured for”.
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function: The phrase “a first sealing mechanism” is stated as “a first sealing mechanism configured for sealing and unsealing the gas vent” and the phrase “a second sealing mechanism” is stated as “a second sealing mechanism configured for sealing and unsealing the drink orifice”. In both cases the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Claims 3 and 4 define the structure for “the second sealing mechanism” and “the first sealing mechanism”, respectively; and will be treated as such.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the top surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 8-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wodka (US 20180244441).
Regarding claim 1, Wodka teaches a lid assembly (figures 1-4C, reference 10) for a beverage container (figure 1, reference 12) comprising: a lid body (figure 2, reference 16) adapted for detachably coupled to the beverage container (figure 2 and paragraph 23), the lid body having a drink orifice (figure 2 and 4A-4C, reference 26) and a gas vent (figure 4A-4C, reference 34), each being sealable to block fluid communication with the beverage container (figure 4A and paragraph 32); a first sealing mechanism configured for sealing and unsealing the gas vent (figure 4A-4C, reference 32); a second sealing mechanism configured for sealing and unsealing the drink orifice (figure 4A-4C, reference 30); an actuator for actuating and de-actuating the first and second sealing mechanisms (figure 4A-4C, reference 22 near 56); wherein the actuator is configured for sequentially actuating the first and the second sealing mechanisms (figures 4A-4C), causing the gas vent to unseal as a result of an initial actuation of the actuator (figure 4B), and subsequently causing the drink orifice to unseal as a result of a further actuation of the actuator (figure 4C).
Regarding claim 2, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches the actuator is further configured for causing the drink orifice to seal as a result of an initial de-actuation of the actuator (figure 4C to 4B), and subsequently causing the gas vent to seal as a result of a further de-actuation of the actuator (figure 4B to 4A).
Regarding claim 3, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches the second sealing mechanism comprises a drink lever (figure 4A-4C, reference 46) movable between a sealed position (figure 4A, 4B, reference 46) and an unsealed position (figure 4C, reference 46), a biasing element (figure 3, reference 45 and paragraph 27) is provided to bias the drink lever toward the sealed position (paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 4, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 3, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches the first sealing mechanism comprises a vent lever (figure 4A-4C, reference 22), the vent lever is mounted on the drink lever (figure 3 and 4A-4C and paragraph 29) and is movable between a sealed position (figure 4A) and an unsealed position (figure 4B and 4C), a biasing element (figure 3, reference 45 and paragraph 27) is provided to bias the vent lever toward the sealed position (paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 5, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 4, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches the vent lever (figure 4A-4C, reference 22) is pivotable between the sealed position (figure 4A), the unsealed position (figure 4C), and a threshold position (figure 4B) in which an abutting portion of the vent lever (figure 4B, reference 58) abuts against the drink lever (figure 4B, reference 46 at 64 and paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 8, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches the actuator is moveable in a linear direction (figure 4B, as shown in the annotated figure below along the arrow).
PNG
media_image1.png
257
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches the first and second sealing mechanisms comprise respective sealing members (figure 4A, reference 34 and 30, respectively), the sealing members are formed of a resilient material to provide a substantially fluid-tight seal when in the closed position (paragraph 26 and paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 10, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 4, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches the biasing element of the drink lever and/or the vent lever is a torsion spring (figure 3, reference 45 and paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 11, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 4, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches the lid body further comprises a coupling portion (figure 2, inside surface of 16 and paragraph 23) extending downwardly from a top surface (figure 2: the threaded connection of 16 extends down from the top surface of 16), the coupling portion being configured to engage a corresponding rim of the beverage container to provide a substantially fluid-tight seal (figure 2 and paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 12, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches a cover (figure 2-4C, reference 22) adapted for concealing the drink orifice and the gas vent (figure 4A-4C, reference 22: cover 22 conceals gas vent 34 and conceals drink orifice 26 when in the closed position via 30).
Regarding claim 13, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 12, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches the cover is pivotally mounted on the lid body (figure 2-4C and paragraph 29), and is pivotable between an open position (figure 4C) and a closed position (figure 4A).
Regarding claim 15, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 13, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches the cover (figure 4A-4C, reference 22) is configured such that in the closed position the actuator is prohibited from being actuated (figures 4A-4C and paragraph 30: the cover in the closed position is configured to prohibit the actuator from being actuated. This limitation has been treated as an intended use recitation. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the limitation has not been positively claimed, the system of Wodka is capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 16, Wodka teaches a lid assembly (figures 1-4C, reference 10) for a beverage container (figure 1, reference 12), comprising: a lid body (figure 2, reference 16) comprising a top surface (figure 1 and 3, near reference 20) defining a drink orifice (figure 2 and 4A-4C, reference 26) and a gas vent (figure 4A-4C, reference 34) formed therethrough (figure 4A-4C), a drink lever (figure 4A-4C, reference 46) pivotally mounted within the lid body (figure 2-4C and paragraph 29); a drink seal (figure 4A-4C, reference 30) provided on the drink lever (figure 4A-4C, reference 46) which is spring-biased toward the drink orifice to form a seal for the drink orifice (figure 3 and 4A and paragraph 27); a vent lever (figure 4A-4C, reference 22) pivotally mounted within the lid body (figure 3 and 4A-4C and paragraph 29); a vent seal (4A-4C, reference 32) provided on the vent lever (figure 4A-4C, reference 22) which is spring-biased toward the gas vent to form a seal for the gas vent (figure 3 and 4A and paragraph 27); and an actuator (figure 4A-4C, reference 22 near 56) movable with respect to the lid body (figures 4A-4C); wherein the actuator is configured to, when moving in an actuating direction, engage with the vent lever to cause the vent lever to pivot downward to unseal the gas vent (figure 4A-4B: the vent lever 22 pivots downward at 58 and unseals the gas vent 34), and moving the actuator further (figure 4B and 4C, reference 22 near 56) in the actuating direction causes the vent lever to act on the drink lever (figure 4B, reference 46 at 64 and paragraph 33) to pivot the drink lever downward, thereby unsealing the drink orifice (figure 4B and 4C).
Regarding claim 17, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 16, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches the vent lever (figure 4A-4C, reference 22) is pivotally mounted on the drink lever (figure 4A-4C, reference 46 at 36 and paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 18, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 16, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches a cover (figure 2-4C, reference 22) adapted for concealing the drink orifice and the gas vent (figure 4A-4C, reference 22: cover 22 conceals gas vent 34 and conceals drink orifice 26 when in the closed position via 30).
Regarding claim 19, Wodka teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 18, as shown above. Furthermore, Wodka teaches the cover is pivotally mounted on the lid body (figure 2-4C and paragraph 29), and is pivotable between an open position (figure 4C) and a closed position (figure 4A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 14, 15 and 20 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.
Blaine et al. (US 9,113,698) discloses a lid with actuator and a drink orifice sealing mechanism.
Carlile et al. (US 8,960,490) discloses a lid with actuator and a drink orifice sealing mechanism.
Chiou et al. (US 9,908,687) discloses a lid with actuator wherein actuation of the actuator causes the vent to open and further actuation causes the drink orifice to open.
Elsaden et al. (US 20150201776) discloses a lid with actuator wherein actuation of the actuator causes the vent and drink orifice to open.
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