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 Species I (figures 1A-8E and claims 1-8 and 21-22) in the reply filed on 15 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 9 was withdrawn from further consideration.
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 1, 3-8, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (KR 200407459), in view of Meyer et al. (US 20080011748).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches a drinkware system (figure 7), comprising: an icon attachment (figure 1, reference 120) defining an aperture (figure 7, reference 122) therein having an inner diameter (figure 7, reference 122: since post 112 is inserted into aperture 122 and threaded on, the aperture has an inner diameter); and a drinkware vessel (figure 7, reference 110) comprising (a) a drinkware body (figure 7, as shown in the annotated figure below) that defines an interior thereof (figure 7, reference 104) and (b) an icon support (figure 7, reference 112) configured to selectively mount the icon attachment within the interior of the drinkware body (figure 7), wherein the icon support extends from a bottom inner surface of the drinkware body (figure 7, as shown in the annotated figure below) and is receivable within the aperture of the icon attachment (figure 7), wherein the icon support comprises a post (figure 7, reference 112) with an outer diameter (figure 7, as shown in the annotated figure below) that is either (i) substantially the same as the inner diameter of the aperture to provide a friction fit (figure 7: since the icon attachment 120 is threaded onto post 112, the outer diameter of the post and the inner diameter of the aperture are substantially the same. Furthermore, threading between the inner portion of the aperture and the outer portion of the post is technically a friction fit since a force is required to unthread the two parts from one another), or (ii) larger than the inner diameter of the aperture, in which case the icon attachment is made of a resilient material configured to enable the post to stretch and enlarge the aperture when the post is inserted in the aperture to provide a friction fit between the icon attachment and the icon support.
PNG
media_image1.png
566
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Song discloses the claimed invention except that Song discloses a threaded connection between the aperture and the post instead of a friction fit connection between the aperture and post (although as stated above, a threaded connection can be considered a friction fit). Meyer shows that threads and friction fit connections were an equivalent structure known in the art. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). Meyer represents evidence that threads and friction fit were art-recognized equivalent structures for connection means. Therefore, because these two connection means were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute threads for a friction fit connection. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the drinkware system of Song to include a friction fit connection between the post and aperture, as disclosed by Meyer, because having a friction fit connection allows for an easy connection/disconnection means between two connected parts.
Regarding claim 3, Song, in view of Meyer, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Song appears to disclose the drinkware body and the icon support are formed from a single mold (figure 7 and line 289 of the machine translation provided by applicant). Furthermore, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.
Regarding claim 4, Song, in view of Meyer, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, although Song does not explicitly teach the icon support includes an end section fused to the bottom inner surface of the drinkware body, this would appear to be a product by process claim limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 5, Song, in view of Meyer, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Song teaches the icon support is configured to retain the icon attachment thereon so as to prevent separation of the icon attachment from the icon support without an intentional force (figure 7 and first two lines of page 6 of the machine translation provided by applicant).
Regarding claim 6, Song, in view of Meyer, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Song teaches the drinkware body includes a rim (figure 7, as shown in the annotated figure below) that defines an opening (figure 7, reference 102) into the interior of the drinkware body (figure 7, reference 104), wherein the rim is dimensioned to enable insertion of the icon attachment through the opening for mounting on the icon support (figure 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
535
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Song, in view of Meyer, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Song teaches the icon attachment comprises a single piece formed from a single mold (figure 7, reference 120). Furthermore, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 8, Song, in view of Meyer, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Song teaches the icon attachment comprises a first piece (figure 7, reference 120) and a second piece (figure 7, reference 128) capable of being formed from a first mold and a second mold, respectively, wherein the first and second pieces are secured together after molding (figure 7) Furthermore, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 21, Song, in view of Meyer, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Song, in view of Meyer, do not explicitly teach the drinkware body and the icon support are both made of glass. 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. Furthermore, Song, in view of Meyer, do not explicitly teach the icon support includes an end section fired to a molten state and fused to a bottom inner surface of the drinkware body. However, Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the drinkware system of modified Song to be made of glass because have the drinkware system made of glass allows for increased aesthetics of the drinkware system.
Regarding claim 22, Song, in view of Meyer, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Song teaches the drinkware body and the icon support are integrally formed (figure 7). Furthermore, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Although Song, in view of Meyer, do not explicitly teach the drinkware body and the icon support are both made of acrylic, 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 drinkware system of modified Song to be made of acrylic because have the drinkware system made of acrylic allows for increased aesthetics of the drinkware system, cheaper manufacture and allow the system to resist breaking if accidently dropped.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coon (US 20200315381) discloses a drinkware system including a drinking vessel and an icon attachment.
Choi (KR 20170081832) discloses a drinkware system including a drinking vessel and an icon attachment.
Graber (WO 2007041426) discloses a drinkware system including a drinking vessel and an internal container attached to the drinking vessel on the interior.
Nadel (US 6,036,570) discloses a drinkware system including a drinking vessel and an icon attachment.
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