DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed 16 December 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 9-20 were previously withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office 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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8 January 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clarke (US 942,306).
Regarding claim 1, Clarke teaches a beverage bottle (figure 5 and 6, as shown in the annotated figure below) comprising: a liquid reservoir (figure 5 and 6, as shown in the annotated figure below) defining an upper end (figure 5 and 6, as shown in the annotated figure below) and a lower end (figure 5 and 6, as shown in the annotated figure below); a spout positioned at the upper end of the liquid reservoir (figure 5 and 6, as shown in the annotated figure below); and a straw extending from the upper end to the lower end of the liquid reservoir (figure 5 and 6, reference a/h), the straw including a proximal end (figure 6, near reference k) and a distal end (figure 6, reference h), the proximal end of the straw configured to extend through the spout (figure 6, near reference k) and the distal end of the straw configured to engage the lower end of the liquid reservoir (figure 6, reference h), the distal end of the straw including a resilient hinge (figure 5 and 6, as shown in the annotated figure below and page 2, lines 46-51) moveable between an axial position (figure 6) and a bent position (figure 5), wherein the proximal end of the straw extends through the spout when the resilient hinge is in the axial position (figure 6, near reference k), wherein the proximal end of the straw is withdrawn into the spout when the resilient hinge is in the bent position (figure 5, near reference k), and wherein the resilient hinge is biased toward the axial position (figure 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
405
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Clarke teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Clarke teaches a cap (figure 5 and 6, reference j) configured to cover the spout (figure 5), the cap configured to move between an open position (figure 6) and a closed position (figure 5), wherein the proximal end of the straw extends outwardly past the spout when the cap is in the open position (figure 6), and wherein the proximal end of the straw is at least partially withdrawn into the spout when the cap is in the closed position (figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Clarke teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Clarke teaches the proximal end of the straw is fully withdrawn into the spout when the cap is in the closed position (figure 5, near reference k).
Regarding claim 7, Clarke teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Clarke teaches the proximal end of the straw includes an enlarged portion (figure 6, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1) and a drinking tip (figure 6, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke (US 942,306), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lane (US 9,150,335).
Regarding claim 4, Clarke teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 2, as shown above.
Clarke does not explicitly teach the cap is biased toward the open position. However, Lane does teach the cap (figure 2, reference 24) is biased toward the open position (column 4, lines 34-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the beverage bottle of Clarke to include the cap biased towards the open position, as explained by Lane, because having the cap biased towards the open position helps maintain the cap open while drinking without worry of the cap closing while in use.
Regarding claim 5, Clarke, in view of Lane, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 4, as shown above. Furthermore, Lane teaches a cap release mechanism (figure 5, reference 42 and 22), the cap including a detent (figure 5, reference 44) configured to engage the cap release mechanism (figure 5), wherein activation of the cap release mechanism when the cap is in the closed position releases the detent and allows the cap to move to the open position (figure 5 to 7: when the cap release mechanism 22/42 is activated, detent 44 is released) such that the straw moves through the spout (figure 7: when modifying the container and straw of Clarke to include the cap of Lane, this limitation is met).
Regarding claim 6, Clarke, in view of Lane, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 5, as shown above. Furthermore, Lane teaches a lid (figure 1, reference 14) releasably coupled to the upper end of the liquid reservoir (figure 1, reference 14 and 12), wherein the spout (figure 2, reference 30), the cap (figure 2, reference 24), and the cap release mechanism (figure 2 and 5, reference 42 and 22) are positioned on the lid (figure 2 and 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding claim 1, the applicant states “The Clarke reference does not disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. For example, the Clarke reference does not disclose the claimed "resilient hinge moveable between an axial position and a bent position." Instead, as shown in the annotated version of figures 5 and 6 of Clarke provided below for the convenience of the Office, Clarke merely discloses a first tube (a) attached to a flexible tube (h). While the flexible tube (h) of Clarke is configured to resiliently bend and allow the first tube (a) to either protrude from the spout or be recessed into the spout, there is no "hinge" on the flexible tube (h). Under its common and ordinary meaning a "hinge" is "a jointed or flexible device on which a door, lid, or other swinging part turns" (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hinge) (emphasis added). In Clarke, the flexible tube (h) simply bends. It does not facilitate any turning, swinging or movement of another part. Therefore, while Clarke discloses a bendable tube, it does not disclose a straw with a "resilient hinge." Accordingly, Clarke does not disclose each and every limitation of independent claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should be withdrawn for at least this reason”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in figure 6 and shown in the annotated figure below, the tube “h” has a diameter which narrows. The narrowing of this portion allows for the tube “h” to hinge or turn. As stated in the Merriam-Webster definition above, a "hinge" is "a jointed or flexible device on which a door, lid, or other swinging part turns". In this case the flexible device (tube h) has a narrowing diameter, as shown below, on which the swinging part (narrowing diameter section) turns, as shown in figure 5. By this definition, Clarke does disclose a hinge. Since the prior are discloses the claimed subject matter, the claims rejected.
PNG
media_image2.png
635
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the applicant states “Clarke also does not disclose the claimed "proximal end including an enlarged portion and a drinking tip". Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in annotated figure 6 above for the rejection of claim 1, Clarke teaches the proximal end of the straw includes an enlarged portion (figure 6, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1) and a drinking tip (figure 6, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 1). The enlarged portion is the portion above reference K with the drinking tip above the enlarged portion. Since the prior art discloses the claim limitations of claim 7, the claim remains rejected.
Regarding claims 2-6, since the prior art still discloses the claimed subject matter of claims 1 and 2-6, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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