DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 in response to Office Action 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the wide space area of primary prior art Mori does not teach that it is connected to the mouth inner wall as amended (page 5 last two lines to page 6 line 1). Examiner disagrees, both areas are shown connected. For example, all the elements claimed are connected to each other because they all comprise the lid. Applicant appears to argue “directly” connected, while attempting to place the areas oppositely to elements, but examiner notes that the specification is not read into the claims.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the wide space area of Mori is not “proximate” to the lid mouth inner wall (page 7 para last). However, “proximate” is not claimed, so no response can be made and the argument is moot. Also, the examiner includes an additional and alternative rejection in the analysis below should an arbitrator at a later date decide otherwise, and/or in anticipation of such a further amendment for compact prosecution including “proximate”. Applicant secondarily argues that liquid would “easily spill” from the combination’s buffer space (comprised of the wide and narrow space area) (page 8 line 4). However, examiner points out this argument is merely intended use as the cited structure reads on the claimed structure thereby performing the function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220281649 by Mori (hereinafter “Mori”) in view of US Pat 4986437 by Farmer (hereinafter “Farmer”).
Regarding claim 1, Mori teaches a lid (Fig 1, 12) for a container (Fig 1, 11), said lid being configured to cooperate with the container (Fig 1, 12 cooperates with 11) to define a receiving space (Fig 1, a receiving space is a shown interior volume of the container bounded by the lid), said lid comprising:
a cover portion (Fig 6, a cover portion of the lid 12 is top portion 31) including
a supporting wall (see examiner annotated Mori Figure 6, hereinafter “EAFM6”; EAFM6, supporting wall),
a connecting wall having a position difference with said supporting wall along a first axis (EAFM6, connecting wall, shown at a position different than the supporting wall and along a first axis), and
an intermediate wall interconnecting inner edges of said supporting wall and said connecting wall (EAFM6, intermediate wall, interconnects/between inner edges of both the supporting wall and connecting wall to each other), said connecting wall having an outlet for communicating said receiving space with the outside (Fig 6, an outlet is drinking hole 41 in the connecting wall);
a connecting portion (Figs 1 & 6, a connecting portion is fitting portion 32) connected to a periphery of said cover portion and configured to detachably connect with a mouth portion of the container (is capable of detachably connecting to the container mouth and is connected to the cover portion’s periphery); and
a mouth portion including a mouth inner wall connected to (EAFM6, lid mouth inner wall connects to and extends upwardly (first axis) from connecting wall, in a mouth portion of the lid) and extending upwardly from an outer edge of said connecting wall along the first axis (see examiner annotated Mori Figure 5, hereinafter “EAFM5”; EAFM5, lid mouth inner wall extends from an outer edge of connecting wall), wherein
said mouth inner wall, said connecting wall and said intermediate wall cooperatively define a buffer space (EAFM6, buffer space defined by mouth inner wall, connecting wall, intermediate wall) having an opening configured to be opposite to the container (has an opening opposite the container), said buffer space having a wide space area and a narrow space area opposite to said wide space area, said wide space area having a maximum width along a second axis substantially perpendicular to the first axis that is greater than a maximum width of said narrow space area along the second axis and a maximum width of said outlet along the second axis (EAFM5, wide space is wider than narrow space and outlet, see dashed line maximum width, and the spaces are opposite each other
said mouth inner wall having a middle arcuate portion (EAFM5, middle) facing said wide space area (faces wide space’s area), and two side arcuate portions (EAFM5, two sides) each of which is connected between one end of said middle arcuate portion and a portion of said inner edge of said supporting wall (each side is shown connected between middle and supporting wall of 31), said two side arcuate portions being spaced apart from each other along the second axis (EAFM5, sides are spaced apart from each other along a second axis), wherein
said wide space area is connected to said mouth inner wall (EAFM5, wide space shown connected/linked to the mouth inner wall to at least its sides (arcuate portions)), and said narrow space area is located at one side of said wide space area opposite to said mouth inner wall along a third axis that is substantially perpendicular to the first axis and the second axis (EAFM5, narrow space is opposite to the mouth inner wall along a third axis (substantially perpendicular to the first and second axes), and the narrow space in said opposite position is also at one side of the wide space),
[AltContent: textbox (Example only #s)]
PNG
media_image1.png
613
1096
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
624
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Connecting wall extent shown by)]
PNG
media_image3.png
539
723
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But Mori does not explicitly teach that the middle arcuate portion has a different (greater or smaller) curvature than the side arcuate portions curvature.
Farmer, however, teaches a similar container lid comprising:
a middle arcuate portion has a greater or smaller curvature than a curvature of each of side arcuate portions (see examiner annotated Farmer Figure 2, hereinafter “EAFF2”; EAFF2, mid (i.e. disclosed as spout 44) is an arcuate portion shown having a greater curvature than sides (arcuate portions);
or col 4, lines 29-30 “the spout [44/mid] could be somewhat rectangular rather than semicircular as shown” meaning not necessarily rectangular but certainly smaller curvature (e.g. as the curve approaches becoming a straight line by flattening to become more rectangular, curvature reduces with increasing radius); wherein at least proportions of the lid drawing are solidified and utilizable herein via a disclosed human hand performing grasping at col 2, line 56, “user may grasp the lid”).
PNG
media_image4.png
478
521
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the middle arcuate portion of Mori to have a different (greater or smaller) curvature as taught by Farmer in order to advantageously provide a distinct sectioned off spout to help control fluid flow and limit spills onto the user during drinking and sloshing outside of the middle portion.
In addition, it would have been similarly obvious before the effective filing date to change the proportion of the middle arcuate portion relative to the side arcuate portions since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (i.e. the middle arcuate portion acts as a spout). MPEP 2144.04 IV-A. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that Mori (first embodiment above) as modified above does not expressly disclose that the wide space area is connected to the mouth inner wall and positioned as claimed (e.g. if wide space area is actually proximate to mouth inner wall), then Mori’s second embodiment teaches a different wide space area and narrow space area shape and arrangement, while keeping third axis alignment of the recess and outlet (see examiner annotated Mori Figure 14 (for alternative (alt)), hereinafter “EAFM14A”; EAFM14A, wide space area connected proximate to narrow space area). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the narrow space area, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV-B. Also it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the wide space area with the narrow space area (from EAFM5 to EAFM14A; to be like Applicant Fig 4) because Applicant has not disclosed that the relative placement of the areas to each other provides a specific advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves an explicit problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with the rearrangement because the (wide space) area would still be a buffer for liquid and allow the liquid to spread then collect in the middle arcuate portion (Applicant [0038]), or flow back through the outlet (Applicant [0040]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify relative arrangement of wide space area to narrow space area as taught by EAFM14A to obtain the invention as claimed. MPEP 2144.04 VI-C.
PNG
media_image5.png
471
746
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mori further teaches said connecting wall (EAFM5, connecting wall) has a length along the third axis (EAFM5, the third axis is in the same plane as the second axis (i.e. horizontal)) that is more than 90% of a length of said supporting wall along the third axis (EAFM5, connecting wall third axis length is more than 90% of a length of the supporting wall because the connecting wall length is shown to be longer than 100% of the supporting wall length (examiner notes that the connecting wall length is not of supporting wall length, since the connecting wall length does not comprise the supporting wall length. See Applicant Figure 4)),
said middle arcuate portion forming an angle with the first axis (EAFM6, middle angle is at an angle to the first axis).
But Mori does not explicitly teach a particular middle arcuate portion first axis angular range.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at the middle arcuate portion forming an angle with the first axis that ranges from 5 degrees to 15 degrees, having the heights and length specified for proportions in the drawings of Mori (exemplified in EAFM6), recognizing that an increase in angle is directly correlated to an increase in fluid flow when utilized increasing ease of consumption, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Mori further teaches a sealing portion (EAFM5, sealing portion) connected to said connecting wall (is connected to connecting wall) and movable relative to said connecting wall between a closing position, in which said sealing portion closes said outlet (EAFM5, sealing portion shown closing the outlet 41) and an open position, in which said sealing portion is distal to said outlet to expose said outlet ([0042] the sealing portion, having tab 42, opens thereby fitting 42 into 43, and distal to said outlet).
Regarding claim 5, Mori further teaches said connecting wall of said cover portion further has a recess that is indented from an outer surface thereof (EAFM6, recess, is indented from an outer surface of the connecting wall), that is adjacent to said supporting wall and that is distal to said mouth portion of said lid along a third axis substantially perpendicular to the first axis and the second axis (EAFM6, recess distal from lid mouth), said sealing portion being engaged with said recess when in said open position ([0042] sealing portion engages recess to open position because tab 42 engages tab receiver 43).
Regarding claim 6, Mori further teaches said middle arcuate portion has a maximum width along the second axis that is greater than said width of said outlet (EAFM6, middle is shown having a greater maximum width than the outlet width, along the second axis) but smaller than said maximum width of said wide space area (EAFM6, middle is shown smaller than the maximum wide space width, along the second axis).
Regarding claim 7, Mori further teaches said mouth portion of said lid further includes a mouth outer wall (EAFM6, a lid mouth outer wall at 53) spaced apart from said mouth inner wall (and spaced apart opposite the lid mouth inner wall), and an arcuate end wall connected between said mouth inner wall and said mouth outer wall (EAFM6, an arcuate end wall connecting the outer and inner mouth wall is 52), said arcuate wall having a position difference with said supporting wall along the first axis (EAFM6, the mouth outer wall is in a different position than the supporting wall).
Regarding claim 8, Mori further teaches said mouth outer wall (EAFM6, the mouth outer wall at 53) forms an angle with the first axis (EAFM6, lid mouth outer wall angle to the first axis is shown).
But Mori does not explicitly teach a particular mouth outer wall first axis angular range.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize and arrive at the mouth outer wall forms an angle with the first axis that ranges from 5 degrees to 15 degrees, having the heights and length specified for proportions in the drawings of Mori (exemplified in EAFM6), recognizing that an increase in angle is directly correlated to increased draft angle which eases the release of the lid from the injection mold (Mori [0146]), which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220281649 by Mori (hereinafter “Mori”) in view of US Pat 4986437 by Farmer (hereinafter “Farmer”) in view of US Pub 20090283526 by Pierce et al. (hereinafter “Pierce”).
Regarding claim 4, Mori further teaches said cover portion (Fig 6, 31), said connecting portion (Fig 6, 32), said sealing portion (EAFM5, sealing portion), and said mouth portion of said lid are integrally formed as one piece (Fig 6, all are shown integral together, [0041] “continuous”).
But Mori/Farmer does not explicitly teach that the one piece is made of pulp.
Pierce, however, teaches made from pulp (Abstract, pulp).
The purpose of pulp material is to be recyclable and biodegradable (Pierce, [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of Mori with being of pulp as taught by Pierce in order to advantageously be more environmentally sustainable (Pierce, [0042]).
Claims 9-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220281649 by Mori (hereinafter “Mori”) in view of US Pat 4986437 by Farmer (hereinafter “Farmer”) in view of Mori second embodiment.
Regarding claim 9, the first embodiment of Mori (combined with Farmer) does not explicitly teach a surrounding wall connected to the other walls.
Mori’s second embodiment, however, does teach that, by teaching that said cover portion further includes a surrounding wall (see examiner annotated Mori Figure 14, hereinafter “EAFM14”; EAFM14, surrounding wall) that extends downwardly from an outer edge of said supporting wall (extends downwardly from an outer edge of supporting wall), that is connected to said connecting portion (and connects to connecting portion), and that is further connected to said mouth outer wall (and connects to lid mouth outer wall).
PNG
media_image6.png
489
802
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The purpose of a surrounding wall is to create a drip catching groove. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the supporting wall to connecting portion joint of the first embodiment with a surrounding wall as taught by the second embodiment in order to advantageously keep drips and overflow from the outlet away from the user’s mouth thereby creating a cleaner enhanced experience, and beneficially increase ease of placement on the container mouth by being more easily grasped and leveraged onto it.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the first embodiment’s connecting portion, and all features from parent claims 1 and 6, being reshown in the second embodiment, but raised and spaced by the surrounding wall as in EAFM14.
(wherein Mori further teaches in light of related dependent claims:
EAFM14, connecting portion, inner sidewall, outer sidewall, abutment end wall, position difference shown relative to supporting wall, stopping portion, plurality of ribs, is also 53, gap, contact friction area, shown between highest and lowest points, arrayed grid-like pattern of ribs shown, groove is created/exists at the same time as the rib, the rib can provide some blocking of the container mouth;
Fig 7, an angle in between rib 53 and end edge of outer wall 33 is shown as a value between 15 and 45 degrees)
Regarding claim 10, Mori further teaches said connecting portion (EAFM14, connecting portion) includes an inner sidewall connected to a lower periphery of said surrounding wall (EAFM14, inner sidewall, is connected to a lower periphery of the surrounding wall), an outer sidewall surrounding and radially spaced apart from said inner sidewall (EAFM14, outer sidewall), and an abutment end wall connected between said inner sidewall and said outer sidewall (EAFM14, abutment end wall, is between) and having a position difference with said supporting wall along the first axis (EAFM14, position difference shown relative to supporting wall).
Regarding claim 11, Mori further teaches a stopping portion formed around an inner surface of said outer sidewall for contacting the container (EAFM14, stopping portion, is shown around an inner surface of said outer sidewall).
Regarding claim 13, Mori further teaches said stopping portion (EAFM14, stopping portion) includes a plurality of protruding ribs arranged in an array around said inner surface of said outer sidewall (EAFM14, plurality of ribs, are arrayed), each of said protruding ribs defining a gap with an adjacent one of said protruding ribs (EAFM14, gap, wherein examiner notes “adjacent” reasonably means “near” and therefore all elements of the invention are adjacent one another), said gaps between said adjacent ones of said protruding ribs defining a grid-like structure (EAFM14, grid-like pattern shown), said stopping portion having a highest point and a lowest point that cooperatively define therebetween a contact area for frictional contact with the container (EAFM14, contact friction area, shown between highest and lowest points).
Regarding claim 14, Mori further teaches said stopping portion (EAFM14, stopping portion) includes a groove recessed from an outer surface of said outer sidewall (EAFM14, groove) and a protruding rib protruding from an inner surface of said outer sidewall and corresponding in position to said groove (EAFM14, plurality of ribs, protruding from an inner surface of the outer sidewall, corresponding to the groove), said groove and said protruding rib being simultaneously formed by extrusion after said outer sidewall is formed (groove is created/exists at the same time as the rib).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20220281649 by Mori (hereinafter “Mori”) in view of US Pat 4986437 by Farmer (hereinafter “Farmer”) in view of Mori second embodiment, in view of US Pat 4241864 issued to Kessler (hereinafter “Kessler”).
Regarding claim 12, Mori further teaches said outer sidewall has an end edge, said stopping portion including a plurality of protruding ribs (EAFM14, plurality of ribs, is also 53), and defining a gap with an adjacent one of said protruding ribs (EAFM14, gap), each of said protruding ribs having a highest point and a lowest point along the first axis that cooperatively define therebetween a contact area for frictional contact with the container (EAFM14, contact friction area, shown between highest and lowest points).
But Mori/Farmer does not explicitly teach a particular rib angular range relative to the outer sidewall end edge (Examiner notes the interpretation of the end edge herein is that of Applicant’s end edge (Fig 9, end edge 421) which is substantially horizontal or perpendicular to the vertical X axis).
Kessler, however, teaches a similar lid for a container comprising:
protruding ribs each forming an angle with an end edge (Fig 6, ribs 62 shown at an angle to a bottom outer sidewall end edge).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the shape of Mori’s substantially horizontal ribs to be helical ribs since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration (e.g. ribs shape) were significant, changes in shape are merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious. MPEP 2144.04-IV-B.
Also, it would have been obvious at that time to optimize and arrive at a ribs range of 15 to 45 degrees relative to the outer sidewall end edge, having the angled ribs of Kessler (Fig 6, ribs 62 are shown at substantially 45 degrees), recognizing that an increase in angle is directly correlated to an increase in ease of applying the lid by sliding the lid down on the container rim since there is less surface area contact to overcome between the ribs and rim (i.e. all horizontal ribs of Mori can contact simultaneously along their elongate dimension versus point contact for each rib of Kessler through the entire motion of sliding on of the lid to full close), and that a decrease in angle allows for a shorter outer sidewall which is directly correlated to using less material in creating each lid, which are desirable characteristics, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e. ribs close and secure the lid), discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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 on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733