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 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 19 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 19 recites the limitations “the first transparent material” and “the second transparent material” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPUB 2022/0133068 A1 to Sherburne (“Sherburne”) in view of WIPO Publication WO 2020/263294 A1 to Baston (“Baston”).
As to claim 1, Sherburne teaches a beverage container for thermally insulating a beverage, the beverage container comprising: an outer shell (container body 2) forming a top end (annular lip 6) and a bottom end (lower taper 35), the outer shell comprising: an opening (mouth 12) on the top end; a lower floor (outer bottom wall 24) located on the bottom end (Sherburne Fig. 4 shows the outer bottom wall 24 located at the lower taper 35); and an outer tubular sidewall (outer tubular sidewall 15) extending from the top end to the bottom end; and an inner container (Sherburne Fig. 4 shows a cross-sectional side view of the beverage container 1 with the inner tubular sidewall 16 inside of the outer tubular sidewall 15) comprising: an upper floor (inner bottom wall 23); and an inner tubular sidewall (inner tubular sidewall 16), the upper floor and the inner tubular sidewall forming a hold (hold 7), the hold configured to contain the beverage (Sherburne, pg. 3, ¶ 0034), wherein the inner container is configured to be received within the outer shell such that a chamber (vacuum chamber 36) is formed radially by and between the inner tubular sidewall and the outer tubular sidewall and axially by and between the upper floor and the lower floor (Sherburne, pg. 4, ¶ 0052); and wherein the chamber can close to thermally insulates the beverage within the hold (Sherburne, pg. 6, ¶ 0068); but does not teach the chamber is openable and recloseable.
Baston teaches the chamber is openable and recloseable (Baston, pg. 23, ¶ 000112). Baston teaches the one-way valve 3 set into the bottom plate 2 is openable and recloseable to remove air from the channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ability to reclose the chamber of Baston with the beverage container as taught by Sherburne to pass air in only one direction (Baston, pg. 23, ¶ 000112).
As to claim 2, Sherburne modified by Baston teaches the beverage container of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising fastening that connects the outer shell to the inner container, the fastening configured to be disengaged such that the inner container is separable from the outer shell so that the inner container is removed from the outer shell, and the inner container and the outer shell are reconnectable such that the inner container can be placed back inside of the outer shell with the inner container reconnected to the outer shell via the fastening so that the chamber can be resealed.
Sherburne further comprising fastening (fastening 413) that connects the outer shell (container body 402) to the inner container (disposable cup 478), the fastening configured to be disengaged such that the inner container is separable from the outer shell so that the inner container is removed from the outer shell, and the inner container and the outer shell are reconnectable such that the inner container can be placed back inside of the outer shell with the inner container reconnected to the outer shell via the fastening so that the chamber can be resealed (Sherburne, pg. 15, ¶ 0162-0163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fastening of Sherburne with the beverage container as taught by Sherburne modified by Baston to allow for a disposable cup to be removed from the container body and replaced with a new disposable cup (Sherburne, pg. 15, ¶ 0163).
As to claim 3, Sherburne modified by Baston discloses the claimed invention except for wherein one or both: the inner container can be swapped for a different inner container having a different appearance than the inner container, and the different inner container can be swapped in place of the inner container inside of the outer shell for forming the beverage container; and the outer shell can be swapped for a different outer shell having a different appearance than the outer shell, and the different outer shell can be swapped in place of the outer shell so that the inner container is inside of the different outer shell for forming the beverage container. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to either change the inner container or outer container to chance the appearance, since applicant has not disclosed that changing the appearance solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the inner and outer containers as taught by Sherburne modified by Baston.
As to claim 6, Sherburne modified by Baston teaches the beverage container of claim 2, wherein the inner container does not directly contact the outer container while the chamber is maintained (Sherburne Fig. 4 shows a cross-sectional side view of the beverage container 1 where the inner tubular sidewall 16 does not directly contact the outer tubular sidewall 15).
As to claim 7, Sherburne modified by Baston discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the lower floor can be disconnected from the outer tubular sidewall, and the lower floor can be connected to the outer tubular sidewall via fastening to close the chamber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the threaded connection similar to the connection of the cap to the container body to provide a secure connection of the lower floor to the outer sidewall, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
As to claim 14, Sherburne modified by Baston teaches the beverage container of claim 1, further comprising a valve (one-way valve 3) that extends through the outer shell (bottom plate 2), the valve allowing a vacuum to be developed within the chamber (Baston, pg. 23, ¶ 000112).
As to claim 17, Sherburne modified by Baston teaches the beverage container of claim 14, further comprising electronic circuitry located within the chamber while the vacuum in the chamber is maintained (Sherburne, pg. 20, ¶ 0208).
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherburne in view of Baston further in view of U.S. PGPUB 2016/0088960 A1 to Liang (“Liang”).
As to claim 4, Sherburne modified by Baston teaches the beverage container of claim 2, but does not teach further comprising a bridge to which both of the inner container and the outer shell connect, the bridge comprising an insert ring which is located radially directly between the inner container and the outer shell.
Liang teaches further comprising a bridge (combining base 31) to which both of the inner container (inner container 20) and the outer shell (outer tumbler body 10) connect (Liang, pg. 1, ¶ 0022), the bridge comprising an insert ring (inner combining portion 313) which is located radially directly between the inner container and the outer shell (Liang Fig. 4 shows the inner combining portion 313 between the inner container 20 and the outer tumbler body 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the combining base of Liang with the beverage container as taught by Sherburne modified by Baston to provide a low cost, safe, and collision-resistant tumbler (Liang, pg. 1, ¶ 0005).
As to claim 5, Sherburne modified by Baston teaches the beverage container of claim 4, wherein the bridge of one of a plurality of different bridges (combining base 31A) having different drinking apertures (Liang Fig. 4 shows the opening unit 32 for the combining base 31 and Fig. 6 shows the opening unit 32A for the combining base 31A), the plurality of different bridges being swappable to form the beverage container such that each bridge of the plurality of different bridges is configured to connect to both of the inner container and the outer shell connect to form the chamber (Liang, pg. 2, ¶ 0027).
As to claim 15, Sherburne modified by Baston teaches the beverage container of claim 14, but does not teach further comprising an annular seal ring located radially directly between the inner container and the outer shell which generates at least one annular seal with one or both of the inner container and the outer shell to support the vacuum.
Liang teaches further comprising an annular seal ring (inner combining portion 313) located radially directly between the inner container and the outer shell (Liang Fig. 4 shows the inner combining portion 313 between the inner container 20 and the outer tumbler body 10) which generates at least one annular seal with one or both of the inner container and the outer shell to support the vacuum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the combining base of Liang with the beverage container as taught by Sherburne modified by Baston to provide a low cost, safe, and collision-resistant tumbler (Liang, pg. 1, ¶ 0005).
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherburne in view of Baston further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,452,876 B2 to Anelevitz et al. (“Anelevitz”).
As to claim 8, Sherburne modified by Baston teaches the beverage container of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising a module located within the chamber while the chamber is closed.
Anelevitz teaches further comprising a module (controller 152) located within the chamber while the chamber is closed (Anelevitz Fig. 3 shows the controller 152 located in the internal volume 122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the controller of Anelevitz with the beverage container as taught by Sherburne modified by Baston to provide an outer container assembly with an electronics unit (Anelevitz, col. 6, lines 45-46).
As to claim 9, Sherburne modified by Baston and Anelevitz teaches the beverage container of claim 8, wherein the module hangs from the inner container (Anelevitz, col. 8, lines 9-10).
As to claim 10, Sherburne modified by Baston and Anelevitz teaches the beverage container of claim 8, wherein thermal energy is exchanged between the module and the beverage in the hold to stabilize the temperature of the beverage (Anelevitz, col. 6, lines 54-56).
As to claim 11, Sherburne modified by Baston and Anelevitz teaches the beverage container of claim 8, wherein module is electric (Anelevitz, electronics unit 148).
As to claim 12, Sherburne modified by Baston and Anelevitz teaches the beverage container of claim 11, wherein the module is configured to receive power wirelessly from across the chamber to power the module (Anelevitz, col. 6, lines 45-49).
As to claim 13, Sherburne modified by Baston and Anelevitz teaches the beverage container of claim 11, wherein the module comprises one or more dynamic graphical elements (illuminable graphic panel 146) within the chamber, and the outer tubular wall is at least partially transparent so that the one or more dynamic graphical elements can be viewed from outside of the container body (Anelevitz Fig. 3 shows the graphic panel 146 inside the container). Anelevitz Fig. 1 shows the design on the panel 146 when the container is assembled, therefore the outer tubular wall is at least partially transparent.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherburne in view of Baston further in view of U.S. PGPUB 2014/0263322 A1 to Ghodbane et al. (“Ghodbane”).
As to claim 16, Sherburne modified by Baston teaches the beverage container of claim 14, but does not teach wherein the valve is configured to be opened by penetration by a needle for removal of air from the chamber, and the valve is configured to close by removal of the needle.
Ghodbane teaches wherein the valve (septum 102) is configured to be opened by penetration by a needle (needle 150) for removal of air from the chamber, and the valve is configured to close by removal of the needle (Ghodbane, pg. 4, ¶ 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the valve of Ghodbane with the beverage container as taught by Sherburne modified by Baston to provide a valve that after the transfer of desired fluid, removal of the needle returns the septum to its closed position (Ghodbane, pg. 4, ¶ 0035).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherburne in view of Baston further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,118,005 to Shimazaki (“Shimazaki’).
As to claim 18, Sherburne modified by Baston teaches the beverage container of claim 14, but does not teach wherein both of the inner tubular wall and the outer tubular wall are at least partially transparent such that the beverage within the hold can be viewed from outside of the container body while the vacuum is maintained in the chamber.
Shimazaki teaches wherein both of the inner tubular wall and the outer tubular wall are at least partially transparent such that the beverage within the hold can be viewed from outside of the container body while the vacuum is maintained in the chamber (Shimazaki, col. 19, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the transparent material of Shimazaki with the beverage container as taught by Sherburne modified by Baston to provide a container where the contents can be seen from outside (Shimazaki, col. 19, lines 1-2).
As to claim 19, Sherburne modified by Baston and Shimazaki discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first transparent material is a different type of material than the second transparent material. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the first transparent material different type of material than the second transparent material, since applicant has not disclosed that changing the type of material solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the transparent material as taught by Shimazaki.
As to claim 20, Sherburne teaches a method of insulating a beverage with a beverage container, the method comprising: inserting an inner container (Sherburne Fig. 4 shows a cross-sectional side view of the beverage container 1 with the inner tubular sidewall 16 inside of the outer tubular sidewall 15) into an outer shell (container body 2) to form a chamber (vacuum chamber 36), wherein the inner container comprises an upper floor (inner bottom wall 23) and an inner tubular sidewall (inner tubular sidewall 16), the upper floor and the inner tubular sidewall forming a hold (hold 7), the hold configured to contain the beverage (Sherburne, pg. 3, ¶ 0034), wherein the outer shell (container body 2) comprises a top end (annular lip 6), a bottom end (lower taper 35), an opening (mouth 12) on the top end, a lower floor (outer bottom wall 24) located on the bottom end (Sherburne Fig. 4 shows the outer bottom wall 24 located at the lower taper 35), and an outer tubular sidewall (outer tubular sidewall 15) extending from the top end to the bottom end, and wherein the chamber is formed both of radially between the inner tubular sidewall and the outer tubular sidewall and axially between the upper floor and the lower floor (Sherburne, pg. 4, ¶ 0052); developing a vacuum within the chamber (Sherburne, pg. 6, ¶ 0066); and insulating the beverage within the hold with the vacuum at least partially surrounding the hold (Sherburne, pg. 6, ¶ 0068); but does not teach the inner tubular sidewall formed from a second transparent material, and an outer tubular sidewall formed from a first transparent material, and developing a vacuum within the chamber through a valve located at least partially within the outer shell.
Baston teaches developing a vacuum within the chamber through a valve (one-way valve 3) located at least partially within the outer shell (bottom plate 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ability to reclose the chamber of Baston with the beverage container as taught by Sherburne to pass air in only one direction (Baston, pg. 23, ¶ 000112).
Shimazaki teaches the inner tubular sidewall formed from a second transparent material (Shimazaki, col. 19, lines 1-2), and an outer tubular sidewall formed from a first transparent material (Shimazaki, col. 19, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the transparent material of Shimazaki with the beverage container as taught by Sherburne modified by Baston to provide a container where the contents can be seen from outside (Shimazaki, col. 19, lines 1-2).
Conclusion
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON LYNN POOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7427. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 10-3 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 at 571-270-5055. 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.
/M.L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 8 January 2026