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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 1, 8, 13, there is no support in the original disclosure for thickness of the vent valve less than thickness of the vent and seal plate and thus it constitutes new matter. In particular, the original disclosure is silent regarding thicknesses of the vessel parts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2005/0072788 to Lieberman et al. (Lieberman).
Regarding claim 1, Lieberman discloses a spill-resistant drink vessel (Fig 4) comprising a body (112), a lid housing (114) securable to the body and having a top surface from a which a plate seal flange (115) extends downwardly on one side, further having a straw orifice (116) and a vent orifice (118) passing through the lid housing, a vent and seal plate (120) having an integral vent valve (144) and integral liquid valve (124) and further having a lid seal flange (152) on one side, wherein the integral vent valve has a thickness (T1, Fig 5 below) less than a thickness of the vent and seal plate (T2, Fig 5 below), wherein the lid and plate seal flanges are configured to engage with one another to provide a seal between the lid housing and plate (€0043), wherein the vent orifice (118) and integral vent valve (144) are in fluid communication with one another (€0040).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lieberman further discloses the vent and seal plate (120) further comprising an integral straw extension (134, Fig 5).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 6,230,923 to Hung.
Regarding claim 1, Hung discloses a spill-resistant drink vessel (Fig 2) comprising a body (10), a lid housing (20) securable to the body and having a top surface from a which a plate seal flange (21, Fig 4) extends downwardly on one side, further having a straw orifice (23’) and a vent orifice (24) passing through the lid housing, a vent and seal plate (30) having an integral vent valve (311) and integral liquid valve (324) and further having a lid seal flange (321) on one side, wherein the integral vent valve has a thickness (T1, Fig 3 below) less than a thickness of the vent and seal plate (T2, Fig 3 below), wherein the lid and plate seal flanges are configured to engage with one another to provide a seal between the lid housing and plate (col. 3, ll. 15-20), wherein the vent orifice (24) and integral vent valve (311) are in fluid communication with one another (col. 3, ll. 45-50).
PNG
media_image2.png
724
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 3-6, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman in view of US 2010/0127005 to Sanbrook et al. (Sanbrook)
Regarding claim 3, Lieberman discloses the vessel of claim 1 but does not teach integral straw extension including upper and lower portions with the valve in between. However, Sanbrook discloses a drinking vessel and in particular discloses a vent and seal plate (flow control element 24) comprising an integral straw extension with upper (59) and lower portions (57) and liquid valve (64) configured between upper and lower portions (Fig 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the straw extension of Lieberman with a functionally equivalent straw extension including upper and lower portions with valve in between as suggested by Sanbrook in order to facilitate dispensing.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Lieberman teaches the vessel of claim 3 and further teaches upper straw part comprising a flange (66, Sanbrook) configured to seal against the plate.
Regarding claim 5, Lieberman further discloses lid housing (114) comprising a straw orifice (119) to allow upper straw part to pass through housing since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 6, Lieberman further discloses lid housing comprising an annular skirt (114) having internal screw threads configured to engage external screw threads on the body (112) (Fig 4) and wherein the plate seal flange (152) is configured to fit concentrically between annular skirt and lid seal flange (115) when the housing and plate are assembled onto the body, the plate seal flange (152) extending upwardly from vent and seal plate relative to body and annular skirt and lid seal flange extending downwardly from lid housing relative to body, wherein the plate seal flange is compressed between lid housing and rim of the body as lid housing is screwed onto the body (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 8-9, Lieberman discloses a spill-resistant drink vessel (Fig 4) comprising a body (112) having a rim at an open top end and external screw threads extending circumferentially around the body adjacent the rim (Fig 3), a lid housing (14) securable to the body (112) and having a top surface from which a plate seal flange (115) extends downwardly on one side, further having a straw orifice (116) and vent orifice (118) passing through lid housing, the vent orifice (118) and integral vent valve are in fluid communication with one another, lid housing (14) further comprising an annular skirt having internal screw threads configured to engage external screw threads on the body (Fig 4), a vent and seal plate (120) comprising the integral vent valve (144), lid seal flange (132) on one side extending upwardly from vent and seal plate relative to body, the integral vent valve having a thickness (T1, Fig 5 above) less than thickness of the vent and seal plate (T2, Fig 5 above), the plate seal flange (132) configured to fit concentrically between annular skirt and lid seal flange when lid housing and plate are assembled, the plate seal flange (132) compressed between lid housing and rim of the body as the lid housing is screwed on the body (Fig 4). Lieberman does not teach an integral straw extension as recited. However, Sanbrook discloses a drinking vessel and in particular discloses a vent and seal plate (flow control element 24) comprising an integral straw extension with upper (59) and lower portions (57) and liquid valve (64) configured between upper and lower portions (Fig 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the straw extension of Lieberman with a functionally equivalent straw extension including upper and lower portions with valve in between as suggested by Sanbrook in order to facilitate dispensing.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Lieberman teaches the vessel of claim 9 and further teaches upper straw part comprising a flange (66, Sanbrook) configured to seal against the plate.
Regarding claim 11, Lieberman further discloses lid housing (114) comprising a straw orifice (119) to allow upper straw part to pass through housing since it has the structure as recited.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman in view of US Patent No. 8,256,642 to McNamara et al. (McNamara).
Regarding claim 7, Lieberman discloses the vessel of claim 1 but does not teach the plate further comprising a projection from underside of the plate and adjacent a periphery of the plate. However, McNamara discloses a drinking vessel (Fig 1) and in particular discloses a valve plate (50) comprising a projection (66) from underside of the plate and adjacent a periphery of the plate (Fig 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a projection to the underside of the Lieberman plate as suggested by McNamara in order to facilitate grasping in order to remove and insert the plate (McNamara, col. 5, ll. 20-25).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman in view of Sanbrook and US Patent No. 6,102,245 to Haberman.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Lieberman teaches the vessel of claim 8 but does not teach the plate further comprising at least one projection as recited. Haberman discloses a drinking vessel (1, Fig 2) and in particular discloses a vent and seal plate (10) comprising at least one projection (integral lip at 13, col. 4, ll. 15-20) extending from underside of the plate adjacent a periphery (13) of the plate and configured to engage rim of the body when the plate is assembled onto the body in order to strengthen the periphery and provide a sealing effect around the periphery. Taken as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a projection at the underside of the modified Lieberman plate as suggested by Haberman in order to strengthen the periphery and provide a sealing effect.
Regarding claim 13, Lieberman discloses a spill-resistant drink vessel (Fig 4) comprising a body (112) having a rim at an open top end and external screw threads extending circumferentially around the body adjacent the rim (Fig 3), a lid housing (14) securable to the body (112) and having a top surface from which a plate seal flange (115) extends downwardly on one side, further having a straw orifice (116) and vent orifice (118) passing through lid housing, the vent orifice (118) and integral vent valve are in fluid communication with one another, lid housing (14) further comprising an annular skirt having internal screw threads configured to engage external screw threads on the body (Fig 4), a vent and seal plate (120) comprising integral vent valve (144), lid seal flange (132) on one side extending upwardly from vent and seal plate relative to body, integral vent valve (144) having a thickness (T1, Fig 5 above) less than thickness (T2, Fig 5 above) of the vent and seal plate (120), the plate seal flange (132) configure to fit concentrically between annular skirt and lid seal flange when lid housing and plate are assembled, the plate seal flange (132) compressed between lid housing and rim of the body as the lid housing is screwed on the body (Fig 4). Lieberman does not teach an integral straw extension as recited. However, Sanbrook discloses a drinking vessel and in particular discloses a vent and seal plate (flow control element 24) comprising an integral straw extension with upper (59) and lower portions (57) and liquid valve (64) configured between upper and lower portions (Fig 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the straw extension of Lieberman with a functionally equivalent straw extension including upper and lower portions with valve in between as suggested by Sanbrook in order to facilitate dispensing. The modified Lieberman does not teach the plate further comprising at least one projection as recited. Haberman discloses a drinking vessel (1, Fig 2) and in particular discloses a vent and seal plate (10) comprising at least one projection (integral lip at 13, col. 4, ll. 15-20) extending from underside of the plate adjacent a periphery (13) of the plate and configured to engage rim of the body when the plate is assembled onto the body in order to strengthen the periphery and provide a sealing effect around the periphery. Taken as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a projection at the underside of the modified Lieberman plate as suggested by Haberman in order to strengthen the periphery and provide a sealing effect.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues that prior art does not teach the integral vent valve having a thickness less than a thickness of the vent and seal plate. Assuming arguendo that applicant has support for such a limitation, applicant’s argument is not persuasive because as shown in the marked figures above, the integral vent valve of both Lieberman and Hung have thickness less than thickness of the plate from which the vent valve protrudes from.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735