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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 12/4/2025, wherein claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-16, 19 were amended. Claims 1-19 are pending.
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.
Claims 18 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.
The term “comprising tilting the sleeve in a second direction such that the one or more openings are covered by the peripheral wall of the cup” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “comprising tilting the sleeve in a second direction such that the one or more openings are covered by the peripheral wall of the cup” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. If the openings were truly covered, then the liquid would not drain out. The claim appears to state a limitation that would contradict the function of the assembly. The openings never are truly covered by the cup peripheral wall. If this was true, the liquid would not drain. In the traditional interpretation, a bottle opening covered by a lid would not allow the bottle contents to be extracted. Further, the opening would no longer visible from any angle. However in the case of the present application, none of this is true. For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that the openings are not inhibited by the cup peripheral wall and draining can proceed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-10, 13, 15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Coppens (WO 2019143243 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Coppens discloses a container comprising: a cup (2) comprising a base, a peripheral side wall that extends from the base, and a cup opening at a free end of the peripheral side wall opposite the base; and a sleeve (9) connected around an outside of the cup and configured to at least partially detach therefrom, the sleeve comprising a sleeve base (10), a sleeve peripheral side wall (12) that extends from the sleeve base, and a detached sleeve opening (top of 9 figure 2) at an end of the sleeve peripheral side wall opposite the sleeve base, wherein the detached sleeve opening has a diameter that is dimensioned to fit inside the cup opening and sealingly engage with an inside of the cup at the free end of the peripheral side wall to define an interior volume between the cup and the sleeve .
PNG
media_image1.png
534
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5, Coppens discloses the container of claim 1, where the cup comprises, a rim (upper portion of 2) extending around the cup opening.
With respect to claim 6, Coppens discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the sleeve is detachable from the cup through a circumferential perforated (15) connection or a tear-away strip. (can be seen in figure 10)
With respect to claim 7, Coppens discloses container of claim 6, wherein the perforated connection and/or the tear-away strip (15) is located a distance from a top of the sleeve peripheral side wall.
With respect to claim 8, Coppens discloses container of claim 1, wherein the cup (2) and/or the sleeve (9) is/are conical between the openings and the bases, respectively, such that the openings are wider than the bases.
With respect to claim 9, Coppens discloses container of claim 1, wherein the cup is a thermoformed plastic. (page 6 lines 20-25)
Examiner Note: the limitation “thermoformed” is considered to constitute a product by process limitation that does not materially affect structure. "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" (See MPEP 2113; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
With respect to claim 10, Coppens discloses container of claim 1, wherein the sleeve comprises paper material. (page 6 lines 25-30)
With respect to claim 13, Coppens discloses a method of forming a container, the method comprising: providing a cup (2) comprising a base, a peripheral side wall that extends from the base, and a cup opening at a free end of the peripheral side wall opposite the base; providing a sleeve (9, 15) comprising a sleeve base (10) and a sleeve peripheral side wall (12) that extends from the sleeve base, and a detached sleeve opening at an end of the sleeve peripheral side wall opposite the sleeve base(top of 9 in figure 2); and connecting the sleeve around an outside of the cup, wherein the sleeve is configured to at least partially detach from the cup at the detached sleeve opening (opening of 9); wherein the detached sleeve opening has a diameter that is dimensioned to fit inside the cup opening and sealingly engage with an inside of the cup at the free end of the peripheral side wall to define an interior volume between the cup and the sleeve.
With respect to claim 15, Coppens discloses the method of claim 13, wherein connecting the sleeve (9, 15) around the outside of the cup (2) comprises: forming a circumferential perforation line and/or a circumferential tear-away strip (15) in the sleeve peripheral side wall; and connecting an inside of the sleeve peripheral side wall above the perforation line and/or a circumferential tear-away strip (5) to an outside of the (2) peripheral wall of the cup. (as seen in figures 10)
With respect to claim 19, Coppens discloses the method of claim 15, wherein connecting the inside of the sleeve peripheral side wall above the perforation line and/or a circumferential tear-away strip to an outside of the peripheral side wall of the cup comprises using an adhesive. (page 6 lines 25-30) (as seen in figures 10)
Claim(s) 1-4, 13-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Pinesap (see webpage attached).
With respect to claim 1, Coppens discloses a container comprising: a cup (figure 1 below) comprising a base, a peripheral side wall, and a cup opening at a free end of the peripheral side wall opposite the base (inherent features of the cup); a sleeve (figure 1 below) connected around an outside of the cup (via friction fit) and configured to at least partially detach therefrom, the sleeve comprising a sleeve base (bottom), a sleeve peripheral side wall (wall extending around base) that extends from the base, and a detached sleeve opening (not labeled, but opening at the top end of the photograph below of the sleeve) at an end of the sleeve peripheral side wall opposite the sleeve base, wherein the detached sleeve opening has a diameter that is dimensioned to fit inside the cup opening and sealingly engage with an inside of the cup at the free end of the peripheral side wall to define an interior volume between the cup and the sleeve. (see response to arguments below, limitation only limits the diameter, does not positively state a configuration).
Examiner Note: https://www.campstitchwood.com/products/pinesap-mug-cozy-knitting-pattern
PNG
media_image2.png
694
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Coppens discloses the container of claim 1, further comprising one or more openings (figure 1, “opening”) in the sleeve peripheral side wall. (can alternatively consider selective gaps of the crochet pattern)
With respect to claim 3, Coppens discloses the container of claim 2, wherein the one or more openings (figure 1, “opening”) are located on the sleeve at a position that is inside of the cup when the sleeve opening is positioned inside the cup opening. (This is also true of the gaps in the crochet pattern considered openings)
With respect to claim 4, Coppens discloses the container of claim 2, wherein the one or more openings span between 10% and 50% of the circumference of the sleeve. (from the photograph, it can be understood that Pinesap falls within this range)
With respect to claim 13, Coppens discloses a method of forming a container, the method comprising: providing a cup (figure 1) comprising a base, a peripheral side wall that extends from the base, and a cup opening at a free end of the peripheral side wall opposite the base; providing a sleeve (figure 1) comprising a sleeve base, a sleeve peripheral side wall that extends from the sleeve base, and a detached sleeve opening (not labeled, but the opening end opposite the base of the sleeve, the opening most proximal to the top of the photograph) at an end of the sleeve peripheral side wall opposite the sleeve base; and connecting the sleeve around an outside of the cup, wherein the sleeve is configured to at least partially detach from the cup at the detached sleeve opening; wherein the detached sleeve opening has a diameter that is dimensioned to fit inside the cup opening and sealingly engage with an inside of the cup at the free end of the peripheral side wall to define an interior volume between the cup and the sleeve. (see response to arguments below, limitation only limits the diameter, does not positively state a configuration).
With respect to claim 14, Coppens discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising forming one or more openings (figure 1) in the sleeve peripheral side wall.
With respect to claim 16, Coppens discloses the container of claim 2, wherein the one or more openings are located at or near the detached sleeve opening. (can consider gaps near the top of the sleeve as the one or more openings)
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Jesper (DK 201870313 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Jesper discloses a container comprising: a cup (200) comprising a base, a peripheral side wall that extends from the base (bottom of 200), and a cup opening (top of 200) at a free end of the peripheral side wall opposite the base; and a sleeve (300) connected (via element 410) around an outside of the cup and configured to at least partially detach therefrom, the sleeve comprising a sleeve base (bottom of 300), a sleeve peripheral side wall that extends from the sleeve base, and a detached sleeve opening (opening of 300) at an end of the sleeve peripheral side wall opposite the sleeve base ,wherein the detached sleeve opening has a diameter that is dimensioned to fit inside the cup opening and sealingly engage with an inside of the cup at the free end of the peripheral side wall to define an interior volume between the cup and the sleeve. (as shown in figure 4B and 5F)
PNG
media_image3.png
484
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
270
276
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
358
388
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, Jesper discloses a method of using the container of claim 1, the method comprising: detaching the sleeve from the cup; and placing the detached sleeve opening inside the cup opening to form an interior volume between the cup and the sleeve. (orientation shown in figure 4A/B and 5F)
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppens (WO 2019143243 A1) in view of Giaimo (US 4033453 A).
With respect to claim 17, the references as applied to claim 10, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the paper material is coated with plastic. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely cups, Giaimo taught of cups made of a paper material that is coated with plastic to create a liquid impermeable paper material (col 1 lines 55-58). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the paper of Coppens to include a plastic coated paper material as taught by Giaimo in order to allow for better liquid impermeability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 is rejected 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. Claim 12 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim 11 (above). Search results for prior art in this field failed to identify wherein the sleeve peripheral side wall comprises one or more openings, and the method further comprises tilting the sleeve in a first direction such that any liquid in the interior volume can drain out of the one or more openings in the sleeve peripheral side wall.
Consequentially, claims 18 is rejected due to their dependencies on previously rejected claim 11 however they also depend upon the allowable subject matter from claim 12 due to dependencies on claims 11.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-10618195-B2 OR US-7882991-B2 OR US-8899435-B1 OR US-8574647-B1 OR US-8485378-B2 OR US-8281946-B1 OR US-6276555-B1 OR US-6562270-B1 OR US-20190283952-A1 OR US-20100015293-A1 OR US-20170202400-A1
Response to Arguments
With respect to the previous 112b rejections, applicants amendments overcome most of the rejections. However, the amendments and remarks fail to address the claim 18 rejection over the covering of the openings. Therefore, claim 18 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112b, see rejection above.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Coppens is silent on the possibility of the second receptacle fitting in the inside of the first receptacle and sealing engage the inside of the cup. Firstly the claim describes intended function, it does not even positively recite the configuration of a sleeve within the cup, it is stating a The present phrasing, “a diameter that is dimensioned to fit inside the cup opening and sealingly engage with an inside of the cup” can be broad, as it describes intended function and it is only describing the diameter of the opening. This does not outright claim a direct connecting between the cup and sleeve. With regards to Pinesap, the sleeve is of a flexible material and can obtain a variety of dimensions. Including a dimension that is similar to that of the cup opening and would be capable of engaging the cup opening. The claims do not teach against the use of additional features to seal. For example, for Pinesap, the detached sleeve opening could be glued to the cup opening and thus, the sleeve opening has a diameter that could be dimensioned to sealing engage the inside of the cup.
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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735