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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I Claims 1-5 in the reply filed on October 13, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meehan (US 7878365) in view of Girardot (US 9061795).
Regarding Claim 1, Meehan discloses drinking vessel comprising a container for a beverage (11) the container having a covering (70) and a support structure (40) configured to accommodate the container wherein the covering covers the support structure at least partially on a side facing away from the container.
The container is detachably fixed to the support structure, wherein the container is cup-shaped and has a container bottom wall (15) and a side wall (12) connected to the container bottom wall. The support structure (40) is configured as a hollow body having a cavity and having a cavity wall surrounding the side wall of the container and wherein an insulation space (44) is formed between the side wall of the container and the hollow body.
The support structure has a container bottom-side opening (at 63), wherein the container has on its bottom-side container section a mounting structure (16) protruding through the container bottom-side opening of the support structure.
Meehan does not disclose the mounting structure protrudes through the container bottom-side opening of the support structure and has a dovetail-shaped cross section with an undercut, wherein for the detachable fixing of the container, the support structure has elastically deformable tongues that protrude into the undercut of the mounting structure. Rather, Meehan discloses the use of a cap (64) to detachably engage the inner cup circular hub (16) and the support structure with threads 17.
Girardot discloses a similar container (10) with a support (20) wherein the container comprises a mounting structure (32, 34) with a dovetail-shaped cross section with an undercut (35) and the support structure has elastically deformable tongues (60, 64 – Figure 4) which protrude into the undercut. Meehan and Girardot are analogous inventions in the art of container attachment means.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the screw-cap engagement means of Meehan with the snap-fit engagement means of Girardot in order to form a disengageable connection between the two components that is more forgiving if there is some eccentricity between the base and the outer support cup (Col. 7 Lines 15-21).
Regarding Claim 3, Girardot discloses the support structure has a support part (62) configured to support the container in a bottom-side container section.
Regarding Claim 4, Girardot discloses support bodies (30) having support sections for abutting the side wall of the container are formed on the cavity wall on a side facing the side wall of the container at the upper end of sidewall 28.
Regarding Claim 5, Girardot discloses the support bodies have a holding contour (engageable at 46) that is configured to engage over a side wall part of the side wall in a holding section of the container and that serves to press the container in the support structure against the support part with a clamping force when the holding contour engages over the side wall part.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the inclusion of holding bars (41) arranged parallel to a tangent as disclosed in Figure 41 appears novel in the art of container attachment tongue and projection mechanisms.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3736