DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on December 18, 2025, the objections to the claims, drawings, specification and the 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 09/23/2025), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1-2 and 8 have been amended,
Claims 3 -7, 11-13 and 15 were previously presented, and
Claims 9-10, 14 and 16-18 have been cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1-8, 11-13 and 15 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
“an internal thermometer is disposed on the upper thread lid” as in claim 1
Must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, ln. 8 and 18, the phrase in each instance, “…the upper threaded lid…” should read “…the [[upper]] threaded lid…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
In claim 15, ln. 2, the phrase, “…the upper lid…” should read “…the [[upper]] threaded lid…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 1-8, 11-13 and 15 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, ln. 19, the phrase, “…the food product…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant has not positively “a food product” per se in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
As for claims 2-8, 11-13 and 15, due to their dependencies from claim 1, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. It fails to further limit amended claim 1 (which it depends from), as all of the limitation(s) presented in claim 8 are already present in amended claim 1; emphasis added. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stokes (US 6758363 B2; hereinafter Stokes) and further in view of Staggs (US 5271244 A; hereinafter Staggs) and Venti et al. (US 20200179233 A1; hereinafter Venti).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 11, Stokes teaches an ice cream maker embodiment (i.e. in the form of an insulated container – as shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising:
an open upper end (i.e. EITHER the open end of cylindrical cup liner (30) OR the open end of the body (20) is what examiner equates to the claimed open upper end) and a closed lower end (i.e. in the form of a fitted snap-on bottom cap (50) is what examiner equates to the claimed closed lower end);
an opening disposed on the open upper end;
a perimeter wall (i.e. in the form of body (20) is what equates to the claimed perimeter wall) disposed on between the open upper end and the closed lower end;
a threaded lid (40) disposed on the open upper end;
wherein the closed lower end, the open upper end, and the perimeter wall define an interior volume;
wherein the [upper] threaded lid having a solid connector, the solid connector is adapted to permit a straw or a spout (i.e. in the form of dispenser aperture (44)) to be extended through an opening of a food product container (i.e. in the form of a cylindrical cup liner (30)) when the food product container is placed within the interior volume of the ice cream maker; and
wherein the closed lower end is secured to encase a liquid in an internal channel (Stokes Col. 3 ln. 3-54).
Examiner’s note: Stokes discloses or teaches the following, “…a body 20 defining a receptacle therein for containing a generally cylindrical cup liner 30 and liquid (not shown) that can be set inside of the body 20 of the container 10 to hold liquids and the like…” (see Col. 3 ln. 16-19). Examiner interprets the above teaching to mean that there’s a liquid disposed in the space (i.e. what examiner equates to the claimed internal channel) between an exterior surface the cylindrical cup liner (30 – what examiner equates to the claimed food product container) and the inside or inner surface of the body (20); emphasis added.
However, Stokes fails to teach wherein the open upper end includes a gasket disposed on the open upper end to prevent spilling; and a freezable material in the internal channel, and the freezable material includes water and salt to lower the freezing point temperature.
Staggs is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Stokes, which is an insulating container assembly. Staggs teaches an insulated container embodiment (as shown in Figs. 3-4, 9 and 10) comprising:
an open upper end and a closed lower end;
an opening disposed on the open upper end;
a perimeter wall (i.e. the sidewall of outer container (40)) disposed between the open upper end and the closed lower end;
a threaded lid (either fastener (50) or seal cap (22)) disposed on the open upper end; wherein the closed lower end, the open upper end and the perimeter wall define an interior volume (38);
a food container (16), wherein the food product container is placed within the interior volume of the insulated container;
wherein the open upper end includes a gasket (56) disposed on the open upper end to prevent spilling; and
a freezable material (i.e. in the form of refrigerant (42) which may be plain water or a mixture of water….or mineral salts to achieve a lower freezing temperatures; see Col. 21 Ln. 13-28) (Staggs Col. 20 ln. 1 – Col. 21 ln. 56).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of a gasket and freezable material (i.e. a mixture of water and salt – as taught by Staggs) on the overall ice cream maker (of Stokes) to enhance the temperature regulating properties of the overall ice cream maker (of Stokes). Since, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Further, the resultant structure (of modified Stokes) will have the food product container being surrounded by the freezable material adapted to allow a cold food product disposed within the food product container to remain at a desired temperature; emphasis added.
Lastly, Stokes fails to teach an internal thermometer is disposed on the [upper] threaded lid and provides a temperature reading of the food product placed therein.
Venti is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Stokes, which is an insulating container assembly. Venti teaches an insulated container assembly embodiment (100; as shown in Figs. 1-4) comprising:
an open upper end (i.e. the opening of the outer or bottom container (104 and 142)) and a closed lower end;
an opening disposed on the open upper end;
a perimeter wall disposed on between the open upper end and the closed lower end;
a threaded lid (the combination of top (102) AND shell top (144) is what examiner equates the claimed threaded lid) disposed on the open upper end;
wherein the closed lower end, the open upper end, and the perimeter wall define an interior volume;
a food product container (i.e. in the form of inner container (110)) that is placed within the interior volume of the insulated container; and
an internal thermometer (122 and 124) is disposed on the threaded lid (120) and provides a temperature reading of a food product (i.e. in the form of breast milk) placed therein (Venti [0022-0026, 0028]).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the [upper] threaded lid (of Stokes) to have a similar internal thermometer (as taught by Venti) to provide the user with a visual indicator of the exact temperature of the content stored therein.
Regarding claim 2, modified Stokes as above further teaches wherein the perimeter wall tapers inwardly toward the open upper end and the closed lower end (see Stokes Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Stokes as above further teaches wherein the perimeter wall extends upwardly from the closed lower end (see Stokes Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Stokes as above further teaches wherein the perimeter wall includes an interior layer and an exterior layer that defines an interior channel (see Stokes Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Stokes as above further teaches wherein the interior channel that surrounds the interior volume is accessible via the open upper end (see Stokes Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Stokes as above further teaches wherein the opening [of the open upper end] is adapted to receive the food container within the interior volume (see Stokes Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Stokes as above further teaches wherein a top end of the food product container is exposed for consumption through the open upper end of the ice cream maker (see Stokes Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, modified Stokes as above further teaches wherein the freezable material is placed within the internal channel via the opening of the open upper end and encase the food product container (see Stokes Figs. 1-2 OR Staggs Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 13, modified Stokes as above further teaches wherein the freezable material will encase the food product container (see Stokes Figs. 1-2 OR Staggs Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 15, modified Stokes as above further teaches a sliding mechanism (46) is disposed on the [upper] threaded lid that reveals the opening (Stokes Col. 3 ln. 39-42 and Fig. 1).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 1 above) and further in view of Ma (US 20080006643 A1; hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 15, to the degree it can be argued that Stokes fails to teach a sliding mechanism disposed on the upper lid that reveals the opening.
Ma is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Stokes, which is an insulated container assembly. Ma teaches an insulated container assembly embodiment (as shown in Figs. 4-5) comprising:
an open upper end and a closed lower end;
an opening disposed on the open upper end;
a perimeter wall (12) disposed between the open upper end and the closed lower end;
a threaded lid (65) disposed on the open upper end;
wherein the closed lower end, the open upper end, and the perimeter wall define an interior volume;
wherein the threaded lid having a solid connector, the solid connector is adapted to permit a straw or a spout (67) to be extended through the opening of a food product container (16) when the food product container is placed within the interior volume of the insulated container; and
a sliding mechanism (i.e. in the form of a sliding plug (76)) disposed on the threaded lid that reveals the opening (Ma [0045-0053]).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the threaded lid (of Stokes) with the threaded lid (of Ma) because the resultant structure(s) will work equally well.
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP §2143(1)(B) or §2144.06(II)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection(s).
Applicant’s argument: applicant argues that the 103 rejection(s) as suggested by the examiner are improper because the combination CANNOT be combinable with each other. Even assuming arguendo, the applied prior art(s) are combinable with each other, examiner relies upon impermissible hindsight construction (see Remarks pg. 10-12, item V).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion(s).
First and foremost, applicant argues against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP §2145(III) and §2145(IV)
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
With this in mind, as noted in the art rejection above (and the previous office action), the applied art(s) are all in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is directed to an ice cream or insulated container assembly (much like the claimed invention); emphasis added.
The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP §2145(II)
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP §2145(X)(A)
Lastly, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736