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 § 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.
Claims 1-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al. (U.S. 2020/0337484) in view of Swartz et al. (U.S. 11,639,253). Sorensen et al. teaches a cap assembly 14 for a container 12, comprising a base 24, 26 configured to be removably coupled to the container via threads 16, a drink spout 28 extending away from the base (figure 4), a closure 148 configured to selectively obstruct a passage through the drink spout (figure 22), a tether 64 coupling the closure to the base, wherein a first portion of the tether retains the closure (at lead line 132) and a second portion of the tether is pivotably connected to the base at a location spaced away from the drink spout (at 134) such that the tether is transitionable between a closed arrangement (figure 19) in which the closure is positioned over the drink spout and an opened arrangement in which the closure is spaced away from the drink spout (figure 20), and a biasing device 154 configured to bias the tether from the closed arrangement toward the opened arrangement.
Regarding claim 1, Sorensen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the closure being received within an opening of the tether. Swartz et al. teaches that it is known to provide a closure which received in an opening of the tether (see closure 28 and aperture 29’ in figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure assembly of Sorensen et al. with the closure being received in an opening of the tether, as taught by Swartz et al., in order to allow the user to replace the closure if it becomes damaged.
Regarding claim 2, the biasing device 154 includes a biasing body disposed between the base and the tether (figure 21).
Regarding claim 3, the biasing body 154 is formed of a resilient material (paragraph [0116]).
Regarding claim 4, the biasing body 154 is connected to the base and the tether (figure 21).
Regarding claim 5, the base includes a platform 24 and a post 76 projecting from the platform at a location spaced away from the drink spout (figure 4), wherein the second portion of the tether is pivotably connected to the post at 92, and further wherein the biasing body 154 is connected to the post via connection with 64.
Regarding claim 6, the biasing body is a ring at 168.
Regarding claim 21, the aperture (as modified by Swartz et al.; element 29’ of Swartz et al.) is circumscribed by a rim that corresponds to a circumferential channel of the closure (see figure 6 of Swartz et al.).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al. (U.S. 2020/0337484) in view of Swartz et al. (U.S. 11,639,253), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lane (U.S. 8,622,229).
Regarding claim 8, the modified apparatus of Sorensen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the spout being assembled to the base. Lane teaches that it is known to provide a closure wherein the spout is assembled to the base (see elements 28 and 30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified assembly of Sorensen et al. with the spout being assembled to the base, as taught by Lane, in order to allow the user to replace the spout if it becomes damaged.
Regarding claim 9, a material of the drink spout differs from a material of the base, as set forth in col.12 lines 5-11 of Lane.
Regarding claim 10, the drink spout is formed of a silicone material as set forth in col.12 lines 5-11 of Lane.
Regarding claim 11, the base includes a platform defining an opening and a tubular body projecting from an upper face of the platform in alignment with the opening, and further wherein the drink spout is configured for assembly within an interior of the tubular body, as modified by Lane above (see figure 7 of Lane).
Regarding claim 12, the passage extends between, and is open to, opposing ends of the drink spout, and further wherein an exterior face of the drink spout defines a circumferential channel at a location between the opposing ends, the channel sized to receive a length of the tubular body, as modified by Lane above (see figure 7 of Lane).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al. (U.S. 2020/0337484) in view of Swartz et al. (U.S. 11,639,253), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Davies (U.S. 2023/0322448).
Regarding claim 13, the modified apparatus of Sorensen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the closure being rotatably retained by the first portion of the tether. Davies teaches that it is known to provide a closure is rotatably retained by the first portion of the tether (see figure 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified assembly of Sorensen et al. with the closure being rotatably retained by the first portion of the tether, as taught by Davies, in order to secure the closure to the spout by threads to improve the seal between the closure and the spout.
Regarding claim 14, the closure includes a cap body defining a cover panel and a side wall projecting from the cover panel (as modified by Davies above; see element 140 of Davies), and further wherein a portion of the side wall defines interior threads configured to threadably engage threads of the base (see elements 142 of Davies; figure 7).
Regarding claim 15, the side wall defines an exterior face forming a circumferential channel, wherein the first portion of the tether defines an aperture circumscribed by a rim (see element 160 of Davies), and further wherein the circumferential channel is sized to slidably receive the rim, as modified by Davies.
Regarding claim 16, the base includes a platform defining an opening and a tubular body projecting from an upper surface of the platform in alignment with the opening, and further wherein an exterior surface of the tubular body defines a threaded surface configured to threadably engage the interior threads of the cap body, as modified by Davies (spout is considered tubular body).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al. (U.S. 2020/0337484) in view of Swartz et al. (U.S. 11,639,253), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shepard et al. (U.S. 10,512,347).
Regarding claim 17, the modified assembly of Sorensen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the handle. Shepard et al. teaches that it is known to provide a cap with a handle (see element 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified assembly of Sorensen et al. with handle, as taught by Shepard et al., in order to allow the user to easily grasp and transport the container.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al. (U.S. 2020/0337484) in view of Swartz et al. (U.S. 11,639,253) and Shepard et al. (U.S. 10,512,347), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bullock et al. (U.S. 2022/0127049).
Regarding claim 18, Sorensen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the handle being formed of a thermoplastic elastomer material. Bullock et al. teaches that it is known to provide a cap with a handle being formed of a thermoplastic elastomer material (see paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified cap of Sorensen et al. with handle being formed of a thermoplastic elastomer material, as taught by Bullock et al., in order to give the handle a softer tactile feel, as disclosed in paragraph [0027] of Bullock et al.
Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al. (U.S. 2020/0337484) in view of Swartz et al. (U.S. 11,639,253) and Lane (U.S. 8,622,229).
Regarding claim 19, Sorensen et al. teaches a cap assembly 14 for a container 12, comprising a base24, 26 configured to be removably coupled to the container via threads at 18, a drink spout 28 extending away from the base, a closure 148 configured to selectively obstruct a passage through the drink spout (figure 19), and a tether 64 coupling the closure to the base, wherein the base includes a platform at 24 defining an opening and a tubular body projecting from an upper face of the platform in alignment with the opening.
Further regarding claim 19, Sorensen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the closure being received within an opening of the tether and except for the spout being assembled to the base. Swartz et al. teaches that it is known to provide a closure which received in an opening of the tether (see closure 28 and aperture 29’ in figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure assembly of Sorensen et al. with the closure being received in an opening of the tether, as taught by Swartz et al., in order to allow the user to replace the closure if it becomes damaged.
Lane teaches that it is known to provide a closure wherein the spout is assembled the base (see elements 28 and 30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure of Sorensen et al. with the spout being assembled to the base, as taught by Lane, in order to allow the user to replace the spout if it becomes damaged.
Regarding claim 22, the aperture (as modified by Swartz et al.; element 29’ of Swartz et al.) is circumscribed by a rim that corresponds to a circumferential channel of the closure (see figure 6 of Swartz et al.).
Claims 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al. (U.S. 2020/0337484) in view of Swartz et al. (U.S. 11,639,253), and Shepard et al. (U.S. 10,512,347).
Regarding claim 20, Sorensen et al. teaches a cap assembly 14 for a container 12, comprising a base 24, 26 configured to be removably coupled to the container via threads at 18, a drink spout 28 extending away from the base, a closure 148 configured to selectively obstruct a passage through the drink spout (figure 19), and a tether 64 coupling the closure to the base.
Further regarding claim 20, Sorensen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the closure being received within an opening of the tether and the handle. Swartz et al. teaches that it is known to provide a closure which received in an opening of the tether (see closure 28 and aperture 29’ in figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure assembly of Sorensen et al. with the closure being received in an opening of the tether, as taught by Swartz et al., in order to allow the user to replace the closure if it becomes damaged.
Shepard et al. teaches that it is known to provide a cap with a handle (see element 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified assembly of Sorensen et al. with handle, as taught by Shepard et al., in order to allow the user to easily grasp and transport the container.
Regarding claim 23, the aperture (as modified by Swartz et al.; element 29’ of Swartz et al.) is circumscribed by a rim that corresponds to a circumferential channel of the closure (see figure 6 of Swartz et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sorensen does not teach the tether having an aperture configured to receive the closure. The secondary reference of Swartz et al. (U.S. 11,639,253) has been added to the rejections above for the teaching of having a closure that is separately formed from the tether and is received in an aperture of the tether. Swartz et al. teaches a closure 28 which is received in the opening at 29’.
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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736