DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-7 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Haga (4,890,770).
1. A lid (Figs. 1-31) for a beverage container, the lid comprising:
a body (Fig. 3 at 100); a spout (Fig. 4 at 200) extending from and protruding upwards from the body and defining a first drinking opening (202) above the body and a second drinking opening (204) above the body; and a straw (210) connected to a bottom portion of the second drinking opening, wherein the spout comprises a top rim (edge of 200). Lee does not disclose the top rim is fixed and position relative to the body. However, It would have been obvious to modify Lee’s movable spout to a fixed, rigid spout as taught by Haga (Fig. 4) because rigid spouts are well known alternatives in beverage lid design, and selecting a fixed versus bendable configuration is a predictable design choice depending on desired durability and structural simplicity.
2. The lid of claim 1, wherein the straw is not connected to the first drinking opening (Figs. 2).
3. The lid of claim 1, wherein the top rim is continuous and surrounds the first drinking opening and the second drinking opening (Fig. 2).
4. The lid of claim 1, wherein in response to the lid being tilted toward a front of the lid, a beverage stored in the interior of an attached beverage container is dispensed through the first drinking opening and flows over a portion of the second drinking opening (where the lid can function as such).
5. The lid of claim 1, wherein in response to the lid being tilted toward a front of the lid, a beverage stored in the interior of the attached beverage container is dispensed through the first drinking opening and flows over a front of the second drinking opening from a rear of the second drinking opening to a front of the second drinking opening (where the lid can function as such).
6. The lid of claim 1, wherein when a beverage stored in the interior of an attached beverage container is dispensed through the second drinking opening of the lid by sucking the beverage through the conduit and second drinking opening, the beverage is not also dispensed through the first drinking opening (where the lid can function as such).
7. The lid of claim 1 wherein the second drinking opening is closer to a front of the lid than the first drinking opening is (Fig. 2).
13. The lid of claim 1, comprising a wall (Fig. 2 between 208 and 204) separating the first drinking opening and the second drinking opening, wherein the top of the outer wall is continuous with the top rim of the spout (where the top wall continuous along portion of the spout).
14. The lid of claim 1, wherein the straw (210) is configured to extend at least into a lower half of a beverage container when the body is coupled to the container (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Haga, in further view of Parker (US3,168,221).
16. The lid of claim 1, Lee does not disclose the closure rotatably coupled to the body and configured to pivot between an open position in which the spout is open and a closed position in which the closure closes the spout. Attention, however is directed to Parker (Fig. 3) which discloses a pivotal closure to close a spout. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Lee by employing a pivotal closure in order to have a closure that can not to easily lost.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Haga.
8. The lid of claim 1, comprising a wall (106) separating the first drinking opening and the second drinking opening. Lee DIFFER in that they do not disclose a portion of the wall is angled upwardly toward a front of the lid. However, a change in shape is generally recognized to be within the skill level of one of ordinary skill within the art, therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to employ such a shape, in order to have a different shaped lid.
9. Lee DIFFER in that they do not disclose a portion of the rim that extends around the first drinking opening slopes upwardly toward the second drinking opening. However, a change in shape is generally recognized to be within the skill level of one of ordinary skill within the art, therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to employ such a shape, in order to have a different shaped lid.
10. Lee DIFFER in that they do not disclose a portion of the rim that extends around the second drinking opening slopes upwardly toward a front of the lid. However, a change in shape is generally recognized to be within the skill level of one of ordinary skill within the art, therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to employ such a shape, in order to have a different shaped lid.
11. DIFFER in that they do not disclose the first drinking opening is at least four times the size of the second drinking opening. However, a change in shape is generally recognized to be within the skill level of one of ordinary skill within the art, therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to employ such a shape, in order to have a different shaped lid.
12. Lee DIFFER in that they do not disclose the second opening has an oblong shape. However, a change in shape is generally recognized to be within the skill level of one of ordinary skill within the art, therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, to employ such a shape, in order to have a different shaped lid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: Regarding claim 1, applicant argues Lee does not disclose “wherein the spout comprises a top rim that is fixed in the position relative to the body” (remarks page 5). Applicant argues: “MPEP § 2143.01(V) provides that a ‘proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.’ Contrary to this provision, the alleged modification to make Lee's outflow means 200 fixed relative to main body 100 would render Lee inoperable for its intended purpose, as Lee's operation for its intended purpose depends on its outflow means 200 being movable. Lee explains that an object is to "provide a spout assembly having a plurality of fluid passage that is designed such that a protruding fluid passage can be folded thereby preventing the pollution of a mouse [sic] contact portion.’ Lee, 1 [0005]. Indeed, all embodiments disclosed in Lee include a foldable outflow means (e.g., first embodiment shown in Figures 2 and 3, second embodiment shown in Figures 17 and 19, and third embodiment shown in Figures 24 and 25), and the key feature in each embodiment lays in the bending means to allow folding of the outflow means. Lee, 1 [0048]-[0051]; [0066]-[0067]; [0071]-[0072]” (remarks page 6).
Examiner response: Although the Lee reference describes a foldable spout, the foldability is disclosed as one embodiment for protecting the mouth-contact portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the same protective function could alternatively be achieved by providing a cap of sufficient size to fully cover the spout. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have a fixed spout, rather than a foldable spout, because a larger cap that fully covers the mouth-contact portion would achieve the same protective objective of preventing contamination of the mouth-contact portion, thereby not rendering the invention inoperable.
Applicant argues: In addition to its dependency from independent claim 1, claim 3 recites, in part, "the top rim is continuous and surrounds the first drinking opening and the second drinking opening." These features are not disclosed in the applied references.
Examiners response: see the annotated figure below that further shows that the top rim is continuous and surrounds the first drinking opening and the second drinking opening.
PNG
media_image1.png
630
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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. 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.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights