DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 in response to Office Action 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that secondary prior art Jordan cannot teach the amendment of immediate surrounding contact because the cited top panel is a standoff separate structure (page 9). However, it is not separate as Fig 4 shows in cross section it is molded/monolithic grid 10 to closure 16. Please see further details in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that primary prior art Heiberger, Jordan and Ban do not teach the new claims (page 10). Examiner appreciates the narrowing structure, and points to new grounds necessitated by the amendments/new claims in the rejection below.
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 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 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 1-4, 6, 8-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20180289186 by Heiberger (hereinafter “Heiberger”) in view of US Pat 3563417 issued to Jordan et al. (hereinafter “Jordan”).
Regarding claim 1, Heiberger teaches a beverage container lid (Figs 1 & 4, 4) configured to fit an open mouth container (Fig 1, 4 fits an open mouth container, shown), the lid comprising: a top panel (Fig 1, a top panel of the lid 4 is a central portion of 4 (i.e. a non-peripheral portion)) having an inside surface, an outside surface opposite the inside surface (the top panel has an inside inward facing surface and an outside outward facing surface), and a drink opening adjacent a periphery of the top panel (Figs 1 & 4, a drink opening is “oblong opening 5”);
But Heiberger does not explicitly teach baffles across the drink opening.
Jordan, however, teaches a similar baffled lid opening comprising:
a plurality of spaced apart baffle members on an inside surface of a top panel spanning a drink opening (Figs 1-4, a plurality of spaced apart individual baffle members are disclosed as “intersecting ribs 30”, shown on an inside surface of a top panel of a lid, and shown spanning a dispensing opening capable of drinking from; Fig 3, a base end of each baffle shown attached to the inside surface that surrounds/bounds the opening), each baffle member includes an upper side edge (Fig 3, an upper side edge of 30) joined to a region of the inside surface (Figs 1-3, is joined to a region of the inside surface of the top panel which is defined by 38) of the top panel (Fig 4, the top panel shown molded with the lid) that bounds and immediately surrounds the drink opening (Fig 2, 38 is shown as a portion of the inside surface of the top panel, and the inside surface is shown immediately surrounding the drink opening), and each baffle member extends away from the inside surface and across the drink opening (Fig 3, each 30 extends downward away from the inside surface and across the drink opening), the baffles members holding ice away from the drink opening and prevent ice from escaping through the drink opening while allowing liquid to pass unimpeded through the drink opening (necessarily capable of preventing ice and allowing liquid because of the baffle structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drink opening of Heiberger with spanning baffles on the lid inside surface as taught by Jordan in order to advantageously block objects, fingers, pills, insects or dirt from entering through the lid opening and contaminating the contents of the container while the lid opening is without a cover.
(wherein Jordan teaches related elements in light of dependent claims 5 and 13:
Fig 2 shows spacing 34 of 30 in a first dimension; Fig 4 shows extension 44 of 30 in a second dimension, specifically 30 extends away from the inside surface of the lid top panel;
Fig 2, baffles 30 are shown substantially perpendicular to the top panel;
Figs 2-4, each baffle member is a plate having the upper side edge, attached to said region of the inside surface of the top panel, and
Fig 2, the baffle member plate 30 has a first side (outer, Fig 1) edge attached to an interior surface of an annular bottom extension 36 of top panel 10;
Figs 3-4, each 30 has a lower side edge that is line/point 44 opposite the upper side edge and being unattached;
Figs 3-4, each 30 has a second side (inner, Fig 1) edge extending between the upper side edge and the lower side edge and being unattached (i.e. below 38, left from viewer perspective, and angled due to 44),
Fig 4, each second side edge shown angled obliquely)
Regarding claim 2, Heiberger further teaches the drink opening is laterally elongated (Fig 1, “oblong opening 5” means and shows as laterally elongate).
Regarding claim 3, Heiberger/Jordan further teaches the baffle members are substantially parallel to each other (Jordan, Fig 2, 30 are shown substantially parallel to each other). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 4, Heiberger/Jordan further teaches the baffle members extend away from the inside surface (Jordan, Fig 4, 30 extends away from the inside surface). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 6, Heiberger further teaches the top panel includes at least one vent opening separate from the drink opening (Fig 1, vent 6 is separate from 5).
Regarding claim 8, Heiberger further teaches the beverage container lid of claim 1 (see claim 1), in combination with a beverage container with an open mouth, wherein the lid is removable from the beverage container (Fig 1, lid 4 is shown combined with a beverage container that includes an open mouth, and the lid is shown removable from the container, Fig 4).
Regarding claim 9, Heiberger further teaches an annular bottom extension sized to fit in an open mouth of the open mouth container (Figs 2 & 4 show an annular bottom extension of 4 fitting the opening of the container) and a flange that limits how far the bottom extension can be inserted into the open mouth container (Figs 2 & 4 shows an upper flange of 4 limiting the lid insertion/fitting depth).
Regarding claim 10, Heiberger further teaches wherein the annular bottom extension comprises an exterior surface and an interior surface, the beverage container lid further comprising an annular groove formed in the exterior surface of the annular bottom extension and a gasket arranged in the annular groove (Fig 2, gasket 7 is in an annular groove of the extension is part of an annular bottom extension, having interior and exterior, gasket on the annular groove’s exterior surface, bottom and gasket fitting in an open mouth of the container (i.e. the claim is met)).
Regarding claim 11, Heiberger further teaches the periphery is a peripheral rim (Fig 1, a peripheral rim is shown as the periphery of the central top panel of 4).
Regarding claim 12, Heiberger further teaches the peripheral rim includes a raised edge (Fig 1, peripheral rim shown having a raised edge).
Regarding claim 13, Heiberger/Jordan further teaches the baffle members are substantially perpendicular to the top panel (Jordan, Fig 2, baffles 30 are shown substantially perpendicular to the top panel). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 16, Heiberger further teaches the top panel is insulated (Figs 1 & 4, show that since the lid is solid, the top panel of it is necessarily insulated/insulating. For example insulating the container contents).
Claims 5, 7 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20180289186 by Heiberger (hereinafter “Heiberger”) in view of US Pat 3563417 issued to Jordan et al. (hereinafter “Jordan”) in view of US Pub 20190127130 by Ban (hereinafter “Ban”).
Regarding claim 5, Heiberger/Jordan further teaches the baffle members are laterally spaced apart by a first distance measured in a first dimension (Jordan, Fig 2 shows spacing 34 of 30 in a first lateral dimension/distance) and the baffle members extend away from the inside surface by a second distance measured in a second dimension (Jordan, Fig 4 shows extension 44 of 30 in a second dimension/distance, wherein 30 extends downward away from the inside surface of the lid top panel). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Heiberger/Jordan does not explicitly teach that the second dimension (e.g. baffle length of extent) is greater than the first dimension (e.g. baffles’ lateral spacing from each other).
Ban, however, teaches a second dimension greater than a first dimension (see Examiner annotated Ban Figure 1, hereinafter “EAFB1”; EAFB1, [0039] [0053], the baffle 144 is shown extending in a second dimension greater than a first dimension (a space) because the drawing is at least appropriately utilized for proportional interpretation ([0039] “the perimeter defining the first open end 130 is larger than the perimeter defining the second open end 132”) and the second dimension extent is given in that [0053] “[baffle] 144 that project[s] axially away from the drinking spout 120 and… away from the underside surface 116” (i.e. not away from 150)).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the proportion of the second dimension to be greater than the first dimension of the baffles of Jordan, in view of the teachings of Ban, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (i.e. baffles still function the same). MPEP 2144.04 IV-A.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the baffles of Jordan on the inside surface of Heiberger extending proportionally as in Ban.
Regarding claim 7, Heiberger further teaches the least one vent opening is adjacent the periphery of the top panel and positioned substantially opposite the drink opening (Fig 1, vent 6 is adjacent the periphery of the top panel of lid 4, and 6 is opposite 5).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20180289186 by Heiberger (hereinafter “Heiberger”) in view of US Pat 3563417 issued to Jordan et al. (hereinafter “Jordan”) in view of US Pat 5913964 issued to Melton (hereinafter “Melton”).
Regarding claim 15, Heiberger further teaches the lid is molded from a polymer material ([0020] lid is formed from thermoplastic material [0021] like “polypropylene”, which is a polymer).
But Heiberger/Jordan does not explicitly teach that the lid is transparent or translucent.
Melton, however, teaches a lid that is transparent (Fig 9, col 12 lines 25-27, “cover 510 is transparent to permit the use[r] to determine the desired beverage strength by sight”; col 12 lines 36-38, “made from a thermoformable plastic material… copolymer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a transparent polymer material for Heiberger’s lid, or a lesser degree of transparent material (i.e. translucent), since Melton teaches transparent polymer is a suitable material for lids and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20180289186 by Heiberger (hereinafter “Heiberger”) in view of US Pat 3563417 issued to Jordan et al. (hereinafter “Jordan”) in view of US Pat 6364169 issued to Knickerbocker (hereinafter “Knickerbocker”).
Regarding claim 19, Heiberger/Jordan further teaches an annular bottom extension sized to fit in an open mouth of the open mouth container, the annular bottom extension extending downward from the top panel and comprising an exterior surface and an interior surface (Heiberger, Fig 2, gasket 7 is in an annular groove of the extension is part of an annular bottom extension, having interior and exterior, gasket on the annular groove’s exterior surface, bottom and gasket fitting in an open mouth of the container (i.e. the claim is met)), wherein:
each baffle member comprises a plate with the upper side edge being defined on the plate, the upper side edge attached to the inside surface of the top panel, the plate further comprising a first side edge attached to the interior surface of the annular bottom extension, a lower side edge opposite the upper side edge and being unattached, and a second side edge extending between the upper side edge and the lower side edge and being unattached, and the second side edge extends obliquely between the upper side edge and the lower side edge (Jordan, see claim 1 the full citation is there).
But Heiberger/Jordan does not explicitly teach a particular baffle shape.
Knickerbocker, however, discloses a similar baffled lid, wherein the upper side edge is longer than the lower side edge (see examiner annotated Knickerbocker Figures 21 & 23, hereinafter “EAFK2123”; EAFK2123, baffle member upper side edge longer than lower side edge, because first and second side edges delineate the lower, so upper is longer. Upper side edge is treated the same as Applicant describes theirs by contact).
PNG
media_image2.png
357
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the baffle members of Jordan, to advantageously break up powder, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (i.e. further extent/change in shape of the baffle does not change the primary function of the baffle to block ice or other). MPEP 2144.04 IV-B.
(wherein Knickerbocker also discloses related elements of the baffle shape, for dependent claims 20 and 21:
EAFK2123, a second side edge shown laterally offset and therefore not crossing the opening;
EAFK2123, baffle member extends beyond drink opening)
Regarding claim 20, Heiberger/Jordan/Knickerbocker further teaches the second side edge is laterally offset from the drink opening so as not to extend across the drink opening (EAFK2123, a second side edge shown laterally offset and therefore not crossing the opening). See details in the parent claim 19 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 21, Heiberger/Jordan/Knickerbocker further teaches the upper side edge of each baffle member extends beyond the drink opening toward a center part of the top panel (EAFK2123, baffle member extends beyond drink opening). See details in the parent claim 19 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
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 ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
