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 1/29/2026 in response to Office Action 11/6/2025 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 does not teach the amendment of function to hold/prevent ice through its baffles (page 6 para 2), and does not teach the amendment of function to allow liquid unimpeded through its baffles (page 6 para 4 and the rest). Examiner disagrees, the structure achieves the functions. Further explained, the size of Jordan’s baffle openings does not teach away from achieving the functions.
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 and 8-17 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 over 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 1-2 & 4, a plurality of spaced apart individual baffle members are 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), wherein the baffles hold 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).
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 baffles as taught by Jordan in order to advantageously block objects, fingers, pills, insects or dirt from entering and contaminating the contents of the container while the lid opening is unblocked.
(wherein Jordan teaches related elements in light of dependent claims:
Fig 2, baffles 30 are shown substantially parallel to each other, and perpendicular to the top panel;
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)
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 baffles 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 baffles 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 an annular groove in the annular bottom extension and a gasket arranged in the annular groove (Fig 2, gasket 7 is in an annular groove of the extension).
Regarding claim 11, Heiberger further teaches the periphery is a peripheral rim (Fig 1, a peripheral rim is shown at 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 from the periphery).
Regarding claim 13, Heiberger/Jordan further teaches the baffles 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 14, 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).
Regarding claim 15, Heiberger further teaches the polymer material is opaque, transparent, or translucent (Figs 1-2 & 4, shows the lid material is at least opaque, since it is not see-through).
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).
Regarding claim 17, Heiberger/Jordan further teaches the plurality of spaced apart baffle members are individual separate structures that are not interconnected with one another (Jordan, Figs 1-2 & 4, the plurality of spaced apart individual baffle members that are intersecting ribs 30 are shown not directly connecting with one another because they’re parallel). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Claims 5 and 7 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 baffles 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 baffles 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).
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
/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733