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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 in response to Office Action 3/3/2026 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 baffles 30 do not qualify to meet the amendments of not being intersecting and not being interconnected because they are interconnected by additional ribs 32 (page 7 para 4). In other words, there is some connection of each 30 to another 30 because of 32, so the prior art is disqualified. Examiner disagrees, pointing out each 30 is substantially parallel to each other (as in claim 3, not argued by the Applicant). In addition, if the baffles were completely not interconnected as argued, there would be a 35 USC 112 issue since the Applicant’s baffles are clearly interconnected by the same definition at least via their base ends around the opening (i.e. the lid interconnects them). However, examiner uses Applicant’s drawings to broadly reasonably interpret “not interconnected” for the prior art as each 30 does not connect directly to another 30. Examiner similarly interprets “the baffle members are… non-intersecting structures” as the baffles do not intersect each other making an intersecting structure with each other, and again Applicant’s baffles intersect something (i.e. the lid). Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below. Examiner suggests not using negative limitations to try and eliminate prior art structure, but instead claim positively what the invention has that is not seen in the prior art. Claim 18 is an exemplary attempt.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues preemptively that secondary prior art Ban also does not teach the amendment (page 7 end to page 8), and that primary prior art Heiberger does not teach the amendment (page 8 para 1). Examiner points out these are merely piecemeal analyses.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant argues that Jordan does not teach the amended arrangement of the baffles (page 9 para 1), nor that individual baffles have base ends rooted into the flat solid wall surface (page 9 para 2). Examiner disagrees with the former. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below. For the latter, examiner cannot form a response since the argued language is not claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues that the amended removal of “opaque” renders Heiberger moot since it taught opaque, and now it would never be obvious to make the material translucent or optionally also transparent because it is critical that the user is allowed to see (page 10). However, examiner points out no disclosure of any criticality, and so the optionality renders the variable transparency level obvious to a POSITA. Please see a detailed analysis 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, 16 and 18 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), 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), wherein
the plurality of spaced apart baffle members are individual, discrete, non-intersecting structures that are not interconnected with one another (Figs 1-2 & 4, baffle members 30 are individual and discrete since they are separate plural elements 30, and though they are disclosed as “intersecting ribs 30”, they do not intersect each other as shown, because each 30 is substantially parallel to another 30, thereby not interconnected with one another either; examiner notes that Applicant’s baffle members are interconnected with one another at least at through their ends around the opening (Fig 7), therefore Jordan’s baffle members are equivalently “not interconnected”, and no 35 USC 112 is necessary).
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)
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 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 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 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 18, Heiberger/Jordan further teaches each of the baffle members (Jordan, Fig 1, 30) has a base end attached to the inside surface of the top panel at a location on the inside surface that is outside of and surrounding the drink opening (Jordan, Fig 3, a base end of 30 is shown attached to the inside surface of the top panel at a location proximal to either 38 or 36, wherein since the inside surface surrounds the opening it thereby defines and is outside of the opening (i.e. since the surface is of material and the opening is not of that material)), and wherein each baffle member extends downward from its base end and spans across the drink opening (Jordan, Figs 3-4, each 30 is shown extending downward from its attached base end, and spans the opening). 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).
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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights