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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mattis et al. (WO2017214161).
Regarding Claim 1, Mattis et al. discloses a drinking container 100 (figure 1) comprising: a reservoir 104 (figure 1); and a lid assembly 108 (Figure 1) releasably coupled to the reservoir comprising: a spout 128 (Figure 2) configured to rotate between an open position and a closed position (Figure 2 and 3), wherein the spout includes a flexible sleeve 172 (Figure 4, connecting over the 128 portion) and a spout hinge (Figure 4); a user activated mechanism 182 (Figure 1) coupled to a spout pusher (figure 4); wherein the lid assembly is co-molded with a material that covers outer sidewalls of the lid assembly and an end of the spout pusher (Figure 4), wherein activating the user activated mechanism causes the spout pusher to move toward the spout hinge and cause material molded over the end of the spout pusher to stretch and engage the spout hinge (Figure 4), and wherein the flexible sleeve applies a restoring force on the spout when the spout is dislodged from the closed position by the spout pusher engaging the spout hinge (Figure 4; the flexibility of the component providing a restorative force), and wherein the restoring force rotates the spout to the open position (Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Mattis et al. discloses a spout bay (figure 2, portion where spout 128 folds into) configured to receive the spout when the spout is rotated to the closed position.
Regarding Claim 3, Mattis et al. discloses the spout further comprises detents (Figure 4), and wherein the spout bay further comprises holding nubs (Figure 4), wherein the detents and the holding nubs are positioned to align when the spout is rotated to the closed position (Figure 4), and wherein the detents engaging the holding nubs holds the spout in the closed position until a user activates the user activated mechanism (Figure 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Mattis et al. discloses a straw 124 (Figure 4) extending into the reservoir and connected to the flexible sleeve to provide a fluid channel through the straw, the flexible sleeve, and the spout in the open position (Figure 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Mattis et al. discloses the spout hinge comprises a hollow base portion (Figure 4) and a hollow upper tube (figure 4), wherein a first sidewall of the base portion is shorter in length than a second sidewall of the base portion (Figure 4), wherein the first sidewall contacts a bottom surface of the spout bay when the spout is in the closed position (Figure 4), and wherein the first sidewall includes an end (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Mattis et al. discloses the first sidewall has a length that provides room for the flexible sleeve to extend upward into the base portion of the spout hinge the first sidewall crimps the flexible sleeve against the end of the spout pusher when the spout is in the closed position (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Mattis et al. discloses the end of the spout pusher, and thereby the material molded over the end of the spout pusher are convex in shape (Figure 4), and wherein the spout pusher, and thereby the material molded over the end of the spout pusher, impact the end of the first sidewall of the base portion of the spout hinge to push the spout hinge in a direction that dislodges the spout from the closed position (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Mattis et al. discloses a lid assembly 108 (figure 2) comprising: a spout 128 (Figure 2) configured to rotate between an open position and a closed position (figure 1 and 2), wherein the spout includes a flexible sleeve 172 (Figure 4) and a spout hinge (figure 4); and a user activated mechanism 182 (Figure 1) coupled to a spout pusher (Figure 4); wherein activating the user activated mechanism causes the spout pusher to move toward the spout hinge and engage a sidewall end of the spout hinge (Figure 4), and wherein the flexible sleeve applies a restoring force on the spout when the spout is dislodged from the closed position by the spout pusher engaging the sidewall end of the spout hinge (Figure 4), and wherein the restoring force rotates the spout to the open position (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Mattis et al. discloses the lid assembly is co-molded with a material that covers outer sidewalls of the lid assembly and an end of the spout pusher (figure 4).
Regarding Claim 13, Mattis et al. discloses a spout bay (Figure 2, portion that the spout 128 folds into) configured to receive the spout when the spout is rotated to the closed position.
Regarding Claim 14, Mattis et al. discloses the spout further comprises detents (Figure 4), and wherein the spout bay further comprises holding nubs (Figure 4), wherein the detents and the holding nubs are positioned to align when the spout is rotated to the closed position (Figure 4 ), and wherein the detents engaging the holding nubs holds the spout in the closed position until a user activates the user activated mechanism (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Mattis et al. discloses a straw 124 (Figure 4) connected to the flexible sleeve to provide a fluid channel through the straw, the flexible sleeve, and the spout in the open position (Figure 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Mattis et al. discloses the spout hinge comprises a hollow base portion (Figure 4) and a hollow upper tube (Figure 4), wherein a first sidewall of the base portion is shorter in length than a second sidewall of the base portion (Figure 4), wherein the first sidewall contacts a bottom surface of the spout bay when the spout is in the closed position, and wherein the first sidewall includes an end.
Regarding Claim 18, Mattis et al. discloses the first sidewall has a length that provides room for the flexible sleeve to extend upward into the base portion of the spout hinge the first sidewall crimps the flexible sleeve against the end of the spout pusher when the spout is in the closed position (Figure 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 19, Mattis et al. discloses the spout pusher is convex in shape (Figure 4), and wherein the spout pusher impacts the end of the first sidewall of the base portion of the spout hinge to push the spout hinge in a direction that dislodges the spout from the closed position (Figure 2 and 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattis et al. (WO2017214161) in view of Swanick (U.S. Patent No. 8459502).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Mattis et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for reinforcement tabs formed on sidewalls of the spout bay under hinge point holes, wherein the hinge point holes receive hinge nubs formed on the spout hinge and allow the hinge nubs to rotate within the hinge point holes so that the spout may rotate, and wherein the reinforcement tabs have a concave shaped top portion to avoid interfering with spout hinge rotation, and wherein the reinforcement tabs are configured to increase hinge rigidity and prevent the spout from dislodging or being pulled off the lid assembly. However, Swanick teaches reinforcement tabs 122 (figure 4) formed on sidewalls of the spout bay under hinge point holes (Figure 4), wherein the hinge point holes receive hinge nubs 60 (figure 4) formed on the spout hinge and allow the hinge nubs to rotate within the hinge point holes so that the spout may rotate (figure 4), and wherein the reinforcement tabs have a concave shaped top portion (groove portion cross section) to avoid interfering with spout hinge rotation (Figure 4), and wherein the reinforcement tabs are configured to increase hinge rigidity and prevent the spout from dislodging or being pulled off the lid assembly (Figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mattis et al. to include the above, as taught by Swanick, in order to stabilize the spout rotation.
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattis et al. (WO2017214161) in view of Ransom (U.S. Patent No. 11174073).
Regarding Claim 5, Mattis et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for a reservoir sleeve that receives the reservoir when a lip formed at a rim of the reservoir engages a ridge formed near a top of the reservoir sleeve. However, Ransom teaches a reservoir sleeve 12/50 (Figure 1) that receives the reservoir when a lip formed at a rim of the reservoir engages a ridge formed near a top of the reservoir sleeve (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mattis et al. to include the above, as taught by Ransom, in order to protect the reservoir.
Regarding Claim 6, Mattis et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the reservoir sleeve further comprises a bottom cover formed at a bottom portion of the reservoir sleeve, wherein the bottom cover comprises silicone, rubber, or other elastomeric rubber-like material configured to add additional friction and dampen sound when the drinking container is dropped. However, Ransom teaches the reservoir sleeve further comprises a bottom cover 50 (Figure 1) formed at a bottom portion of the reservoir sleeve (Figure 1), wherein the bottom cover comprises silicone, rubber, or other elastomeric rubber-like material (Column 4, lines 21-22) configured to add additional friction and dampen sound when the drinking container is dropped. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mattis et al. to include the above, as taught by Ransom, in order to protect the reservoir.
Regarding Claim 20, Mattis et al. discloses a drinking container 100 (Figure 1) comprising: a reservoir 104 (Figure 1); a lid assembly 108 (Figure 1) releasably coupled to the reservoir comprising: a spout 128 (figure 2) configured to rotate between an open position (Figure 2) and a closed position (Figure 3), wherein the spout includes a flexible sleeve 172 (Figure 2) and a spout hinge (portion next to 120 Figure 4); a user activated mechanism 182 (Figure 2) coupled to a spout pusher (Figure 4); wherein the lid assembly is co-molded with a material that covers outer sidewalls of the lid assembly and an end of the spout pusher (Figure 4), wherein activating the user activated mechanism causes the spout pusher to move toward the spout hinge and cause material molded over the end of the spout pusher to stretch and engage the spout hinge (Figure 4), and wherein the flexible sleeve applies a restoring force on the spout when the spout is dislodged from the closed position by the spout pusher engaging the spout hinge (Figure 4), and wherein the restoring force rotates the spout to the open position (Figure 2). Mattis et al. does not disclose a reservoir sleeve that receives the reservoir when a lip formed at a rim of the reservoir engages a ridge formed near a top of the reservoir sleeve, wherein the reservoir sleeve further comprises a bottom cover formed at a bottom portion of the reservoir sleeve, wherein the bottom cover comprises silicone, rubber, or other elastomeric rubber-like material configured to add additional friction and dampen sound when the drinking container is dropped. However, Ransom teaches a reservoir sleeve 12/50 (Figure 2) that receives the reservoir when a lip formed at a rim of the reservoir engages a ridge formed near a top of the reservoir sleeve (Figure 1), wherein the reservoir sleeve further comprises a bottom cover 50 (Figure 1) formed at a bottom portion of the reservoir sleeve (Figure 1), wherein the bottom cover comprises silicone, rubber, or other elastomeric rubber-like material (Column 4, lines 21-22) configured to add additional friction and dampen sound when the drinking container is dropped. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mattis et al. to include the above, as taught by Ransom, in order to protect the reservoir.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm 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 at (571)270-5055. 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.
/ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733