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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of species H (figs.10,14B and 15) that read on claims 11-24 in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a first slit end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because applicant has already claimed “a first slit end” in claim 1, so it is unclear if it’s a new first slit end or the same one. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the first slit end”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 11-24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12195251 in view of Lee (US20200055640A1).
Regarding claim 11, Patent ‘251 (claim 1) discloses the claimed subject matter except a rim guard configured as downwardly open and having a substantially vertical outer sidewall and a substantially vertical inner sidewall, wherein an upper portion of said vertical outer sidewall is joined thereto an upper portion of said vertical inner sidewall to form a rim.
Lee does teach wherein a rim guard configured as downwardly open and having a substantially vertical outer sidewall and a substantially vertical inner sidewall (see annotated fig.1 of Lee below for a rim guard configured as downwardly open and having substantially vertical outer and inner sidewalls), wherein an upper portion of said vertical outer sidewall is joined thereto an upper portion of said vertical inner sidewall to form a rim (see annotated fig.1 below for the upper portions of the out and inner sidewalls that are joined to form a rim). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover apparatus disclosed by ‘251 by adding the teaching of rim guard with substantially vertical inner and outer sidewalls as disclosed by Lee in order to aids in preventing spillage when a human user is drinking through the tab of the lid, when used in the “drink-through” mode. “The higher second portion is also preferably configured to suitably conform to the shape of at least the lower lip of a human user, with the outward facing, convex raised surface being smooth, and sufficiently tall, to form a liquid tight seal with a lower lip. This aids in preventing spillage when a human user is drinking through the tab 23 of the lid, when used in the “drink-through” mode.” (0030, Lee)
Annotated fig.1 of Lee
PNG
media_image1.png
444
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, refences as applied to claim 11 above (claim 2) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 13, Patent ‘251 as modified in claim 11 above (claim 3) discloses the claimed subject matter. The language of straw capture and alignment port points outward from said rim guard is similar to language in patent ‘251 since patent recite straw capture and alignment port points outward from a center of the lid and both elements will be outward from center of the lid and the rim guard since they protrude out.
Regarding claim 14, Patent ‘251 as modified in claim 11 above (claim 4) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 15, Patent ‘251 as modified in claim 11 above (claim 5) discloses the claimed subject matter. The language of “configured perpendicular to said vertical outer sidewall” is similar to language in patent ‘251 since patent recites “configured perpendicular to the perimeter flange” and elements can be configured perpendicular to flange and vertical wall since both are on the outer ends.
Regarding claim 16, Patent ‘251 as modified in claim 11 above (claim 6) discloses the claimed subject matter. The language of “configured parallel to said vertical outer sidewall” is similar to language in patent ‘251 since patent recites “configured paralleel to the perimeter flange” and elements can be configured parallel to flange and vertical wall since both are on the outer ends.
Regarding claim 17, Patent ‘251 as modified in claim 11 above (claim 7) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 18, Patent ‘251 as modified in claim 11 above (claim 8) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 19, Patent ‘251 as modified in claim 11 above (claim 9) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 20, Patent ‘251 as modified in claim 11 above (claim 10) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 21, Patent ‘251 as modified in claim 11 above (claim 11) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 22, Patent ‘251 as modified in claim 11 above (claim 12) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 23, Patent ‘251 as modified in claim 11 above (claim 13) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 24, Patent ‘251 as modified in claim 11 above (claim 14) discloses the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
See PTO-892 for the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735