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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 4, 5 and 9 are 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 4 recites “a second groove” and “a second protrusion”, but a first groove or protrusion was not previously claimed. It is unclear if the second groove and protrusion are the only grooves and protrusions present in the structure.
Claim 4 recites “a third sealing surface”. It is unclear there is a second sealing surface present in the structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 6, 8-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faerber et al. (US-20190344934-A1).
Faerber discloses:
1. A cup lid (12), comprising: a cup lid body (24) comprising a connection portion (48) for connecting to a cup body (14) and provided with an opening (Fig. 3A); and a connector (50) mounted at the opening and provided with at least one first mouth (50A), wherein a second mouth (50B) is provided at the opening located outside the first mouth (Fig. 3A).
6. The cup lid according to claim 1, wherein a top end face of the opening is obliquely arranged so that the top end face of the opening has a high face (at 50A) and a low face (at 50B), the first mouth and the second mouth are respectively located at a position of the high face and at a position of the low face on the opening, and a top end face of the first mouth and a top end face of the second mouth are respectively arranged flush with the high face and the low face of the opening (Figs. 2B, 3A).
8. The cup lid according to claim 1, further comprising a sealing lid (26) movably connected with the cup lid body, wherein the sealing lid is provided with a sealing surface for blocking the first mouth and the second mouth (Fig. 5B).
9. The cup lid according to claim 8, wherein a third sealing surface is formed between the connector and the opening, and the sealing surface comprises a first sealing surface which is in contact with a first brim port of the connector and/or a second brim port or an outer sidewall of the opening to achieve blocking (par. 0038).
10. The cup lid according to claim 8, wherein the sealing surface comprises a second sealing surface which is in contact with the second brim port or the outer sidewall of the opening to achieve blocking of the opening (Figs. 3A, 5B, portions are surfaces).
12. A thermos cup (10), comprising a cup body (14) and a cup lid (12) according to claim 1, wherein a cup rim of the cup body is connected with a connection portion of the cup lid (Fig. 1A), a sealing lid (26) is hinged on the cup lid (at 70), the sealing lid and the cup lid are connected by a locking structure, the locking structure comprises a limiting member connected to an outer wall of the cup lid by a pivot shaft (96, Figs. 10A-10C), the limiting member is provided with a locking hook (90) fitting with the sealing lid for limiting, a resetting member (92) is provided between the limiting member and the outer wall of the cup lid, and the resetting member and the locking hook are respectively arranged on both sides of the pivot shaft (Figs. 7A).
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faerber et al. (US-20190344934-A1) in view of Li (US-20240067416-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Faerber disclose wherein the second mouth is arranged on the connector (Fig. 3A), but fails to teach wherein the connector is arranged in the opening, and an outer wall of the connector and an inner wall of the opening are connected with each other.
Li teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a connector (2) such that it is arranged in an opening, and an outer wall of the connector and an inner wall of the opening are connected with each other (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid of Faerber with the connection structure taught by Li, so that parts could be more easily replaced or cleaned and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, the modified lid of Faerber teaches wherein the connector is arranged in the opening, and an outer wall of the connector and an inner wall of the opening are connected with each other (Li, Fig. 3), so that at least a portion of the outer wall of the connector and at least a portion of the inner wall of the opening enclose to form the second mouth (Faerber, Fig. 3A, when modified).
Regarding claim 4, the modified lid of Faerber teaches wherein a second groove (Li, above 202) is provided on the connector, the second groove is axially arranged along the connector (Li, Fig. 5), an edge of the opening forms a second protrusion adapted to the second groove, and the second protrusion is embedded in the second groove (Li, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, the modified lid of Faerber fails to teach a ring sleeve, wherein the connector is arranged in an inner hole of the ring sleeve, the outer wall of the connector is connected with the ring sleeve by an annular body, so that the second groove is formed between the outer wall of the connector and an inner wall of the ring sleeve, and the second protrusion is arranged in an annular shape.
Li teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a lid with a ring sleeve (302), wherein the connector is arranged in an inner hole of the ring sleeve, the outer wall of the connector is connected with the ring sleeve by an annular body, so that the second groove is formed between the outer wall of the connector and an inner wall of the ring sleeve, and the second protrusion is arranged in an annular shape (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the lid with a ring sleave, in order to better seal the removable connector on the lid body.
Regarding claim 7, the modified lid of Faerber teaches wherein at least a portion of the outer wall of the connector is connected with at least a portion of the inner wall of the opening by a detachable structure; the detachable structure comprises at least one first protrusion and at least one first groove adapted to the at least one first protrusion; the at least one first protrusion and the at least one first groove are respectively arranged on a second inner wall of the opening and a second outer wall of the connector; and the at least one first protrusion is embedded in the at least one first groove (Li, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, the modified lid of Faerber teaches wherein a first extension wall (Li, at 202) is provided on the cup lid body on a side in an opposite direction to the connection portion, and the first extension wall is arranged along a communication port of the cup lid body to form the opening on an inner side of the first extension wall (Li, Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733