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 6/8/2026 in response to Office Action 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 18, Applicant argues that primary prior art Hirst does not teach the amendments (pages 7-8). Examiner agrees, and a new grounds of rejection is necessitated by the amendments. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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), 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) :
(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) . The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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) . The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “straw mechanism” in claims 1, 7, 11, 16. Examiner interprets the straw mechanism as at least including “frame portion” (as in claims 4 and 13 and their corresponding dependents; and 20) and “spout portion” (as in claims 2, 4, 12, 14 and 20).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) .
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 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11-14, 16-17 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20180050844 by Hirst et al. (hereinafter “Hirst”) in view of WO 03101858 by Smolko et al. (hereinafter “Smolko”).
Regarding claim 1, Hirst teaches a lid structure (Fig 2A, lid assembly 11) for a beverage system comprising:
a body portion (Fig 2A, a body portion of 11 is lid body 12 with valve body 16, wherein [0118] “the valve body and the lid body [are] formed as a single monolithic component”); and
a straw mechanism (Fig 2A, at least a part of a straw mechanism is a frame portion of 11 which is selector 14, that controls access to a straw 38) that is removably secured to the body portion (Figs 1-2 show 14 removably secured to the body portion 12/16) and can rotatably transition between a closed state (Figs 6-7, closed state) and an open state (Figs 8-9 show open state rotated to by frame portion 14 from closed state relative to the body portion 12/16).
But Hirst does not explicitly teach the body portion having a vent and a vent seal, wherein the straw mechanism includes a projection and a notch, the projection being configured to block an opening of the vent seal when the straw mechanism is in the closed state, and the notch being configured to align with the vent seal when the straw mechanism is in the open state so as to not impede air flow through the vent seal.
Smolko, however, discloses a similar straw mechanism (see examiner annotated Smolko Figure 20, hereinafter “EAFS20”) comprising: a body portion (EAFS20, body) having a vent and a vent seal (EAFS20, vent 348, vent seal 349), wherein the straw mechanism (EAFS20, mechanism shown at least includes a straw shown labeled at 351) includes a projection and a notch (EAFS20, projection and notch 344 of a frame (mechanism comprises body and frame)), the projection being configured to block an opening of the vent seal when the straw mechanism is in the closed state (Fig 21A shows closed state and projection blocking the vent and an opening though the vent seal), and the notch being configured to align with the vent seal when the straw mechanism is in the open state so as to not impede air flow through the vent seal (Fig 21C shows open state allowing communication through the vent seal opening).
PNG
media_image1.png
784
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
641
963
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 straw mechanism (body and frame) of Hirst to have a vent with a vent seal (body) covered by a projection in closed state and notch in open state (frame) as taught by Smolko in order to advantageously ease pressure in the container to prevent bursting or crushing (overpressure or vacuum) damaging the container, and beneficially ease straw use of Hirst by providing pressure equalization during sipping (suction) through the straw.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention, and does not destroy the function of Hirst, as shown in the at least one example above of a positioning by a POSITA to block (projection added) or allow (aligned notch added) vent air flow through.
Regarding claim 2, Hirst further teaches the straw mechanism includes a spout portion (Fig 2, another part of the straw mechanism is a spout portion which is nozzle 18) comprising a flexible material ([0128] “the nozzle 18 and the straw 38 may be constructed from silicone” which is a flexible material).
Regarding claim 4, Hirst further teaches the straw mechanism includes a frame portion (14) that presents an opening, the spout portion extending through the opening of the frame portion (Fig 7, an opening of 14 is defined by conduit 46 shown having a portion 94 of the spout portion 18 extending through said opening).
Regarding claim 7, Hirst further teaches the straw mechanism (at least frame portion 14) and the body portion (12/16) are engaged to each other in a lock and key configuration (Figs 3 & 5, [0115], “The lid body 12 may include one or more engaging portions, such as key 58 b, that are sized and shaped to fit within the first groove 51”) to ensure that they always engage in a predetermined position (Fig 3, a lock is the groove 51 for a key 58b into it, capable of always engaging in at least one manner (i.e. in a single predetermined position)).
Regarding claim 8, Hirst further teaches the body portion (12/16) includes a straw connection port on an underside thereof (Figs 2B & 7, “straw connector 84” is a port on an underside of the body portion).
Regarding claim 9, Hirst further teaches the straw connection port is adapted to removably secure a straw to the body portion (Figs 2B & 7 show a “straw 38” removably secured to the body portion via the port 84).
Regarding claim 11, Hirst teaches a beverage system (Figs 1-2, “container 10” is a beverage system (multiple parts and containing a beverage)) comprising:
a beverage containing base structure (Fig 2B, “vessel 30” is a base of 10 capable of containing beverage) comprising a threaded portion (Fig 2B, thread of 30 shown); and
a lid structure (Fig 2A, lid assembly 11) comprising:
a body portion (Fig 2A, a body portion of 11 is lid body 12 with valve body 16, wherein [0118] “the valve body and the lid body [are] formed as a single monolithic component”) having threads adapted to couple with the threaded portion of the beverage containing base structure ([0118] “lid body 12 may be connected to the vessel 30 by any type of suitable connection, such as a threaded connection” as shown in Fig 2B), and
a straw mechanism (Fig 2A, at least a part of a straw mechanism is a frame portion of 11 which is selector 14, that controls access to a straw 38) removably secured to the body portion (Figs 1-2 show 14 removably secured to the body portion 12/16), the straw mechanism being adapted to rotatably transition between an open state (Figs 8-9 show open state rotated to by frame portion 14 from closed state relative to the body portion 12/16) and a closed state (Figs 6-7, closed state).
But Hirst does not explicitly teach the body portion having a vent and a vent seal, wherein the straw mechanism includes a projection and a notch, the projection being configured to block an opening of the vent seal when the straw mechanism is in the closed state, and the notch being configured to align with the vent seal when the straw mechanism is in the open state so as to not impede air flow through the vent seal.
Smolko, however, discloses a similar straw mechanism (see examiner annotated Smolko Figure 20, hereinafter “EAFS20”) comprising: a body portion (EAFS20, body) having a vent and a vent seal (EAFS20, vent 348, vent seal 349), wherein the straw mechanism (EAFS20, mechanism shown at least includes a straw shown labeled at 351) includes a projection and a notch (EAFS20, projection and notch 344 of a frame (mechanism comprises body and frame)), the projection being configured to block an opening of the vent seal when the straw mechanism is in the closed state (Fig 21A shows closed state and projection blocking the vent and an opening though the vent seal), and the notch being configured to align with the vent seal when the straw mechanism is in the open state so as to not impede air flow through the vent seal (Fig 21C shows open state allowing communication through the vent seal opening).
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 straw mechanism (body and frame) of Hirst to have a vent with a vent seal (body) covered by a projection in closed state and notch in open state (frame) as taught by Smolko in order to advantageously ease pressure in the container to prevent bursting or crushing (overpressure or vacuum) damaging the container, and beneficially ease straw use of Hirst by providing pressure equalization during sipping (suction) through the straw.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention, and does not destroy the function of Hirst, as shown in the at least one example above of a positioning by a POSITA to block (projection added) or allow (aligned notch added) vent air flow through.
Regarding claim 12, Hirst further teaches the straw mechanism includes a spout portion (Fig 2, another part of the straw mechanism is a spout portion which is nozzle 18) comprising a flexible material ([0128] “the nozzle 18 and the straw 38 may be constructed from silicone” which is a flexible material).
Regarding claim 13, Hirst further teaches the straw mechanism includes a frame portion (14) adapted to rotate relative to the body portion and transition the straw mechanism between the closed state and the open state (Figs 8-9 show open state rotated to by frame portion 14 from closed state relative to the body portion 12/16).
Regarding claim 14, Hirst further teaches the frame portion (14) presents an opening through which the spout portion extends (Fig 7, an opening of 14 is defined by conduit 46 shown having a portion 94 of the spout portion 18 extending through said opening).
Regarding claim 16, Hirst further teaches the straw mechanism (at least frame portion 14) and the body portion (12/16) are adapted to be engaged to or disengaged from one another (Figs 3 & 5, [0115], “The lid body 12 may include one or more engaging portions, such as key 58 b, that are sized and shaped to fit within the first groove 51”) in a predetermined configuration (Fig 3, a lock is the groove 51 for a key 58b into it, capable of always engaging in at least one manner (i.e. in a single predetermined configuration)).
Regarding claim 17, Hirst further teaches a detachable straw (Fig 2B shows “straw 38” detachable; proven wherein [0122] “For example, the straw 38 and the straw connector 84 may be connected by a friction, interference, tension, compression, snap fit connection, or a combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 19, Hirst further teaches an underside of the body portion (12/16) includes a straw connection port to which the detachable straw can be removably secured (Figs 2B & 7, “straw connector 84” is a port on an underside of the body portion with straw 38 removably secured therein).
Regarding claim 20, Hirst teaches a lid structure (Fig 2A, lid assembly 11) for a beverage container (for 30), comprising:
a body portion (Fig 2A, a body portion of 11 is lid body 12 with valve body 16, wherein [0118] “the valve body and the lid body [are] formed as a single monolithic component”) having threads that threadably secure the lid structure to the beverage container ([0118] “lid body 12 may be connected to the vessel 30 by any type of suitable connection, such as a threaded connection” as shown in Fig 2B);
a spout portion (Fig 2, a spout portion is nozzle 18) comprising a flexible material ([0128] “the nozzle 18 and the straw 38 may be constructed from silicone” which is a flexible material);
a frame portion (Fig 2A, a frame portion of 11 is selector 14) having an opening through which the spout portion extends (Fig 7, an opening of 14 is defined by conduit 46 shown having a portion 94 of the spout portion 18 extending through said opening), the frame portion being adapted to rotate relative to the body portion to transition the spout portion between a closed state (Figs 6-7, closed state) and an open state (Figs 8-9 show open state rotated to by frame portion 14 from closed state relative to the body portion 12/16).
But Hirst does not explicitly teach the body portion having a vent and a vent seal, wherein the straw mechanism includes a projection and a notch, the projection being configured to block an opening of the vent seal when the straw mechanism is in the closed state, and the notch being configured to align with the vent seal when the straw mechanism is in the open state so as to not impede air flow through the vent seal.
Smolko, however, discloses a similar straw mechanism (see examiner annotated Smolko Figure 20, hereinafter “EAFS20”) comprising: a body portion (EAFS20, body) having a vent and a vent seal (EAFS20, vent 348, vent seal 349), wherein the straw mechanism (EAFS20, mechanism shown at least includes a straw shown labeled at 351) includes a projection and a notch (EAFS20, projection and notch 344 of a frame (mechanism comprises body and frame)), the projection being configured to block an opening of the vent seal when the straw mechanism is in the closed state (Fig 21A shows closed state and projection blocking the vent and an opening though the vent seal), and the notch being configured to align with the vent seal when the straw mechanism is in the open state so as to not impede air flow through the vent seal (Fig 21C shows open state allowing communication through the vent seal opening).
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 straw mechanism (body and frame) of Hirst to have a vent with a vent seal (body) covered by a projection in closed state and notch in open state (frame) as taught by Smolko in order to advantageously ease pressure in the container to prevent bursting or crushing (overpressure or vacuum) damaging the container, and beneficially ease straw use of Hirst by providing pressure equalization during sipping (suction) through the straw.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention, and does not destroy the function of Hirst, as shown in the at least one example above of a positioning by a POSITA to block (projection added) or allow (aligned notch added) vent air flow through.
Regarding claims 21-22 (same limitation, different dependency), Hirst/Smolko further teaches the projection extends from an underside of a frame portion of the straw mechanism and the notch is located on the underside of the frame portion directly opposite the projection (EAFS20, the projection is shown directly opposite, left to right from viewer perspective, of the notch, and both the projection and notch are in an underside of a frame portion of the straw mechanism). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claims 23-24 (same limitation, different dependency), Hirst further teaches the body portion includes at least one stop tab configured to limit rotation of the straw mechanism between the open state and the closed state (Fig 5A [0124], at least one projecting stop tab is detent 86 of the cavity of body 12, that limits rotation via a delimiting abutting portion of frame 14 which is notch 90, Fig 3B).
Regarding claim 25, Hirst further teaches the body portion includes an engagement cavity configured to receive the straw mechanism so that an exterior surface of a frame portion of the straw mechanism is flush with an exterior surface of the body portion (Figs 2A & 9, a top side of 12 with 16 forms a cavity capable of engagement to the straw mechanism frame portion 14, wherein the frame is shown flush to an exterior surface of the body 12, Fig 7).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 14 August 2026
Prosecution Insights