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 .
The amendments filed 4/20/2026 have been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Us Patent No. 6,196,413 (Tung hereinafter) in view of US Patent No. 6,253,936 (Kong hereinafter), and US Patent No. 5,545,315 (Lonneman hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 4-6, Tung discloses: A closure system for a container, comprising: an engaging member (40); a mouthpiece (50) extending from the engaging member, the mouthpiece being configured to be contacted by a mouth of a user; a straw assembly (60 and 61) extending from the mouthpiece, the straw assembly including: a first member (60) fixed relative to the mouthpiece; a second member (61) movable relative to the mouthpiece, the second member having an outer surface (see fig. 4).
[AltContent: textbox (Terminal End/ Surface Engaging Portion)][AltContent: textbox (Container Engaging Portion/ Second Container Engagement Feature (inner skirt))][AltContent: textbox (Outer Surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Container Engaging Portion/ First Container Engagement Feature (outer skirt))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
734
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
741
409
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Holding Portion)]
PNG
media_image3.png
739
346
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tung fails to disclose wherein a sealing member located between the first member and the second member, the sealing member frictionally engaging the outer surface of the second member as the second member moves relative to the first member to form and maintain a fluid tight seal between the first member and the second member.
Firstly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have enlarged the first/upper member (60) of Tung to instead fit inside of it the second/lower member (61), since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0050 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have expected the straw assembly of Tung to work equally well whether the first member was inside or outside of the second member.
Secondly, with reference to Fig. 8, Kong discloses a telescoping tube assembly for fluid flow wherein an o-ring seal (88) located in a notch along an inner side wall at a lower end of a first member (82), the o-ring seal engaging an outer surface of an upper end of a second/lower member (50).
PNG
media_image4.png
345
223
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the telescoping tube assembly of modified Tung above to further have included an o-ring seal located in a notch in the first/outer/upper member to engage the outer surface of the second/inner/lower member as taught by Kong for the purposes of further enhancing a seal (Kong, column 7, lines 41-50) at the location in order to prevent leakage out of the straw or loss of vacuum within the straw.
Tung in view of Kong fails to disclose a filter member disposed in the straw assembly to filter a material drawn through the straw assembly.
However, with reference to Fig. 3, Lonneman discloses a container wherein a straw assembly includes a first member (36) which includes a filter holding portion (occupied by 54/58/60) spaced a distance from a second member engaging portion (38), and a filter member (58); wherein the filter member is held within the first member to filter a material drawn through the straw assembly.
PNG
media_image5.png
759
387
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the filter of Lonneman with the first member of Tung in view of Kong for the predictable purposes of providing filtration of harmful contaminants from the contents of the container (Lonneman column 3, lines 11-40).
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose the second member (61) is movable relative to the mouthpiece such that a terminal end of the second member is movable from a first position (see Tung Fig. 5) to a second position (see Tung Fig. 6) relative to the mouthpiece (Tung, column 4, lines 4-10), the second position being further from the mouthpiece than the first position (see Figs. 5-6).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose the second member (61) has a first end (top end of 61), and the first member (60) includes a second member engaging portion that defines a substantially cylindrical inner wall that engages the first end of the second member (when 61 is inside of 60 as modified in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose wherein the straw assembly (60, 61) is affixed to the mouthpiece (51) (see Tung column 4, lines 4-10).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose wherein the engaging member includes a container engaging portion configured to removably fix the engaging member to the container (see Fig. 4 above).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose wherein the engaging member (40) includes a container engaging portion having a first engagement portion that engages a first container engagement feature (i.e. outside of container mouth, see Figs. 4 and 5 above) and a second engagement portion that engages a second container engagement feature (i.e. inside surface of container mouth), and the first container engagement feature is distinct from second container engagement feature (inner skirt vs. outer skirt shown annotated in Figs. 4 and 5 above).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose wherein the second member is one of telescoping (see Figs. 5-6), flexible (Tung Column 4, lines 4-10), or interchangeable (i.e. with second identical second member, e.g. as a replacement component).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose wherein the second member has a terminal end of a surface engaging portion that is configured to engage an internal surface of the container (see Fig. 5 above), the surface engaging portion defines a bore (through which fluid flows through straw), and the terminal end is configured to contact the internal surface of the container while the bore allows passage of a fluid through the second member (see Fig. 5 above).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose A closure system for a container, comprising: an engaging member having a container engaging portion (as in re claim 5 above); a mouthpiece extending from the engaging member, the mouthpiece being configured to be contacted by a mouth of a user; a straw assembly extending from the mouthpiece (as in re claim 1 above), the straw assembly including: a first member (60) having a first end (top end of 60) fixed relative to the mouthpiece (Tung Column 4, lines 4-10) and a second end (bottom end of 60) opposite to the first end; a second member (61) having a third end (top end of 61) and a fourth end (bottom end of 61) opposite to the third end, the second member having an outer surface, wherein the third end is receivable within the second end of the first member (as modified in re claim 1 above) such that the second member slides relative to the first member from a first position to a second position (compare 61 in Figs. 5 and 6), the fourth end of the second member being further from the second end of the first member when the second member is in its second position (see Fig. 6) than when the second member is in its first position (see fig. 5); and a sealing member positioned proximate to the second end of the first member, the sealing member frictionally engaging the outer surface of the second member to form and maintain a fluid tight seal between the first member and the second member as the second member moves in the first member (as taught by Kong in re claim 1 above); and a filter member that filters a material drawn through the straw assembly (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose wherein the second end of the first member includes an internal cylindrical wall that is configured to engage an outer wall of the second member at the third end of the second member (as in re claims 1 and 3 above).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose wherein the fourth end (terminal end) of the second member defines a bore and is configured to engage an internal surface of the container, and the bore allows passage of a fluid through the second member (as in re claim 8 above).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose wherein the container engaging portion has a first engagement portion to engage a first container engagement feature and a second engagement portion to engage a second container engagement feature, and the first container engagement feature is distinct from second container engagement feature (as in re claim 7 above).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose A closure system for a container, comprising: an engaging member; a mouthpiece extending from the engaging member; a straw assembly extending from the mouthpiece, the straw assembly including: a first member (as in re claim 1 above); a second member being movably coupled to the first member (Tung Column 4, lines 4-10), the second member having an outer surface; and a sealing member located between the first member and the second member, the sealing member frictionally engaging the outer surface of the second member to form and maintain a fluid tight seal between the first member and the second member as the second member slides in the first member (as modified in re claim 1 above); and a filter member that filters a material drawn through the straw assembly (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose wherein the second member is movable relative to the mouthpiece such that a terminal end of the second member is movable from a first position to a second position relative to the mouthpiece, and the second position is further than the first position from the mouthpiece (as in re claim 2 above).
In re claim 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose wherein the first member includes a second member engaging portion that defines a substantially cylindrical inner wall to engage a first end of the second member (as in re claim 3 above), and a holding portion spaced a distance from the second member engaging portion, the filter member being located in the holding portion (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 18, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose wherein the first member has a first inner diameter, the sealing member is circular and has a second inner diameter, the second inner diameter being less than the first inner diameter (as modified in re claim 1 above, first member has notch holding o-ring seal against outer surface of second member, first inner diameter at notch is larger than inner diameter of seal).
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose the claimed invention including wherein the first member includes a notch formed therein, and the sealing member (88) is located in the notch (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose the claimed invention except wherein the first member includes a holding member coupled thereto, and the holding member retains the sealing member in the notch.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to formed the holding member of Tun in view of Kong and Lonneman as a separate element to be coupled to the first member, rather than integrated with the first member, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, V, C. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0050, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (“A holding portion or member 196 may be fixed to a distal or terminal end 198 of the fixed member 154 and/or may be formed during formation of the fixed portion 154”).
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman as applied to claims 5 and 10 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,024,341 (Dekerle hereinafter).
In re claims 6 and 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman disclose the claimed invention except an adapter member having a first engagement portion to engage/that engages the container engaging portion and a second engagement portion to engage the container.
However, with reference to Figs. 2A and 2B, Dekerle discloses an adapter member (10) having a first engagement portion (21) to engage/that engages a container engaging portion (15) and a second engagement portion (20) to engage the container (at 13).
PNG
media_image6.png
809
462
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided an adapter as taught by Dekerle to the system of Tung in view of Kong and Lonneman for the predictable purposes of allowing for attachment of the cap of Tung with a variety of available containers having different mouth diameters and/or attachment structures (i.e. threads, beads, etc).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9-10 of the Remarks that adding an o-ring seal to seal between cylindrical sections of Tung is impermissible hindsight. However, it is asserted that provision of an o-ring seal between sections of a fluid carrying device in order to improve the sealing thereof is a common improvement in the art of drinking bottles, and it is noted that the citation from column 2, lines 10-16 actually reads “subsequent suctions” and not “sections”, and refers to the valve 54 at the top of the mouth piece 52, and not to the sections 60/61 in regards to leakage of beverage from the mouth piece 52 to the exterior environment. Therefore, Examiner is not convinced that one would note have looked to provide improved sealing to the abutting/sliding surfaces of Tung by instead providing a specific sealing element such as an o-ring taught by Kong as in re claim 1 above.
Applicant argues on page 11 that Kong does not teach a straw and therefore is not relevant to the invention.
However, as recited above in re claim 1, Kong discloses a telescoping tube assembly for fluid flow wherein an o-ring seal (88) located in a notch along an inner side wall at a lower end of a first member (82), the o-ring seal engaging an outer surface of an upper end of a second/lower member (50), and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the telescoping tube assembly of modified Tung above to further have included an o-ring seal located in a notch in the first/outer/upper member to engage the outer surface of the second/inner/lower member as taught by Kong for the purposes of further enhancing a seal (Kong, column 7, lines 41-50) at the location in order to prevent leakage out of the straw or loss of vacuum within the straw, and Applicant’s arguments that other structures of the disclosures of Tung and Kong are different and therefore not combinable are not convincing.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the Remarks that the combination with Lonneman to provide a filter is improper, merely because the bottle of Lonneman is intended to operate by squeezing of the bottle to generate the pressure difference needed to expel contents through a straw to a user, and that Lonneman discredits the structure of Tung. However, Lonneman is referring to other types of filters [“granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration section in combination with an iodine resin purification system”] when referring to the shortcomings of such filtration in combination with a suction-based delivery apparatus, and not necessarily the washed coconut shell charcoal stage with halogenated resin (tri-iodide or penta-iodide) of Lonnemans preferred embodiment (column 3, lines 11-40), and therefore Lonneman does not specifically discredit their disclosed filtration stages in combination with suction-based delivery systems.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights