Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/002,353

DRINKING AND SEALING LIDS FOR VESSELS AND ASSOCIATED DEVICES AND METHODS

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Dec 26, 2024
Examiner
SMALLEY, JAMES N
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ceres Chill Co.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
60%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
916 granted / 1304 resolved
At TC average
Minimal -10% lift
Without
With
+-10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1340
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
40.5%
+0.5% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1304 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 1. 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. 2. Claims 10 and 11 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. Regarding claim 10, the term spout portion lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims. Examiner notes the previously recited element is “spout component” in claim 1. Regarding claim 11, from which claims 12-16 depend, Examiner notes the phrase “one or more ridges extending radially inward from the first inner” in line 7 is indefinite. It appears the term “first inner” should be the “first inner surface”. Double Patenting 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,221,253 (“the ‘253 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are anticipated by the claims of the ‘253 patent. See limitation-by-limitation comparison below. Claims 1 and 13 of the ‘253 patent Instant claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 1. A sip lid for a children's drinking vessel, comprising: 1. A lid for a drinking vessel, comprising: a spout component having a first end region and a second end region opposite to the first end region, wherein— the spout component is shaped and sized to be received within a child's mouth, and the first end region comprises one or more openings configured to allow liquid to be extracted through the spout component when the child is applying suction to the spout component; and a spout component comprising one or more openings configured to allow liquid to be extracted through the spout component; and a base component having (i) a top portion extending from the second end region of the spout component and surrounding the spout component, and (ii) a side portion extending away from the top portion and configured to extend around a neck of the children's drinking vessel, wherein … and the base component is made from an elastic material configured to allow the base component to stretch over differently sized mouths of drinking vessels to form a liquid-tight seal between the base component and the drinking vessels … 4. The sip lid of claim 1, wherein the spout component and the base component are made of the same elastic material … 5. The sip lid of claim 4, wherein the elastic material is silicone. a base component made of silicone and having (i) a top portion surrounding the spout component, and (ii) a side portion extending away from the top portion and configured to stretch around a neck of the drinking vessel, the side portion comprises— a first inner surface, one or more ridges extending radially inward from the first inner surface and configured to concur within threads along the neck, and a peripheral edge region having a second inner surface with a larger diameter than that of the first inner surface around a circumference of the peripheral edge region, the second inner surface being substantially parallel to the first inner surface; wherein the side portion comprises— a first inner surface, one or more ridges extending radially inward from the first inner surface and configured to concur within threads along the neck, and a peripheral edge region having a second inner surface with a larger diameter than that of the first inner surface around a circumference of the peripheral edge region, the second inner surface being substantially parallel to the first inner surface. 1. … and the base component is made from an elastic material configured to allow the base component to stretch over differently sized mouths of drinking vessels to form a liquid-tight seal between the base component and the drinking vessels … 2. The lid of claim 1, wherein the base component is configured to stretch over differently sized mouths of drinking vessels to form a liquid-tight seal between the base component and the drinking vessels. 13. A lid for a vessel, comprising: 11. A lid for a drinking vessel, comprising: a spout component having a first end region and a second end region opposite to the first end region, wherein— the first end region comprises one or more openings configured to allow liquid to be extracted through the spout component; and a spout component comprising one or more openings; and a base component having (i) a top portion extending from the second end region of the spout component and surrounding the spout component, and (ii) a side portion extending away from the top portion, … and the base component is made from an elastic material configured to allow the base component to stretch over differently sized mouths of drinking vessels to form a liquid-tight seal between the base component and the drinking vessels … a base component having (i) a top portion surrounding the spout component, and (ii) a side portion extending away from the top portion and configured to stretch around a neck of the drinking vessel, wherein the side portion comprises— a first inner surface, one or more ridges extending radially inward from the first inner surface and configured to concur within threads along a neck of the vessel, and a peripheral edge region having a second inner surface with a larger diameter than that of the first inner surface around a circumference of the peripheral edge region, the second inner surface being substantially parallel to the first inner surface, wherein the side portion comprises— a first inner surface, one or more ridges extending radially inward from the first inner, and a peripheral edge region having a second inner surface with a larger diameter than that of the first inner surface around a circumference of the peripheral edge region, the second inner surface being substantially parallel to the first inner surface. 13. … the base component is made from an elastic material configured to allow the base component to stretch over differently sized mouths of drinking vessels to form a liquid-tight seal between the base component and the drinking vessels. 12. The lid of claim 11, wherein the base component is configured to stretch over differently sized mouths of drinking vessels to form a liquid-tight seal between the one or more ridges of the base component and the drinking vessels. 14. The lid of claim 13, wherein the base component is configured to couple with and form the liquid-tight seal with mouths of drinking vessels having diameters ranging from about 30 mm to about 55 mm. 13. The lid of claim 11, wherein the base component is configured to couple with and form a liquid-tight seal with mouths of drinking vessels having diameters ranging from about 30 mm to about 55 mm. 6. Claims 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,221,253 (“the ‘253 patent”) in view of US 2015/0359365 (Feeley). Claims 16-19 of the ‘253 patent Instant claims 17-20 16. A method of using a sip lid, comprising: 17. A method of using a lid, comprising: stretching a base component of the sip lid around threads of a neck of a drinking vessel to form a liquid-tight seal between the base component and the neck without using threads, stretching a base component of the lid around threads of a neck of a drinking vessel to form a liquid-tight seal between the base component and the neck, wherein— the base component includes (i) a top portion, and (ii) a side portion extending away from the top portion, … the base component of the sip lid is configured to be stretched over necks of drinking vessels having diameters ranging from about 30 mm to about 55 mm. wherein— the base component is made of silicone (not taught) and includes (i) a top portion, and (ii) a side portion extending away from the top portion and configured to stretch around a neck of the drinking vessel, the side portion has a first inner surface comprising one or more ridges, the side portion includes a peripheral edge region having a second inner surface with a larger diameter than that of the first inner surface around a circumference of the peripheral edge region, the second inner surface being substantially parallel to the first inner surface, wherein the side portion comprises— a first inner surface, one or more ridges extending radially inward from the first inner surface and configured to concur within threads along the neck, and a peripheral edge region having a second inner surface with a larger diameter than that of the first inner surface around a circumference of the peripheral edge region, the second inner surface being substantially parallel to the first inner surface, and the sip lid comprises a spout component having a first end region with openings configured to allow for liquid extraction therethrough and a second end region coupled to the base component, the lid comprises a spout component comprising one or more openings configured to allow liquid to be extracted through the spout component. The claims of the ‘253 patent fail to limit the base as being formed of silicone material. However, Examiner notes they limit the base as being configured to stretched over vessel necks of various diameter. Feeley, analogous to elastic sip lids (16), teaches forming a sip lid of silicone which allows it to be “stretched and pulled” when applied to a drinking cup (see para. [0040]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lid of the ‘253 patent, forming it of silicone as taught by Feeley, motivated by the use of a stretchable elastic material, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”. 17. The method of claim 16, further comprising uncoupling the sip lid from the drinking vessel by pulling at least one of the sip lid and the drinking vessel relative to each other in an opposite direction until the sip lid is no longer in contact with the drinking vessel. 18. The method of claim 17, further comprising uncoupling the lid from the drinking vessel by pulling at least one of the lid and the drinking vessel relative to each other in an opposite direction until the lid is no longer in contact with the drinking vessel. 18. The method of claim 17, wherein pulling at least one of the sip lid and the drinking vessel relative to each other does not include rotating. 19. The method of claim 17, wherein pulling at least one of the lid and the drinking vessel relative to each other does not include rotating. 19. The method of claim 18, wherein the drinking vessel is a first drinking vessel, the neck is a first neck, and the method further comprises: uncoupling the sip lid from the first drinking vessel; and attaching the sip lid to a second neck of a second drinking vessel, the second neck being shaped and/or sized differently than the first neck. 20. The method of claim 17, wherein the drinking vessel is a first drinking vessel, the neck is a first neck, and the method further comprises: uncoupling the lid from the first drinking vessel; and attaching the lid to a second neck of a second drinking vessel, the second neck being shaped and/or sized differently than the first neck. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm. 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. /JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600532
CONTAINER FOR PACKING A FOOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595095
CLOSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589922
CLOSING DEVICE FOR CONTAINERS AND ASSEMBLY COMPRISING A CONTAINER PROVIDED WITH SAID CLOSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589920
PORTABLE STORAGE CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589916
BI-INJECTION MOLDED HOUSING OF A LOCKING CAP FOR A PHARMACEUTICAL VIAL, AND LOCKING CAP INCLUDING SUCH A HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
60%
With Interview (-10.2%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1304 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month