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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “temperature-regulating medium” in claim 1, 15, 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 9/21/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Paragraphs 38, 45, 65, 74, Figs 3, 5, 7, 8.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: The status of claim 6 should be WITHDRAWN since the claim was previously withdrawn in the response filed 3/23/2026. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 18, there is no support in the original disclosure for first opening having a first diameter smaller than outer diameter of the medium holder and second opening having a second diameter larger than outer diameter of inner container and thus it constitutes new matter. In particular, the original disclosure is silent regarding the diameters of the openings in relation to inner container and medium holder.
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 18-19 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 18, the scope of the claims is unclear because it further recites structure of the connector in relation to an inner container; however, the inner container is not explicitly claimed, thus rendering the scope of the claims unclear. In particular, it is not clear if applicant is claiming the combination of the outer container, medium holder and inner container or the subcombination of the outer container and medium holder capable of functioning with an inner container.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 4,006,835 to Cummings.
Regarding claim 1, Cummings discloses a temperature-controlled cup (Fig 1) comprising an outer container (14), at least one medium holder (10) removably accommodated within the outer container, each medium holder defining a receiving space (interior at 16) configured to accommodate an inner container, a storage space (12) at least partially surrounding the receiving space, temperature-regulating medium (vacuum) accommodated within the storage space (12) of the medium holder (10) and configured to regulate a temperature within the receiving space, a lid (24), a connector (22) comprising a first end (at 26) detachably connected to outer container having a first opening, a second end (at 34) detachably connect to the lid (24) having a second opening (Fig 1).
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) 1, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0282652 to Honarvar et al. (Honarvar) in view of US 2011/0204065 to Kolowich.
Regarding claim 1, Honarvar discloses a temperature-controlled cup (Fig 1) comprising an outer container (14), at least one medium holder (20) removably accommodate within the outer container, each medium holder provided with a receiving space to accommodate an inner container, a lid (90), a connector (16) comprising a first end (bottom) detachably connected to outer container (10) having a first opening, a second end (top) detachably connect to lid (90), having a second opening. In particular, the cup is capable of functioning with an inner container as recited since it has the structure as recited. Honarvar does not teach the medium holder having a storage space surrounding the receiving space with a temperature regulating medium in the storage space. However, Kolowich discloses a baby bottle (Fig 5) comprising a receiving space (within 112) and a storage space (120) for accommodating a temperature-regulating medium (€0033) configured to regulate a temperature within the receiving space. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the medium holder of Honarvar with a functionally equivalent medium holder having a storage space accommodating a temperature-regulating medium configured to regulate temperature as suggested by Kolowich in order to store a bottle with insulating means.
Regarding claim 8, Honarvar further discloses inner container comprises connection structure compatible with breast pump or nipple (28) since the cup has the structure as recited.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0206534 to Yu in view of US Patent No. 4,932,225 to Bighouse.
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a temperature-controlled cup (Fig 1) comprising an outer container (10), at least one medium holder (20) removably accommodate within the outer container, each medium holder defining a receiving space to accommodate an inner container, a lid (52), a connector (40) comprising a first end (43) detachably connected to outer container (10) having a first opening, a second end (41) detachably connect to lid (52), having a second opening. In particular, the cup is capable of functioning with an inner container as recited since it has the structure as recited. Yu does not teach the medium holder having a storage space surrounding the receiving space and temperature-regulating medium within the storage space. However, Bighouse discloses a temperature-controlled cup (Fig 1) and in particular discloses a medium holder (14) having a storage space (30) surrounding a receiving space and temperature-regulating medium (31) within the storage space configured to regulate a temperature within the receiving space. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a storage space with temperature-regulating medium to the medium holder of Yu as suggested by Bighouse in order to regulate temperature of the contents within the medium holder.
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses medium holders (20) cylindrical and surround inner container when accommodated within the outer container (10) (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Yu further discloses connector (40) has a first coupling structure (43) and outer container (10) has second coupling structure (12) corresponding to first coupling structure.
Regarding claim 5, Yu further discloses first coupling structure (43) located on inner wall of connector (40) and second coupling structure (12) located on outer wall of outer container (10) (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, Yu further discloses inner container comprises connection structure compatible with breast pump or nipple (28) since the cup has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 9, Yu further discloses diameter of first end (at 43) of connector (40) larger than diameter of second end (at 41) of connector (40) (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 17, Yu discloses a temperature-controlled cup comprising an outer container (10), a medium holder (20) removably accommodated within the outer container, the medium holder defining a receiving space configured to accommodate an inner container, a lid (52) and a connector (40) comprising a first end (at 41) detachably connected to the lid (52) having a first opening configured to allow removal and insertion of the inner container out from and into outer container, a second end (at 43) detachably connect to outer container (10) to keep medium holder remaining inside outer container (Fig 1). Yu does not teach the medium holder having a storage space surrounding the receiving space and temperature-regulating medium within the storage space. However, Bighouse discloses a temperature-controlled cup (Fig 1) and in particular discloses a medium holder (14) having a storage space (30) surrounding a receiving space and temperature-regulating medium (31) within the storage space configured to regulate a temperature within the receiving space. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a storage space with temperature-regulating medium to the medium holder of Yu as suggested by Bighouse in order to regulate temperature of the contents within the medium holder.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Yu further discloses medium holder (20) is cylindrical and can surround inner container when accommodated in outer container since it has the structure as recited, first opening (at 41) having a first diameter larger than outer diameter of inner container since it has the structure as recited, second end having a second opening (at 43) smaller than outer diameter of medium holder.
Regarding claim 20, Yu further discloses a connector (40) having a first coupling structure (43) and outer container (10) has second coupling structure (12) corresponding to first coupling structure.
Claim(s) 3, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Bighouse and US Patent No. 11,370,595 to Rojas.
Regarding claim 3, 19, the modified Yu teaches the cup of claim 2, 18 but does not teach the medium holder as recited. Rojas discloses a holder (Fig 3) including a seal member (2), a cylindrical body (9), the body having an notch (above 5) formed at its end and provided with an injection port (1), sealing member (2) being placed in injection port (1) and configured to seal the port. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the medium holder of Yu with a functional equivalent holder as suggested by Rojas in order to facilitate storing of contents since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Bighouse and US 2024/0325997 to Beardsell.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Yu teaches the cup of claim 9 but does not teach the cup further comprising a handle connected to the connector. However, Beardsell discloses a cup (Fig 1) and in particular discloses a connector (125) with a handle (185) connected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a handle to the Yu connector as suggested by Beardsell in order to facilitate handling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues the objection to drawings. The argument is not persuasive because the original disclosure does not specify where the medium is located or how much of the medium is present. The original disclosure specifically states that the medium is not shown in the drawings and thus pointing an arrow to where the medium is located on the drawings is considered new matter.
Applicant further argues that the drawings show the relationship between the diameters. This is not persuasive because the drawings are not to scale and furthermore are not sufficient to explicitly disclose the recited diameter relationships.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that prior art does not medium holder with a receiving space and storage space surrounding the receiving space with temperature-regulating medium within the storage space. This is not persuasive because both Kolowich and Bighouse disclose holders with both spaces and temperature-regulating medium in the storage space. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a storage space with temperature-regulating medium to the medium holder of Yu/Honarvar as suggested by Bighouse/Kolowich in order to regulate temperature of the contents within the medium holder.
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 ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (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.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
