DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant's amendment filed 23 June 2026. Claims 1-24 are pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a
prior office 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 .
Double Patenting
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.
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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,232,639, in view of Jager et al. (US 20200178712).
Regarding claim 1, USP '639 (claim 2) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1 except for explicitly teaching the aroma container arranged at the drinking straw. However, Jager does teach the aroma container (figure 25a and 25b, reference 20) arranged at the drinking straw (figure 25a and 25 b, reference 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the drinking device of USP ‘639 to include the aroma container arranged at the drinking straw, as disclosed by Jager, because including the aroma container arranged at the drinking straw allows for the straw and aroma container to be removed from the cup in a simple, quick and user friendly way.
Regarding claim 2, USP '639 (claim 3), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, USP '639 (claim 4), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, USP '639 (claim 5), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, USP '639 (claim 6), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 5
Regarding claim 6, USP '639 (claim 7), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, USP '639 (claim 8), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, USP '639 (claim 9), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, USP '639 (claim 10), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, USP '639 (claim 11), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, USP '639 (claim 12), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, USP '639 (claim 13), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, USP '639 (claim 14), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, USP '639 (claim 15), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, USP '639 (claim 16), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, USP '639 (claim 17), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, USP '639 (claim 18), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, USP '639 (claim 19), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, USP '639 (claim 21), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, USP '639 (claim 25), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, USP '639 (claim 26), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, USP '639 (claim 24), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, USP '639 (claim 20), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, USP '639 (claim 27), in view of Jager, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the double patenting rejection of claim 1, applicant states “U.S. Patent No. 12,232,639 have not been shown to disclose "an aroma container fixedly or detachably connected with and arranged at the drinking straw" as recited in pending claim 1”. As shown in the rejection above, even though USP ‘639 does not explicitly teach the new feature of “an aroma container arranged at the drinking straw”, Jager does teach this feature, as shown in the rejection above. Therefore claims 1-24 remain rejected.
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 JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights