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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, E, and F in the reply filed on 23 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 April 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6, 9, 10, and 18-23 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 claims 1 and 18, the language, “an interchangeable collar of a plurality of interchangeable collars” is indefinite because it is not clear if applicant is claiming a single collar or multiple collars. For the purposes of examination, the language is interpreted as only requiring a single collar with the intended use of being functionally capable of being substituted for another collar.
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 17-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacob (US 2023/0415964)
Regarding claim 1, Jacob discloses a modular drinkware assembly comprising, fig. 1B:
a base 104 defining a fluid-holding volume;
a lid 102 comprising a fluid outlet aperture, as seen in fig. 1E, the lid being directly couplable to the base; and
a collar 122 (shaker structure) capable of being interchangeable with other collars, the collar removably coupling the base to the lid.
Jacob further discloses that the beverage system may have interchangeable parts, [0042] near the bottom of the paragraph. With this in mind, the collar is configured to be interchanged with any other interchangeable collar to removably couple the lid to the base.
Regarding claim 2, Jacob discloses the collar comprises a first connecting portion 140 extending into the base and a second connecting portion 132 extending above the base and receiving a lid connector of the lid, fig. 1B.
Regarding claim 3, fig. 1A, Jacob discloses the collar comprises an outer wall at 128 which is substantially flush with a lid outer wall, a base outer wall, or both.
Regarding claim 5, fig. 1A, Jacob discloses the collar comprises a loop strap 162.
Regarding claim 6, Jacob further discloses that the loop strap comprises a coupling that is a “snap” type connection 164, [0032], bottom of first column and top of second column. Since snaps are capable of being un-snapped, the loop strap is removably fixed the into a loop configuration.
Regarding claim 9, as seen in fig. 1B, the collar of Jacob is mostly hollow and has several recesses at 138. Either the hollow portion within the collar or the recesses are capable of receiving some accessory. For example a straw can be removably inserted into one of the recesses 138, or some other accessory could be removably held on top of the bottom 136 of the collar.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Jacob discloses a drinkware assembly comprising, fig. 3A-3D:
a base at 104 defining a fluid-holding volume; and
a lid at 102 coupled to the base and comprising:
a main body at 106 having a fluid outlet aperture 158, fig. 2;
a tether at 124; and
a closure at 150, fig. 1D, not numbered in fig. 3A-3D, coupled to the tether,
the tether and the closure moveable between an opened position and a closed position, wherein the tether is magnetically coupled to the main body in the opened position, Fig. 3D. Magnet at 332 embedded into the tether is attracted to magnet at 310, embedded into the lid body when the tether is in the opened position. As seen in fig. 3A-3D, rotation of the tether from the closed position to the open position aligns and attracts the tether magnet to the main body magnet.
Regarding claim 17, Jacob further discloses, fig. 1B a collar 122 (shaker structure) coupling the lid to the base.
Regarding claims 18 and 21, Jacob discloses a modular drinkware assembly, the beverage system may have interchangeable parts, [0042] near the bottom of the paragraph, comprising:
a base 104 defining a fluid-holding volume;
a lid at 102 coupled to the base and comprising:
a main body at 106 having a fluid outlet aperture 158, fig. 2;
a tether at 124; and
a closure at 150, fig. 1D, not numbered in fig. 3A-3D, coupled to the tether, wherein the closure and the tether are moveable between an opened position and a closed position, fig. 3A-3B,
wherein the tether is magnetically coupled to the main body in the opened position, Fig. 3D. Magnet at 332 embedded into the tether is attracted to magnet at 310, embedded into the lid body when the tether is in the opened position. As seen in fig. 3A-3D, rotation of the tether from the closed position to the open position aligns and attracts the tether magnet to the main body magnet, and
Jacob further discloses, fig. 1B a collar 122 removably coupling the base to the lid (interchangeable parts [0042]), fig. 1B. The collar is interchangeable with another collar having the same thread patterns.
Regarding claim 19, Jacob further discloses the interchangeable collar comprises a loop strap 162, the strap is also considered to meet the phrase: “a handle collar” since there is no clear structural difference between the two phrases.
Regarding claim 22, Jacob discloses, fig. 3A-3D, the tether is pivotally coupled to the main body of the lid.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fogarty et al. (US 2017/0253394).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, the references applied above teach all of claims 1 and 18, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach a textured pattern on the outer wall of the interchangeable collar.
Fogerty is analogous art in regard to drinkware assemblies. Fogarty teaches a removable part at 60, fig. 1, having a TRP textured grip in order to help a user tighten and untighten the removable part [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify any outer wall of twist-off removable parts of Jacob to include a texture patterned thereon for the purpose of allowing a user to easily grip and twist the part for removal or tightening as per the teaching of Fogerty.
Claim(s) 6 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of An Je (KR 20170130057 A).
Regarding claim 6, if it is determined that the strap of Jacob is not removable although it is a snap fastener, and for compact prosecution since the fastening means of the instant application is magnetic, the following rejection is provided:
the references applied above teach all of claim 5, as applied above. Jacob further discloses that the strap is connected via a snap fastener [0032].
An Je is analogous art in regard to beverage assemblies and teaches a beverage container with a collar 10 and a strap loop 20 (magnet string) with one end removably connected via magnetic means, there is a magnet 21 and ferromagnetic metal 22, fig. 1. The magnetic attachment means allows the loop strap to be detached at one end from the collar such that it can be attached around something like a user’s body, see translation page 3, first 7 paragraphs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the strap of Jacob to be removable via magnetic means in order to allow the strap to be placed around something as per the teaching of An Je.
Claim(s) 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob as applied to claims 1 and 18 above.
Regarding claims 10 and 23, the references applied above teach all of claims 1 and 18, as applied above.
Jacob further discloses a bottom at 136 with openings at 138. The sum of the open area of the holes in the bottom is less than the open area within the inner walls of the collar such that liquid will be blocked by the bottom portions not having holes and as such the apertured bottom causes flow to be reduced. In addition, the bottom allows the collar (shaker structure 122) to be used as an infuser [0041], second column.
Jacob does not teach that the bottom is removable. However, it is known in the art of beverage assemblies to make all parts detachable in order to ensure that the parts can be thoroughly cleaned.
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom of Jacob to be removable to allow for thorough cleaning of bottle parts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights