DRINK LID ARRANGEMENTS AND METHODS

§103 §112 §251

REISSUE OFFICE ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is a reissue office action for US Patent 11,730,293, which included original patent claims 1–29. Applicant requested amendment of the claims on 8/22/2025. Claims 1, 6, 8, 12–13, 15–17, 19–20 and 30–39 are pending. Declaration and Reason for Reissue This Reissue has been filed pursuant to the original patent being at least partly inoperative or invalid by reason of “claiming more or less than he had the right”, specifically: “Applicant believes the original patent to be partially inoperative by reason of the patentee claiming less than patentee had a right to claim. The patent disclosed a cover for a drinking vessel having, inter alia, a sensor configured to analyze contents of the drinking vessel and/or a display, where a surface of the cover at least partially comprises a layer transparent to light, and encompasses a variety of structural and technical variants thereof. The issued claims instead recite an apparatus specifically having "an arm extending in a direction orthogonal to the lid from a central portion of the lid and configured to supply ultraviolet light to contents of the beverage container, wherein a bottom surface of the arm at least partially comprises a layer transparent to ultraviolet light" while omitting the described sensor and display” (8/22/2025 declaration p. 1). The reissue oath/declaration filed 8/22/2025 is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following: It fails to identify a claim from the patent that is being broadened, as per MPEP 1414 II: “For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must also identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement.” It fails to “specifically identify an error . . . by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error”, as per MPEP 1414 II. The error statement describes differences between the disclosure and the claims, but does not explicitly describe an error (e.g. what specific language is to be removed and/or what specific language is to be added). Claim Amendment Support – 37 CFR 1.173(c) 37 CFR 1.173(c) requires: “[w]henever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied”: “an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.” Applicant fails to provide the required explanation of the support. Applicant is further reminded that providing citation(s), en masse, does not generally provide the required explanation for the new claims. What is required is an *explanation* that discusses/cites the disclosed support for each and every change to the claims. Applicant must provide such explanation for each change (current and previous) in the pending claims. Priority Dates US Patent 11,730,293 enjoys priority to an earliest date of 10/29/2010, the filing date of 12/916,351. The chain of priority includes intervening CIP application 14/505,331 filed 10/2/2014. Because the claims include certain features not present in the 14/505,331 disclosure, at best the claims have a priority date no earlier than 10/2/2014. Such features include as examples: the arm, processor, transceiver and transparent layer. If applicant disputes the priority date(s) for the claims, each limitation of the disputed claim(s) should be mapped to the disclosure. Claim Objections Claims 30–39 are objected to for failing to include the proper formatting required by 37 CFR 1.173 which states: “(d) Changes shown by markings. Any changes relative to the patent being reissued which are made to the specification, including the claims, upon filing, or by an amendment paper in the reissue application, must include the following markings: (1) The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets; and (2) The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined” and “(g) Amendments made relative to the patent. All amendments must be made relative to the patent specification, including the claims, and drawings, which are in effect as of the date of filing of the reissue application. Applicant fails to present properly-formatted claims showing changes relative to the printed patented claims. Claim 30–39 should be underlined. Applicant is reminded that all amendments (including subsequent amendments) to the claims should be made relative to the printed patent claims rather than to any previous amendment. 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. Claims 12 and 30–39 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 12, there is no antecedent basis for the three occurrences of “the lid”. Claim 30, the “exterior face of the cover” is not clear. The “cover” at best represents a name of the claimed apparatus which includes several structural elements, including the lid, lip portion, etc. The exterior face should be defined with respect to one of the recited structural elements, such as the lid. Claim 30, likewise, the surface of the cover should be defined with respect to one of the recited structural elements, such as the lid. 35 USC § 251 Rejections Claims 1, 6, 8, 12–13, 15–17, 19–20 and 30–39 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action. Claims 30–39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2022); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent family shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application. MPEP 1412.02(I) describes the following three step test for determining whether impermissible recapture exists. See also the flowchart in MPEP 1412.02(VI). (1) Determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; (2) Determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and (3) Determine whether the reissue claims were “materially narrowed” in other respects, so as to avoid the recapture rule. Steps (1) and (2) During the prosecution of 16/252,062 and subsequent to an art rejection, applicant added/argued1 the following claim limitation(s) in seeking allowance of the application: Date Prosecuted Claim(s) Surrender Generating Limitation (SGL) 1/31/2022 12 SGL-1: “a lid comprising at least one sensor integral to the lid… 1/31/2022 123 SGL-2: “a lid comprising at least one interactive display integral to the lid… 2/22/2023 1, 12, 184, 215 SGL-3: “the lid comprises at least one user interface” 2/22/2023 1, 12, 18, 21 SGL-4: “an arm extending in a direction orthogonal to the lid from a central portion of the lid and configured to supply ultraviolet light to contents of the beverage container, wherein a bottom surface of the arm partially comprises a layer transparent to ultraviolet light” It is noted that allowed prosecuted claims 18 and 21 (patent claims 27 and 12 respectively) required neither the integral sensor nor the integral display. Therefore a reissue claim drafted to correct patent claims 12 or 27 need not include SGL-1 or SGL-2. However, all of the patented claims required SGL-2 and SGL-4. Reissue Claim Missing SGL 30–39 SGL-3, SGL-4 Step (3) Each independent claim eliminates the surrendered subject matter in its entirety. Therefore there is no “material narrowing” present. As per MPEP 1412.02(II)(C), “[i]f surrendered subject matter has been entirely eliminated from a claim in the reissue application, then a recapture rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 is proper and must be made for that claim.” The flowchart likewise instructs the Examiner to “Make recapture rejection” when the final flowchart inquiry results in a “No” which is the case here: PNG media_image1.png 156 343 media_image1.png Greyscale 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. Claims 30–39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0122688 (Dias) in view of KR 20110003101 (Myoung). 30. A cover for a drinking vessel, comprising: “Certain embodiments of the present invention include a retainer, a lid, and a sensor, where the sensor is configured to detect information about the retainer, the lid, or the contents in the retainer.” (Dias at Abstract). “For purposes of this application, a “lid' is any item configured to partially or completely cover a retainer opening” (Dias ¶ 0012). a lid; a lip portion joined to the lid at a circumferential edge of the lid and configured to connect with the drinking vessel; PNG media_image2.png 270 353 media_image2.png Greyscale [FIG 2C] PNG media_image3.png 344 275 media_image3.png Greyscale [FIG. 5C] at least one processor; “Certain embodiments of the system and methods of the present invention include one or more computer elements. Examples of computer elements include a processor” (Dias ¶ 0040). at least one transceiver configured to communicate with a remote device; “a container system having a lid or a retainer, either of which may be configured to communicate with or include a computer system.” (Dias ¶ 0008). “The sensors may communicate with the computer elements via any wired or wireless communication system known in the art.” (Dias ¶ 0026). “The computed information may be sent to the external computer elements via wired communication system (e.g., USB cord) or wireless communication system (e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Zigbee, Near Field Communication, Infrared, ANT+, Wireless USB, Z-wave, IEEE Standard 802. 15.4, IEEE Standard 802.22, RFID, or other short-range wireless communication technology, or long-range wireless communication technology).” (Dias ¶ 0047). at least one sensor configured to analyze contents of the drinking vessel; “a lid, and a sensor, where the sensor is configured to detect information about the retainer, the lid, or the contents in the retainer. The sensor also may be configured to communicate with an internal or external computer system” (Dias at Abstract). “Examples of a sensor include a temperature sensor, orientation sensor, capacity sensor, Volume sensor, location sensor, pressure sensor, image sensor, thermal image sensor, float sensor, lid removal sensor, strain gauge or force sensor, optical recognition sensor, pH sensor, evaporative gas sensor, inductive sensor, Hall effect sensor or switch, resistive sensor, or other type of sensor known in the art.” (Dias ¶ 0018). at least one display disposed on an exterior face of the cover; and “The display element aperture may be sized and shaped to fit a first display element 312A such as a light emitting diode (LED) shown in FIG. 2B or a second display element 312B such as a display screen shown in FIG. 2C.” (Dias ¶ 0132). at least one power storage device, “invention may include a power source, such as a battery” (Dias ¶ 0043). wherein a surface of the cover at least partially comprises a layer transparent to light. Dias does not appear to explicitly teach a layer transparent to light. Myoung, however, also teaches a water bottle/container which contains electronic elements such as a battery and water level sensor (e.g. at p. 003). Myoung further teaches: “the portable water bottle according to an embodiment of the present invention may be installed on the inner lid, and further include ultraviolet sterilization means for sterilizing the beverage. At this time, the ultraviolet sterilizing means preferably comprises an ultraviolet lamp (Ultraviolet lamp) and a battery” (Myoung p. 003). “ultraviolet sterilization means, the ultraviolet lamp (Ultraviolet lamp) for irradiating the ultraviolet light to the beverage” (Myoung p. 003). “since the ultraviolet sterilization unit is installed on the inner lid, it is possible to effectively sterilize the water contained in the portable water bottle” (Myoung p. 004). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an ultraviolet sterilization apparatus with that of Dias in order to sterilize the contents of the liquid retainer. Such an apparatus would further require a layer transparent to ultraviolet light such that the light can travel unimpeded from the emitter to the contents of the retainer, in order to effect sterilization. 31. The cover of claim 30, wherein the lip portion extends in a direction orthogonal to the lid. See FIGs. 4A, 5C, 13E and 15C as examples. 32. The cover of claim 30, wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit, to the remote device, information related to contents of the drinking vessel. “The sensors, or another component in the system, may send the detected information to one or more of the computer elements. The sensors may communicate with the computer elements via any wired or wireless communication system known in the art.” (Dias ¶ 0026). “the one or more sensors may take a number of readings and an internal processor may receive multiple readings separated by a meaningful period of time (e.g., a fraction of a minute, 1 minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, an hour, etc.). The internal processor may calculate the difference between the time separated readings. The computed information may be sent to the external computer elements via wired communication system (e.g., USB cord) or wireless communication system” (Dias ¶ 0047). 33. The cover of claim 32, wherein the information related to contents of the drinking vessel is based on at least one of data input externally or a reading by the sensor. “The sensors, or another component in the system, may send the detected information to one or more of the computer elements. The sensors may communicate with the computer elements via any wired or wireless communication system known in the art.” (Dias ¶ 0026). “the one or more sensors may take a number of readings and an internal processor may receive multiple readings separated by a meaningful period of time (e.g., a fraction of a minute, 1 minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, an hour, etc.). The internal processor may calculate the difference between the time separated readings. The computed information may be sent to the external computer elements via wired communication system (e.g., USB cord) or wireless communication system” (Dias ¶ 0047). 34. The cover of claim 32, wherein the at least one display is configured to display an indication of the information related to contents of the drinking vessel. “The computer elements may convert the sensor output into a system output such as visual output (e.g., representations or light) to be displayed in a display element” (Dias ¶ 0027). “FIG. 10A illustrates a method embodiment 600A of the present invention. Specifically, a user may place a product (such as a beverage) in a retainer 602. Then, the user may removably connect a lid having at least one or more sensors to the retainer 604. The system may then detect information about the lid, the retainer, or any contents in the retainer 606. Then, the system may activate an action element in response to the detected information 608. An action representation may be generated to show a status of the action element retainer, lid, or lid contents 610. The action representation may be shown or displayed via a display element 612.” (Dias ¶ 0153). “FIG.15A-FIG.15C illustrate perspective views of a container system and its components in which the retainer is a creamer carafe. In the illustrated embodiment, the internal user interface is configured to display the temperature of the liquid inside the carafe and the time since the carafe was last filled.” (Dias ¶ 0173). 35. The cover of claim 30, wherein the at least one power storage device comprises a battery. “invention may include a power source, such as a battery” (Dias ¶ 0043). 36. The cover of claim 30, further comprising: at least one power replenishment device. “invention may include a power source, such as a battery” (Dias ¶ 0043). 37. The cover of claim 36, wherein the at least one power replenishment device comprises at least one wireless charging interface. “invention may include a power source, such as a battery, capacitor, flywheel, RFID circuit, solar cell, generator (e.g., micro generator, thermoelectric generator, inductive generator, piezoelectric generator, etc.), or power plug” (Dias ¶ 0043). 38. The cover of claim 30, wherein an inner portion of the lip portion is threaded to be screwed onto the rim of the drinking vessel. “Examples of removable connections between a lid and a retainer include complementary threads, snap engagement, or a frictional configuration.” (Dias ¶ 0013). 39. The cover of claim 30, wherein an inner portion of the lip portion is configured to snap over the drinking vessel via a protrusion in a circumferential direction. “Examples of removable connections between a lid and a retainer include complementary threads, snap engagement, or a frictional configuration.” (Dias ¶ 0013). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attached the lid in any well-known manner, including snapping over the retainer/container of Dias via circumferential protrusion. Dias specifically shows inside as well as outside removeable attachments as seen in FIGs. 3A and 3B. Dias also specifically teaches the concept of snap engagements as removeable attachment alternatives to threaded engagements. One of ordinary skill would have envisioned at least a partial circumferential protrusion to accomplish Dias’s desired snap engagement, due to the shared contact areas being circumferential in nature, given the circular container and corresponding circular lid. There are a limited set of locations and arrangements available to one of ordinary skill to accomplish the desired snap engagement and choosing a circumferential protrusion would have been an obvious choice from a limited universe of choices. Notification of Proceedings and Material Information Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which this patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D CARLSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-6716. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 am to 5:00 pm, off 1st Fri. 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, Michael Fuelling can be reached on (571) 270-1367. 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. /JEFFREY D CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Conferees: /C. Michelle Tarae/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992 1 In Hester, supra, the Federal Circuit held that the surrender that forms the basis for impermissible recapture "can occur through arguments alone" . 142 F.3d at 1482, 46 USPQ2d at 1649. 2 Prosecuted claim 1 printed as patent claim 1. 3 Prosecuted claim 12 printed as patent claim 21. 4 Prosecuted claim 18 printed as patent claim 27. 5 Prosecuted claim 21 printed as patent claim 12.