Lid for drinking vessels

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 . DETAILED ACTION Reconsideration The merits of this case have been carefully examined again in light of applicant's response received on July 22nd, 2026. The specification objection has been overcome by applicant’s amendment however the rejection of record under 35 USC 112 (a) & (b) has not been overcome by applicant’s amendment to the reproductions and is hereby set forth and made FINAL. Additionally, the amendment introduces new matter not supported by the original disclosure which forms the basis for a new FINAL rejection of the claim as set forth below. Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the description requirement. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). There is no support in the original disclosure for the following changes: The surface shape of some of the elements in the claim were not evident from the disclosure as filed therefore the addition of surface shading after filing is considered new matter. See 37 CFR 1.152 (II). The addition of shading in reproductions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.8 is considered new matter. The area and features indicated by shading and arrows below are considered to be instances of new matter. See reproductions below for reference: PNG media_image1.png 765 1540 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 1033 1534 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 878 1458 media_image3.png Greyscale To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim OR submit new drawings with the new matter issues as shown above resolved. Claim Rejection ‐ 35 USC § 112 As the new matter elements outlined in the above rejection cannot be relied upon in the understanding of the claim, the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) is hereby set forth again and made FINAL. The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and nonenabling for the following reasons: The reproductions do not provide a clear understanding of the exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration of the claimed design. The following portions are unclear: Portions of the nozzle and the elements residing within the space where the nozzle folds into are considered not fully disclosed. The views provided are inadequate to cover the scope asserted and are insufficient for a complete disclosure. The views do not provide a clear understanding of the full exact appearance and entire three-dimensional configuration of this portion of the claimed design either due to lack of other views or lack of shading. The area and features indicated by shading and arrows below are considered to be indefinite and non-enabled. See reproductions below for reference: PNG media_image4.png 457 1535 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 457 1535 media_image4.png Greyscale To overcome the rejection, applicant must distinctly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. Applicant may disclaim the areas or portions of the design which are considered indefinite and nonenabling in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above by converting them to broken lines. New reproductions are suggested so that claim is clearly and consistently shown among the views. If applicant elects to amend the reproductions to contain broken lines, a statement similar to the following should be included in the specification immediately preceding the claim, provided such statement does not introduce new matter (see 35 U.S.C. 132): -- The broken lines show portions of the Lid for Drinking Vessels that form no part of the claimed design. -- Replacement Reproductions  Corrected drawing sheets of the reproductions are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet of the reproductions should include all of the views appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one view is being amended. The view number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing view is to be canceled, the appropriate view must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining views 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 views. Each drawing sheet of reproductions 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).     Applicant is reminded that the numbering of the reproductions and legends must follow the Hague Administrative Instructions Section 405(a) consisting of two separate figures separated by a dot (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. for the first design, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. for the second design, and so on) (see 37 CFR 1.1026 and MPEP 2909.02) 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.     Care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed to be new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 when preparing new reproductions.  Examiner’s Comments to Applicant’s Remarks Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the reasons stated above and as follows. The claim is not in condition for allowance because of the new matter issues and non-enabled elements mentioned above. To overcome the rejection, the applicant is advised to submit new drawings with the new matter and non-enabled issues as shown and described above resolved. The examiner suggests amending the drawings to what is shown in the original disclosure and converting the non-enabled areas rejected in the office action dated March 24th, 2026 to broken lines. Applicant is reminded that a statement describing the broken lines should be included in the specification. See the non-final rejection issued March 24th, 2026 for further details. Conclusion The claim is FINALLY REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) as set forth above. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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. Reply Reminder Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b). Discussion of the Merits of the Application All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP § 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant' s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant' s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below. Telephonic or In-person Interviews A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner). The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP § 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at Yen.Southwood@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner' s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call. Email Communications The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP §502.03 II for further information. Responses to Official USPTO Correspondence When responding to official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including a notification of refusal, please note the following: The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by: Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System‐Web (EFS‐Web) (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply Mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313‐1450 Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571‐273‐8300) Hand‐carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window For additional info: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions   Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEN L SOUTHWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm EST. 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 George Ulsh can be reached on (571) 270-1433. 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.   /YEN LE SOUTHWOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2922