UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www .uspto.gov
`| APPLICATION NO. | FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR | ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. |
`18/497,701 10/30/2023 Jamison Corey Harris BABR-2040 5622
`121310 7590 ; 02/10/2026 | EXAMINER |
`Park, Vaughan, Fleming & Dowler LLP
`1980 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2300 HOPPMANN, JOHN MARTIN
`Houston, TX 77056
`| ART UNIT | PAPER NUMBER |
`3733
`| NOTIFICATION DATE | DELIVERY MODE |
`02/10/2026 ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`houstondocket@parklegal.com
`uspto-incoming@parklegal.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application No. Applicant(s)
`18/497 ,701 Harris et al.
`
`Office Action Summary Examiner Art Unit AIA (First Inventor to
`JOHN M HOPPMANN 3733 File) Status Yes
`
`-- The MA/LING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`
`- If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`1)(¥] Responsive to communication(s) filed on 11/6/2025.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filedon
`2a)¥| This action is FINAL. 2b) CJ This action is non-final.
`
`3)() An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on : the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5) Claim(s) 1-23 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6) (J Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`7) Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected.
`8) ( Claim(s)__ is/are objected to.
`
`9) [J Claim(s) are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)1) The drawing(s) filed on is/are: a)() accepted or b)L) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)Q All b)() Some** c)C) None of the:
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 3) QO Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`. . Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`
`2) Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b) 4) ( Other:
`
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13) Office Action Summary Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20260203
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 2
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`Response to Arguments
`2. Applicant's arguments dated 11/6/2025, regarding the Non-Statutory Double Patenting
`Rejections of Claim 1 and 35 USC 103 rejections of Claims 1-23 have been fully considered but
`they are not persuasive, in light of the amended claims, for these reasons:
`a. Regarding the Applicant's assertion that Non-Statutory Double Patenting does
`not apply:
`i. Issue: Double Patenting rejection does not apply (Page 9, Last Paragraph
`— Through top of Page 10.) The examiner points out that this is a Non-Statutory
`Double Patenting Rejection.
`ii. Rule: 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); /n re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
`ili. Analysis: The Examiner agrees this is not a Statutory Double Patenting
`Rejection and that the previous rejection was a NON-STATUTORY DOUBLE
`
`PATENTING as outlined in section ii, above.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 3
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`iv. Conclusion: The Examiner's Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejections
`and 35 U.S.C.103 rejections are updated below to address the Amended Claims
`that narrowed the examined subject matter that were submitted on 11/6/2025.
`b. Regarding the Applicant’s assertion that 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections do not apply to
`the amended Claims, the examiner agrees. The previous rejections are withdrawn. A
`new set of rejections, based on the amended Claims, will be issued below.
`C. Regarding the Applicant's arguments with respect to drawing and specification
`objections, the applicant's arguments are persuasive with the amended drawings
`(Figures 21-23), and the related objections are withdrawn.
`Double Patenting
`3. 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., Inre 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 4
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`scope of ajoint 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 |.B.1.
`For areply to anon-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action,
`see 37 CFR 1.113(c). Arequest 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.
`
`4. Claim 1 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being
`unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11589695 in view of Wong (US
`20210354888). The Claims 1-10 of US 11589695 (Patent Issued on 2/28/2023) as compared
`
`with the instant application Claim 1 follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 5
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`Traerntenr 2 LSE Su, COMBE i
`
`"a First * pas
`
`Claim Comparison - US 11589695 versus Instant Application —
`
`additional structure of Previous Patent struck through — PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED
`CLAIM 1
`
`° The differences — as shown the comparison above where the previously patented
`different structures are struck through — are that the instant application:
`o First: directly claims a DRINKING CUP versus a lid that attaches to a cup.
`o Second: a drinking straw that is mounted on the cup in a sealed, yet
`removeable manner.
`o IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT: the current version of the claims
`(Submitted on 11-6-2025) adds a removable straw that is clearly
`
`disclosed in the previous application in Figure 12 and Paragraph
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 6
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`0043 of the issued patent. See Structure Comparison between the
`
`Application and the previously issued patent as follows:
`
`Spivey et al, — US 20170273484 Eyaminer’s Notes: Instant Application — Added straw
`_ coc vveelee ce - Non-Statutory applies with _ _ coe —
`- Previous patent and common
`: structural features present in
`
`- Drink-Through Lids
`
`BG? AG. 8
`
`Cheng
`
`Paragraph 0043 - Bendable Straw
`
`Structural Comparison of Previous Patent and Current Application
`
`° Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
`unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11724863. Although the claims at issue
`are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed
`features rely on a“Drinking Cup,” and “a drinking straw that is mounted on the cup ina
`seated, yet removable manner;”
`o Wong etal. (US 20210354888) teaches a similar composite straw structure
`where the elasticity of the straw component is sufficient to fold into a
`compartment in the dual use lid when rotating between drinking modes
`
`(Paragraphs 0076-0077) (MOTIVATION: Use drinking straw — 114 elasticity to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 7
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`manipulate the shape of the straw-114 between the first and second drinking
`positions without removing the lid — Paragraph 0076.)
`o It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
`time the application was filed to modify the Multifunction Lid and Straw of
`Spiveyet al. (US 20170273484 and Figure 12), providing the straw structure
`taught by Wong et al. (US 20210354888 — Composite Drinking straw with
`Elastically deformable drinking top section), motivated by the benefit of
`improving the functionality of a drinking container by allowing two different
`outlets while not removing the lid — Paragraph 0076.). Moreover, simple
`substitution of a known element (Simple Straw Structure of the previous
`patent) for another (Removable Composite Straw with sealing and
`removeable features) with a predictable result (improving assembly and
`usability) is rationale (B) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of
`obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP
`2141 (III).
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`5. 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
`statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will not be considered anew
`ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would
`be the same under either status.
`6. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 8
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`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.
`
`7. Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spivey et
`al. (US 20170273484 — hereafter referred to as Spivey) in further in view of Wong (US
`20210354888 — hereafter referred to as Wong). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram A for
`
`Spivey follows:
`
`* Examiner’s Notes:
`
`A~ Drinking Cup (Assembly Level}
`
`B—- Cutout
`
`C ~ Rotation Axis — First Cover - 612
`
`C’ ~ Rotation Axis ~ Second Cover - 614
`
`FIG, 42
`
`Examiner's Annotated Diagram A
`
`e Inregards to Claim 1 (REVISIONS to CLAIM 1 submitted on 11/6/2025 are
`underlined to improve clarity of analysis), Spivey teaches a drinking cup (Spivey,
`Annotated Diagram A, Item A), comprising: a container (Insulated Drinking Vessel — 102)
`
`that retains aliquid within the container (In the name — Insulated Drinking Vessel);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 9
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`a lid (Multi-function Lid — 104) that engages an opening of the container
`(Paragraph 0037 — describes the construction of the lid for “...sealing members to
`engage the portion of the vessel.”:
`
`a drinking opening (Spout Opening — 816 and Annotated Diagram A, Figure 8) in
`the lid (104) sized and configured to allow a user to drink from the drinking opening (816)
`(See Paragraph 0039 where the lid — 104 includes “...afirst cover — 612 for removeable
`covering the drinking spout opening — 816, of the vessel — 102.” — Meeting this
`limitation. );
`
`a drinking straw opening (Drinking Straw Opening — 812) in the lid (104) including
`a Straw (Straw — 1202) mounted in the drinking straw opening (812 — And Diagram A,
`Figure 12) (NOT EXPLICITLY TAUGHT) {in-a-seated-yet- removable manner}, where
`the drinking straw opening (812) is spaced laterally apart and separate from the drinking
`opening (816), such that the drinking opening (816) and the drinking straw opening (812)
`provide independent drinking openings in the lid (See Diagram A, Figure 6 where this
`limitation is met.);
`
`a first cover (First Cover — 612) attached to the lid (104) to move between a first
`position (Diagram A, Figure 6) and a second position (See Figure 9C — Not pictured)
`relative to the drinking opening (812), whereby the first cover (612) is configured to
`preclude liquid from being dispensed (Paragraph 0042 —“...the first cover — 612 is in a
`closed position, thereby sealing the opening 816.”) from the drinking opening (816) in the
`first position (Figure 9A) and to allow liquid to be dispensed from the drinking opening
`(816) in the second position (Figure 9C and Paragraph 0042 where “...the first cover —
`612 in an open position, where the first cover — 612 is engaged with the tab-610 to
`maintain the first cover-612 in the open position.”) ; and
`
`a second cover (Second Cover — 614), separate from the straw (the straw of
`
`Figure 12 and Paragraph 0045 of Spivey), attached to the lid (104) to move between a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 10
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`first position (Figure 10A and Item 614) and a second position (See Figure 10C, Item
`614) relative to the drinking straw opening (812),
`
`whereby the second cover (614) is configured to preclude liquid from being
`dispensed from the drinking straw opening (812) (See Paragraph 0043 where the
`“..second cover-614 is in the closed position such that the seal — 802 covers the straw
`
`hole — 812.”) in the first position (See Figure 10A) when the straw (Straw — 1202 and
`
`Annotated Diagram A, Figure 12) is removed from the drinking straw opening (812
`(Paragraph 0045 of Spivey describes “...the drinking straw — 1202 may be inserted
`through the straw hole — 812 when the second cover — 614 is open and the first cover-
`612 is closed.” — where the act of insertion implies that the straw can also be removed.)
`and to allow liquid to be dispensed from the drinking straw opening (812) in the second
`position (See Figure 10C) (See Paragraph 0043 where the open position is described
`where “...the second cover — 614 may be moved to an open position.”), whereby the first
`cover (612) and the second cover (614) are attached to the lid (104) such that
`movement of the first cover (612) between its first (Figure 9A) and second position
`(Figure 9C) is independent of movement of the second cover (614) between its first
`(Figure 10A) and second position (Figure 10C), and movement of the second cover
`(614) between its first and second position (Figures 10A and 10C) is independent of
`movement of the first cover (612) between its first and second position (Figures 9A and
`9C) (NOTE THAT: the various drawings and Paragraphs 0042-0043 outline this
`limitation of independent movement of both covers.).
`
`o Spivey — while teaching a straw (See Figure 12 of Annotated Diagram A)
`installed on the drinking container — 102 — does not explicitly teach a straw that
`seals.
`
`o Wong - in asimilar disclosure on multifunction lids that solves a similar problem
`
`of a flexible upper composite drinking straw — does teach the missing concepts.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 11
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`o Wong teaches: a sealed straw mounted (Straw -114 or 214 or 314 all taught
`within Wong) in the previously taught drinking straw opening in a sealed
`(Paragraph 0061 — describes “...a lid assembly having a trigger mechanism
`configured for selectively opening one or more of aplurality of orifices of the
`travel beverage container and also for sealable closing the orifices.”) yet
`removable manner (Paragraph 0041 and Figure 2A show the straw — 114
`removed from the drinking lid) (MOTIVATION: improving the functionality of a
`travel container by allowing two different sealable outlets while not removing the
`lid — Paragraph 0061.).
`
`o It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
`time the application was filed to modify the Multifunction Lid of Spivey et
`al. (US 20170273484), providing the container and straw structure taught by
`Lin (Straw -114/214/314, that seals — Paragraph 0061 and is removable
`(Paragraph 0041.), motivated by the benefit of improving the functionality
`ofa mug by allowing two different sealable outlets while not removing the
`lid — Paragraph 0061.). Moreover, simple substitution of a known element
`(Simple Straw Structure of the previously issued patent) for another
`(Removable Composite Straw with sealing and removeable features) with a
`predictable result (improving assembly and usability) is rationale (B) of the
`rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme
`Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141 (III).
`
`In regards to Claim 2, Spivey — as modified previously — already teaches a drinking cup
`(Spivey, Annotated Diagram A, Item A): further comprising arim (Spivey, Raised Edge —
`604) on a periphery of the lid (104) having araised edge (See Figure 6 of Annotated
`
`Diagram A, 604 — where this limitation is met.) around at least a portion of the periphery
`
`(Outer surface of Edge — 604) of the lid (104), wherein the rimis sized and configured to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 12
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`8.
`
`engage a user’s lips (See Paragraph 0036 where the “...raised edge-604 (IS) suitable
`for engaging alip of the user during use.”).
`
`In regards to Claim 3, Spivey — as modified previously — already teaches a drinking cup
`(Spivey, Annotated Diagram A, Item A) further comprising a first lock (Locking
`Mechanism — 616) for locking the first cover (612) in its first position (Paragraph 0039
`describes alocking mechanism on the first cover — 612 for “...locking the first cover into
`a closed or open condition.”).
`
`In regards to Claim 4, Spivey — as modified previously — already teaches a drinking cup
`(Spivey, Annotated Diagram A, Item A): further comprising a second lock (616) for
`locking the first cover in its second position (Paragraph 0039 describes a locking
`mechanism on the first cover — 612 for “...locking the first cover into a closed or open
`condition.”).
`
`Claim(s) 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spivey
`
`in view of Wong and in further view of Wondka (WO 2016081949 — hereafter referred to as
`
`Wondka.)
`
`In regards to Claim 5, Spivey — as modified previously — teaches a drinking cup (Spivey,
`Annotated Diagram A, Item A): wherein the straw is spill-proof.
`o Spivey — as currently modified by Lin — does not teach a straw that is explicitly
`“spill proof.”
`o Wondka- in a similar disclosure on spill-proof straws — does teach the missing
`limitations including a straw assembly: wherein the straw is spill-proof (Wondka,
`Per Paragraph 0056 — the straw - 13 has a sip valve — 7 and Sip Valve Boss — 71
`and Paragraph 0046) (MOTIVATION: Improving one handed handling and
`convenience. — Paragraph 0003).
`o It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the application was filed to modify the Straw Structure of Spivey as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 13
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`modified by Lin, providing the Spill Proof straw structure of Wondka (Straw
`- 13 and Sip Valve - 7 and Sip Valve Boss - 71 and paragraph 0046),
`motivated by the benefit of improving one handed handling and
`convenience. — Paragraph 0003. Moreover, the combination of prior art
`elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is
`rationale (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness
`issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141 (Ill).
`
`e Inregards to Claim 6, Spivey — as modified previously — already teaches a drinking cup
`(Spivey, Annotated Diagram A, Item A): wherein at least a portion of the straw is
`flexible.
`
`o Spivey — as currently modified — does not explicitly teach a flexible straw portion.
`
`o Wondka- does teach the missing limitations — including a straw: wherein at least
`a portion (Ridges — 97 and Paragraph 0046) of the straw is flexible (Paragraph
`0046 describes the function of the ridges as to “...assist flexing of the Sip Valve —
`7 and to add rigidity to prevent inadvertent compression and leakage.”)
`(MOTIVATION: Improving one handed handling and convenience. — Paragraph
`0003)..
`
`o It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
`time the application was filed to modify the Straw Structure of Spivey as
`modified by Lin, providing the Spill Proof straw structure of Wondka (Straw
`- 13 and Sip Valve —7 and Ridges - 97 and paragraph 0046), motivated by
`the benefit of improving one handed handling and convenience. —
`Paragraph 0003. Moreover, the combination of prior art elements (Flexible,
`sealing straw features to improve straw utility) according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results is rationale (A) of the rationales
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 14
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in
`
`KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141 (III).
`In regards to Claim 7, Spivey — as modified previously — already teaches a drinking cup
`(Spivey, Annotated Diagram A, Item A): wherein the first cover (612) is attached to the
`lid (104) to move between its first position (Figure 9A) and its second position (Figure
`9B) while the previously modified straw is mounted in the drinking straw opening (Straw
`Opening — 812) (EXAMINER’S NOTE: Per MPEP 707.07 (f), paragraph 7.37.09; a
`recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural
`difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably
`distinguish the claimed invention fromthe prior art. IN THIS CASE, the provision
`of a flexible section of the straw in the structure of the Lid of Spivey as modified
`by Lin — would account for the functionality claimed. If the prior art structure (A
`flexible, sealing straw that is sealed to the container and is spill proof) is capable
`of performing the intended use (Flexible straw that can bend to the degree
`claimed), then it meets the claim. Based on the lack of illustration of this
`functionality in the drawings included in this application — it is unclear what this
`functionality imputes with respect to quantifiable patentable characteristics.)
`In regards to Claim 8, Spivey — as modified previously — already teaches a drinking cup
`(Spivey, Annotated Diagram A, Item A): wherein the first cover (612) includes a cutout
`(Annotated Diagram A, Item B) in which the second cover (614) nests when the first
`cover (612) is in its first position (Diagram A, Figure 9A) and the second cover (612) is in
`its first position (Figure 10A).
`In regards to Claim 9, Spivey — as modified previously — already teaches a drinking cup
`(Spivey, Annotated Diagram A, Item A) wherein the previously modified straw extends
`through the cutout (Diagram A, Item B) in the first cover (612) when the first cover (612)
`
`is in its first position (Diagram A, Figure 12).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 15
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`In regards to Claim 10, Spivey — as modified previously — already teaches adrinking cup
`(Spivey, Annotated Diagram A, Item A) wherein the previously modified straw does not
`extend through the cutout (Diagram A, Item B) in the first cover (612) when the second
`lock (616) locks the first cover (612) in its second position (Paragraph 0039 describes a
`locking mechanism on the first cover —612 for“...locking the first cover into a closed or
`open condition.”) (See Figure 12 of Annotated Diagram A, where the structure of the lid
`would meet this claim when the first cover — 612 is the in the second (open) position.).
`In regards to Claim 11, Spivey — as modified previously — already teaches adrinking cup
`(Spivey, Annotated Diagram A, Item A) wherein the previously modified straw is
`configured to pass through the cutout in the first cover (612) when the first cover (612)
`moves from its first position (Figure 9A) to its second position (Figure 9C) or from its
`second position (Figure 9C) to its first position (Figure 9A) (NOTE: A flexible straw with a
`short enough length would meet this limitation given a lack of relative dimensions and
`material characteristics of the straw to fully determine the scope of this limitation.)
`(EXAMINER’S FURTHER NOTE: Per MPEP 707.07 (f), paragraph 7.37.09; a
`recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural
`difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably
`distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is
`capable of performing the intended use (Flexible straw that can bend), then it
`meets the claim. Based on the lack of illustration of this functionality in the
`drawings included in this application — it is unclear what this functionality imputes
`with respect to quantifiable patentable characteristics. ).
`
`In regards to Claim 12, Spivey — as modified previously — already teaches adrinking cup
`(Spivey, Annotated Diagram A, Item A): wherein the first cover (612) rotates between its
`first position (Shown in Figure 9A) and its second position (Figure 9C) on afirst axis
`
`(Annotated Diagram A, Item C).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 16
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`9.
`
`In regards to Claim 13, Spivey — as modified previously — already teaches adrinking cup
`(Spivey, Annotated Diagram A, Item A): wherein the second cover (614) rotates between
`its first position (Figure 10A) and its second position (Figure 10C) on a second axis
`(Annotated Diagram A, Item C).
`
`In regards to Claim 14, Spivey — as modified previously — already teaches adrinking cup
`(Spivey, Annotated Diagram A, Item A): wherein the first lock ( for locking the first cover
`in its first position includes a flange on the drinking opening cover interfacing with the rim
`on the periphery of the lid.
`
`Claim(s) 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Spivey in view of Wong/Wondka and in further view of Cheng (CN 213129002 — hereafter
`
`referred to as Cheng).
`
`In regards to Claim 15, Spivey — as modified previously —teaches a drinking cup (Spivey,
`Annotated Diagram A, Item A): wherein the second lock (616) for locking the first cover
`(612) in its second position (Figure 9C), and arim (604) on the periphery of the lid (104)
`and a first cover (612).
`o Spivey does not teach a cutout in the rim of the previously taught lid.
`o Cheng -ina similar disclosure on a multifunctional lids with a straw opening and
`a drinking opening — teaches a cutout (Cheng, Second Limiting Groove — 70) that
`functions as alock (See Translation, page 3, Paragraph beginning with “As
`mentioned above...” — for description of locking function of the groove with
`respect to the first cover in the second position —Figure 2 of Cheng) to the
`previously taught first cover in the previously taught second position
`(MOTIVATION: improvement of convenience of use and dustproof performance
`— Translation — Page 1, Heading Utility Model Content — last sentence.).
`o It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the application was filed to modify the multifunctional drinking cup
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 18/497,701 Page 17
`Art Unit: 3733
`
`structure of Spivey, providing the cutout retention structure of Cheng
`(Second Limiting Groove — 70), motivated by the benefit of improving the
`cup’s convenience of use and dustproof performance — Translation — Page
`1, Heading Utility Model Content — last sentence. Moreover, the
`combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results is rationale (A) of the rationales supporting a
`conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v.
`Teleflex. See MPEP 2141/(Ill).
`In regards to Claim 16, Spivey — as modified previously — already teaches adrinking cup
`(Spivey, Annotated Diagram A, Item A): wherein the lid (104) includes a vent (Vent Port
`— 814) for pressure equalization (Described in Paragraph 0044 where “the user may
`drink from the spout at a high rate because of the enlarged vent capacity created by
`opening the straw hole — 812 in addition to the vent holes — 814.) when the liquid is
`dispensed through at least one of the drinking openings (816) or the drinking straw
`opening