Patents on Cup-Sleeves

Discussed below are eight patents on cup-sleeves:  

A Thermal Coffee Cup

US 2661889; Priority date Jul 20, 1948

A thermal coffee cup is also an invention for insulating a user’s hand from a hot beverage cup. The motivation and background is to provide a combined holder and coffee cup which is of simple construction, inexpensive to manufacture, easy to assemble, and easy for users to use. The technology is to design an insulating jacket, which is provided with a corrugated lining to receive a cup-like container. This patent claims an insulated container jacket which comprises an outer frusto conical-shaped sleeves and an inner corrugated lining.

Sleeve construction for improved paperboard cup insulation

US 6152363; May 3, 1999

This invention is a sleeve with hot-melt glue dots that improves the insulating characterizes of a paperboard cup to the same level of common polystyrene cups. The motivation is to design a lightweight sleeve cut from a single blank, adds an air-gap layer, and preserves a smooth outside-sleeve surface for printing. The technology is to add plurality of air-gap means rigidly attached to the first side of the sleeve. There are total of five claims that include the sleeve construction components and structure.

Insulating Sleeve

US 63433735 B1; Priority date May 4, 2000

Insulating Sleeve is an improved sleeve for insulating a user’s hand from a hot beverage cup. The background and motivation for this invention is to find an inexpensive, biodegradable and adequate insulation for the user’s hand from the temperature of a liquid contained in a cup to replace the more commonly used Styrofoam, which is bad for the environment and the corrugated paperboard, which doesn’t provide sufficient insulation. The technology and idea is to design two wings or ridges that are placed away from the cup sidewall by a spacer element to provide the person with gripping not in contact with the cup. There are total of fifteen claims for the two sleeve portions angled away from the sidewall, location of the sleeve portions, structure, where it is used, and how it can be made.

Thermal Sleeve, Method for Manufacturing a Thermal sleeve, and Combination Cup and Thermal Sleeve

US 8251277 B1, Priority date Apr 15, 2005

Thermal Sleeve, as the name suggests, is an invention to provide a thermal insulation. The technology is to use a creped paper in the form of a laminate to design a product with a first end, a second end, a first cup opening, and a second cup opening, and an adhesive holding the first end and the second end together to form a wrap around a cup. There are thirteen associated claims that include composition and structure of the said sleeve, and different combinations of the said sleeve with variety of cups in different materials.  

Beverage cup sleeving system and method

US20080078824 A1; Priority date (?) Aug 23, 2006

The invention is beverage sleeve comprising a layer of elastomer. This design is motivated by the desire to provide an insulating cup sleeve that is effective when wetted, effective against extremely high and low temperatures, is reusable and easily manufactured. The technology is to use the elastomeric and fabric composite sleeve as insulating material. There are total of twenty patents comprising the insulating system, cup protector components, and insulating ring configuration.

Temperature-indicating sleeve and related container

US 8118189 B1; Priority date Dec 15, 2006

Temperature-indicating sleeve and container is an invention with visible temperature indicator in or on the sidewall of the container to indicate the temperature of the contents inside the container. The motivation and background is the observation that when hot items such as coffee and tea in insulated containers are purchased for immediate consumption, consumers generally can’t tell if the item is too hot to consume. Thus, carelessness can easily lead to scald or burn the mouth, lips, or other parts of the body if spilled. The technology is a sleeve with a visually observable temperature indicator on or in the sleeve wall. The temperature indicator is calibrated according to the known insulating property of the container. There are eighteen associated claims for this invention. Claims one through seventeen include the basic components and composition arrangement of the sleeve and container. Claim eighteen is a method of manufacturing such product.

Protective Sleeve

US 20100019023; Priority date (?) July 25, 2008

This is another invention of protective sleeve that aims to provide insulation from user’s hand and the temperature of the container. The uniqueness of the sleeve is the arc-shape. According to the inventor, the arch shape reduce sheet material as compare to sleeves without an arc shape, and more efficient to manufacture than sleeves which adapt to the shape of a conical cup by the expansion of slits, notches and honeycomb structure. There are total of twenty claims, which include basic structure of the sleeve, method for forming such sleeve, and the corresponding sheet material.

Hot and Cold Cup Sleeve

US 20140151385; Priority date(?) Feb 6, 2014

This is one of the newer inventions on sleeve that aims to insulate hand from the container’s temperature. This invention is motivated by the observation that hot cup sleeves do not work well for the cold drinks because cold drink gathers moisture and cold cup sleeves are bulky. With the goal of designing an inexpensive, thin, single-use sleeve for hot/cold beverage, the designer invented a light weighted product with three layers. The inner layer is water absorbent to prevent condensation from dripping onto the table and the outer layer is made of non-woven synthetic fabric to keep hands dry. These two layers are connected with polyethylene film. There are total of twelve associated claims that include the components of the sleeves, the materials, and functionalities of the components.

Novelty: Non-obvious and Non-anticipated

In this blog, I will first briefly introduce the concept of obviousness and anticipation, both of which are critical to determine if a patent will be granted. Then, I present my views on how these two concepts can be used to evaluate the novelty of the eight cup-sleeve patents discussed in my previous blog.

For a patent to be granted, the invention has to meet two criterions: non-anticipated and non-obvious.  Anticipation is a situation in which an invention is too similar to an earlier invention to be considered new. In order for an invention to be patentable, it has to prove that it is not anticipated by1) prior publications (a news article, academic theses, or prior patent), 2) prior inventions (if all significant elements of the later invention are found in an earlier one prior to the date of invention or the applications filling date), 3) placing the invention on sale more than one year prior to an applications being filed, or 4) public use or display of the invention more than a year prior to the filing the patent application. Obviousness, on the other hand, is much more subjective. Non-obviousness requires that the difference between the invention to patented and the prior art to be not obvious at the time the invention was made to a person skilled in art. In many cases, it is arbitrary because it depends on patent officers’ subjective judgment on whether or not the patent provides a new or unexpected improvement. Non-anticipated and non-obvious together prevent the patenting of inventions that are relatively insignificant measured by their differences with the prior art.

For the eight cup-sleeve inventions previously discussed, five are already granted patent and three are still in application. Do all these eight inventions entitle to patents?  It is obvious that these patents all have the same goal of insulating user’s hand from the temperature of the container. Further, their designs are based on the very same principle of creating extra room between the cup container and the user’s hand. Despite the obvious similarities, I argue that all eight patents are defendable on the ground of non-obvious and non-anticipated because each patent provide at least one incremental improvement that significantly improves either user experience or manufacturing efficiency. It is importance to recognize these subtle but at same time greatly beneficial improvements because they make our daily life more comfortable and convenient.

Ten Predictions Sourced from Class and the Internet

Predictions on Art and Social Progresses

Musicians, writers, politicians and many other public figures make predictions all the time. Musicians make prediction when they try to decide on the theme, the music and even the dressing style for the next album. Similarly, writers make prediction that range from carefully selecting story, characters, and the name for their work. Politicians also make prediction all the times, among which the most obvious maybe their election platforms. In all these three cases, public figures try to predict the next “BIG THING” that will be accepted, supported, and even enthusiastically loved by the public. However, not all predictions are accurate. In fact, most are probably not. To name a few:   

“We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out”- Decca recording company on declining to sign the Beatles, 1962
 “Children just aren’t interested in witches and wizards anymore.” –Anonymous publishing executive writing to J.K Rowling, 1996
 “It will be years- not in my time-before a woman will become Prime Minister” -Magaret Thatcher, future Prime Minister, 1969

These predictions all turn out to be false: Beatle is now widely regard as the greatest and most influential act of the rock era. They are collectively included in Times magazine’s compilation of the twentieth’s century’s 100 most influential people and they are the best selling band in the history. Harry Potter series written by J.K. Rowling have gained immense popularity, critical acclaim, and commercial success worldwide. And it turns out Magaret Thatcher’s prediction was not only falsified, and it was falsified by herself.

Decca recording company, publishing executive, and Magaret Thatcher are not just random people lacking knowledge in the area that they predicted; instead, they are highly informed, intelligent, and have achieved successes in their respective areas. So what went wrong? Their false predictions reflect fundamental difficulties in making predictions for popular trend and/or social progress—prediction needs to allow room for rapidly changing social context and that trends do not replicate.

Decca recording company dismissed Beatle because guitar was not popular in the 60s; publishing executive disregarded Harry Potter because many books on witches and wizards in the late 90s fall in oblivion; Thatcher did not think any woman could be a Prime Minister because she was stumbled with obstacles in the political world for her identity as a female. In these cases, they made predictions based on their social context. But what they have neglected is the rapid pace at which social context can change, and the change is not necessarily linear. Additionally, trends also are difficult to predict because they do not duplicated themselves. Superb musicians, writers, and politicians achieve success by bringing to the public something different and things maybe even previously overlooked. All in all, these predictions turn out to be false because they were trying to predict the unpredictable.

 

Predictions on Technological Advancement

Another group of people that are constantly making predictions, and a lot of times wrong predictions, are scientists and corporate executives investing on new technologies. However, they face different set of difficulties when making predictions. The first set difficulties, and perhaps the more obvious one, is environmental constraints. In other words, they make predictions based on given technological limits. Following predictions illustrate the impact of this constraint.  

“X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” -Lord Kelvin, president of the royal society, 1883
“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” -Western Union internal memo, 1876
“I predict the Internet in 1996 [will] catastrophically collapse.” -Robert Metcalfe, coinventor of the Internet, 1995.
“All the machines that could be invented have been invented. We could just close this office.” – a patent officer in early 1900s.

These predictions all turn out to be false. Today, X-rays has wide medical applications that range from Computed tomography to Radiotherapy. Mobile and fixed-line telephone subscribers are estimated to exceed 6 billion in 2009. Internet did not collapse, and it transformed the business with platform economy, cloud computing, and ICT-enabled manufacturing. Finally, the patent office certainly remains in office today with the increased and still increasing demand for patent filings.  Lord Kelvin, Western Union, Robert Metcalfe, and patent officer made the false predictions because technological inventions can be reconfigured by many technological advancements and it is difficult to predict the future of a product when the incremental improvements of the product are yet to be invented. 

The second difficulty, more subtle but nonetheless very important, that limits scientists’ and executives’ ability to predict the future is that demands can be created.

“There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.” -Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of digital Equipment Corporation, in a talk given to a 1977 World Future Society meeting in Boston

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”-Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM 1943

“Search Engines? Aren’t they all dead?”-James Altucher, Venture Capitalist late 2000s

Once again, all the above predictions turn out to be false. People use computer for communication with each other, for the purpose of study, for entertainment, and as well as business purpose. Personal computers are the icons of the Information Age. Google, a search engine company, became a multinational, publicly traded organization in just few years. These examples demonstrate the second set of difficulty in making predictions. A world without computers or Google may be unimaginable from today’s perspective. But imagine a world that has never had computers or Google, people can still communicate via phones, study and find information with the help of librarians, enjoy more outdoor activities instead of video games, and manage businesses without digitalization. The point is, computers and Google have created a vast range of demands that we previously did not need. This is why the above predictions turn out to be false. The predictors could not have possibly seen the needs of computer or Google until these new technologies have created the needs.

Slide to Unlock Claim1

Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image US 8046721

Claim 1 is an independent claim that does not reference any other claim. The claim 1 in the “Slide to unlock patent,” explains the method of unlocking hand-held electronic device by touching the screen display. More specifically, the process consists of touching the unlock image first and move the image to unlock region by maintaining hand contact and the image moves with the hand movement. As the image moves across the screen and reach the unlock region, the device is unlocked.  Additionally, claim 1 specifies the image as “a graphical, interactive user-interface object,” and unlocking movement as “moving image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region.”

Overall, I think claim 1 is informative and yet specific. This level of detail for the simple motion of slide-to-unlock at first seems redundant to me. But upon reflection, I realize it serves as an effective instructional medium for those who want to learn how the method works and at same time is careful to not give this method more credit than it deserves, making it clear to others what would constitute an infringement.