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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “mixer as a separate unit” as recited in claim 63; the “the mixer that is configured to be automatically activated” as recited in claim 67; “the lever is mechanically connected to the striker” as recited in claim 67 (the figures show the striker 42 comprises the lever 42a, but does not shown a separate lever is mechanically connected to the striker); “a sensor unit” as set forth in claim 73; “a sensor unit” as set forth in claim 74; “a unit” as set forth in claim 78; “a unit” as set forth in claim 79; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because some figures are depicted as photographs, which is not justified in this application s the material can be depicted by line drawings (see 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1)).Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures 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 figures. Each drawing sheet 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). 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. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 78 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “wherein the wherein the” should read --wherein the--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 79 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “wherein the wherein the” should read --wherein the--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “unit” in claim 78 and claim 79.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 78 and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Neither the original specification, figures, nor claims describe the mixer comprises a unit that provides mixing activation in response to motion of the apparatus. The only mentions of a “unit” is in paragraph [0135] of the published application that recites “blending unit (e.g. mixer)”. To the extent the “unit” is referring to the blending unit, this paragraph is equating the mixer with the blending unit, but nothing in the original disclosure describes the mixer comprising any kind of unit that provides mixing activation.
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 78 and 79 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 78 and 79, claim limitation “unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of cany structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 79 depends upon claim 637 which does not exist. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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) 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lyons et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0072553) in view of Jaiswal et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0199584), Dvorak (U.S. Patent No. 9,975,684), Mitchell (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0120815) and Anson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,464,633).
Regarding claims 67, Lyons et al. discloses a personal portable fluid dispensing apparatus (title; figure 2, reference #100) comprising:
a vessel (figures 2-4, reference #114);
lever rotatably and mechanically coupled to the vessel (figures 27 and 28, reference #147, 152 and 153 (reference #153 is part of lever and is rotatably coupled to vessel); [0228]-[0229]);
a base attached below to the vessel (figure 4, reference #115; or alternatively, figures 2 and 3, reference #118); and
the apparatus comprises multiple wedge-shaped packets that comprise ingestible material (figures 17 and 18, #101; [0199]).
While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific dimensions. The reference discloses wherein the apparatus is a portable handheld water bottle, and it is known in the art that a portable handheld water bottle falls within the claimed dimensions. Furthermore, as evidenced by the produced reference sold to the public, the reference falls within the claimed dimensions (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B081QWDJ9D/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B081QWDJ9D&linkCode=as2&tag=mbr08-20&linkId=ecc6aff0a52e488e16fcf66e8c9031e8). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lyons et al. to have a height of 6-25 inches and a cross-sectional dimension of about 2.5 to 5 inches so that the apparatus can be easily carried around to many different places while still holding enough drinkable liquid (Lyons et al. [0161]) and because since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a mixer mounted as a separate component within the vessel.
Jaiswal et al. teaches another device for producing a food product (title). The reference teaches a mixer that is capable to be automatically activated in response to sensing movement of the apparatus and mounted as a separate component within the vessel (reference #190; [0043]; [0084]; [0103]; [0128]; table 1 (presence of material in vessel indicates movement of dispenser which is considered a sensed movement of vessel since the dispenser is an element of the vessel; as well as user activation is a sensed movement of the apparatus)). It is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating the disclosed mixer, and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” There is no claimed structural limitation imparted on the mixer, such as a sensor, that interfaces with the mixer to permit this functional intended use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the mixer of Jaiswal et al. within the vessel of Lyons et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach devices for producing a food product. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a mixer within the vessel because the mixer stirs and agitates the constituents within the vessel to form a homogenous final food product.
While the reference discloses other dispensing modules to release and blend the materials (reference #113; [0171]), including a striker (figures 25-29, reference #141; [0199]; [0217]; [0221]; [0223]-[0229]), the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the striker is configured to pierce through one or more packets, wherein the lever is mechanically connected to the striker to activate the striker. Dvorak discloses wherein the striker is configured to pierce through one or more packets, wherein the lever is mechanically connected to the striker to activate the striker (reference #401a, 410 and 416; column 16, lines 12-26; column 17, lines 48-64) and Mitchell discloses wherein the striker is configured to pierce through one or more packets, wherein the lever is mechanically connected to the striker to activate the striker (see figures 3A and 3B, reference #26; [0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the dispensing module of Lyons et al. to pierce through one or more packets, wherein the lever is mechanically connected to the striker to activate the striker as taught by Dvorak and Mitchell, because selecting one of known designs for a dispensing module would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed and because said dispensing and mixing module would operate equally well as the one disclosed by Lyons et al.
While the reference discloses multiple wedge-shaped receptacles (figures 17 and 18, reference #137) configured to retain two or more wedge-shaped packets that contain ingestible materials that can be selectively added to the vessel (figure 17 and 18, reference #101), the reference fails to disclose wherein the wedge-shaped receptacles are 3-sided. It is well known in the art that the receptacles can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including 3-sided, circular, trapezoidal, polygonal, etc. (evidenced by Lyons et al. figures 17 and 18, reference #137, figure 48, reference #4804; Anson et al. figure 3, reference #190A, B, C). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify wedge-shaped receptacle of Lyons et al. to include a variety of receptacle shapes, as taught by Lyons et al. and Anson et al. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to provide the desired dissolved flow rate (Anson et al. column 10, lines 5-26).
Claim(s) 63, 66, 73, 74, 77 and 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lyons et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0072553) in view of Jaiswal et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0199584) and Anson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,464,633).
Regarding claim 63, Lyons et al. discloses a personal portable fluid dispensing apparatus (title; figure 2, reference #100) comprising:
a vessel (figures 2-4, reference #114); and
a dispenser in communication with the vessel (figures 2-4, 17, 18, reference #113), the dispenser comprising:
two or more receptacles (figures 17 and 18, reference #137) configured to retain one or more packets that contain ingestible materials that can be selectively added to the vessel (figure 17 and 18, reference #101);
a striker configured to contact a packet in a receptacle (figures 25-29, reference #141; [0199]; [0217]; [0221]; [0223]-[0229]) (it is noted that the limitation “striker” has not specified a particular shape or structure of the striker, only that it is a structure that is configured to contact a packet; and as such, reference #141 reads on the limitation because it is a structure that axially contacts the receptacle to provide pressure to release the contents into the vessel);
a base attached below to the vessel (figure 4, reference #115; or alternatively, figures 2 and 3, reference #118).
While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific dimensions. The reference discloses wherein the apparatus is a portable handheld water bottle, and it is known in the art that a portable handheld water bottle falls within the claimed dimensions. Furthermore, as evidenced by the produced reference sold to the public, the reference falls within the claimed dimensions (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B081QWDJ9D/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B081QWDJ9D&linkCode=as2&tag=mbr08-20&linkId=ecc6aff0a52e488e16fcf66e8c9031e8). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lyons et al. to have a height of about 8-15 inches and a cross-sectional dimension of about 2.5 to 5 inches so that the apparatus can be easily carried around to many different places while still holding enough drinkable liquid (Lyons et al. [0161]) and because since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a mixer mounted as a separate component within the vessel, and wherein the mixer is capable to be activated in response to motion of the apparatus.
Jaiswal et al. teaches another device for producing a food product (title). The reference teaches a mixer mounted as a separate component within the vessel, wherein the mixer is capable to be activated in response to motion of the apparatus (Jaiswal et al. reference #190; [0043]; [0084]; [0103]; [0128]; table 1 (presence of material in vessel indicates motion of dispenser which is considered a detected motion of vessel since the dispenser is an element of the vessel; as well as user activation is a motion of the apparatus)). It is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating the disclosed mixer, and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” There is no claimed structural limitation imparted on the mixer, such as a sensor, that interfaces with the mixer to permit this functional intended use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the mixer of Jaiswal et al. within the vessel of Lyons et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach devices for producing a food product. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a mixer within the vessel because the mixer stirs and agitates the constituents within the vessel to form a homogenous final food product.
While the reference discloses where the two or more receptacles comprise multiple wedge-shaped receptacles (figures 17 and 18, reference #137), and each of the multiple wedge-shaped receptacles containing a wedge-shaped packet that nests securely within the respective wedge-shaped receptacles, and each packet containing ingestible material that can be selectively added to the vessel (figure 17 and 18, reference #101 and 137; [0199]), the reference fails to disclose wherein the wedge-shaped receptacles are 3-sided. It is well known in the art that the receptacles can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including 3-sided, circular, trapezoidal, polygonal, etc. (as evidenced by Lyons et al. figures 17 and 18, reference #137, figure 48, reference #4804; Anson et al. figure 3, reference #190A, B, C). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify wedge-shaped receptacle of Lyons et al. to include a variety of receptacle shapes, as taught by Lyons et al. and Anson et al. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to provide the desired dissolved flow rate (Anson et al. column 10, lines 5-26).
Regarding claim 66, Lyons et al. in view of Jaiswal et al. and Anson et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified also discloses wherein the mixer is capable to be activated in response to a detected motion of the apparatus (Jaiswal et al. [0043]; [0084]; [0103]; [0128]; table 1 (presence of material in vessel indicates motion of dispenser which is considered a detected motion of vessel since the dispenser is an element of the vessel; as well as user activation is a motion of the apparatus)). It is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating the disclosed mixer, and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” There is no claimed structural limitation imparted on the mixer, such as a sensor, that interfaces with the mixer to permit this functional intended use.
Regarding claim 73, Lyons et al. in view of Jaiswal et al. and Anson et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a controller and a sensor unit, and the mixer is capable to be activated via the controller and sensor unit in response to motion of the apparatus (Jaiswal et al. reference #190, 320, 340; [0043]; [0046]; [0084]; [0014];[0128]; [0103]; table 1).
Regarding claim 74, Lyons et al. in view of Jaiswal et al. and Anson et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a controller and a sensor unit, and the mixer is capable to be activated via the controller and sensor unit in response to motion of the apparatus (Jaiswal et al. reference #190, 320, 340; [0043]; [0046]; [0084]; [0014];[0128]; [0103]; table 1).
Regarding claim 77, Lyons et al. in view of Jaiswal et al. and Anson et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein each of the multiple wedge-shaped packets that comprise ingestible material is nested within one of the multiple 3-sided wedge shaped receptacles (figures 17 and 18, reference #101 and 137; Anson et al. figure 3, reference #140a, 140B, 140C, 190A, B, C).
Regarding claim 78, Lyons et al. in view of Jaiswal et al. and Anson et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the mixer comprises a unit that provides mixing activation in response to motion of the apparatus (Jaiswal et al. reference #190; [0043]; [0084]; [0103]; [0128]).
Claims 63, 66, 67, 73, 74, 77, 78 and 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dvorak (U.S. Patent No. 9,975,684) in view of Jaiswal et al., Lyons et al. and Anson et al.
Regarding claims 63 and 66, Dvorak discloses a personal portable fluid dispensing apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a vessel (reference #407); and
a dispenser (reference #400), comprising one or more receptacles capable to retain one or more packets that contain ingestible materials that can be selectively added to the vessel (reference #415); a striker (reference #410 and 416).
While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific dimensions. The reference discloses wherein the apparatus is a portable handheld water bottle, and it is known in the art that a portable handheld water bottle falls within the claimed dimensions. It would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Dvorak to have a height of about 8-15 inches and a cross-sectional dimension of about 2.5 to 5 inches so that the apparatus can be easily carried around to many different places while still holding enough drinkable liquid and because since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a mixer mounted as a separate component within the vessel, and configured to be activated in response to motion of the apparatus.
Jaiswal et al. teaches another device for dispensing and producing a food product (title; abstract). The reference teaches a mixer that is capable to be activated in response to a detected motion of the apparatus and mounted as a separate component within the vessel (reference #190; [0043]; [0084]; [0128]; [0103]; table 1 (presence of material in vessel indicates movement of dispenser which is considered a detected movement of vessel since the dispenser is an element of the vessel; as well as user activation is a detected movement of the apparatus)). It is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating the disclosed mixer, and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” There is no claimed structural limitation imparted on the mixer, such as a sensor, that interfaces with the mixer to permit this functional intended use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the mixer of Jaiswal et al. within the vessel of Dvorak. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach devices for dispensing and producing a food product. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a mixer within the vessel because the mixer stirs and agitates the constituents within the vessel to form a homogenous final food product.
However, the reference does not disclose a base attached below to the vessel. Jaiswal et al. teaches another device for dispensing and producing a food product (title; abstract). The reference teaches a base attached below to the vessel (figures 1 and 2, reference #20C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the base of Jaiswal et al. attached below the vessel of Dvorak. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach devices for dispensing and producing a food product. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a base in order to support and power the vessel.
While the reference discloses two or more receptacles, each of the receptacles containing a packet that contain ingestible materials that can be selectively added to the vessel (reference #415), the reference fails to disclose wherein the receptacles are 3-sided wedge-shaped. It is well known in the art that the receptacles can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including 3-sided, circular, trapezoidal, polygonal, etc. (as evidenced by Lyons et al. figures 17 and 18, reference #137, figure 48, reference #4804; Anson et al. figure 3, reference #190A, B, C). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the receptacle of Dvorak. to include a variety of receptacle shapes, as taught by Lyons et al. and Anson et al. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to provide the desired dissolved flow rate (Anson et al. column 10, lines 5-26).
Regarding claim 67, Dvorak discloses a personal portable fluid dispensing apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a vessel (reference #407); and
a lever rotatably and mechanically coupled to the vessel (reference #401a and 410);
a striker capable to pierce through one or more packets, wherein the lever is mechanically connected to the striker to active the striker (reference #401a, 410 and 416; column 16, lines 12-26; column 17, lines 48-64).
While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific dimensions. The reference discloses wherein the apparatus is a portable handheld water bottle, and it is known in the art that a portable handheld water bottle falls within the claimed dimensions. It would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Dvorak to have a height of 6-25 inches and a cross-sectional dimension of about 2.5 to 5 inches so that the apparatus can be easily carried around to many different places while still holding enough drinkable liquid and because since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a mixer mounted as a separate component within the vessel.
Jaiswal et al. teaches another device for dispensing and producing a food product (title; abstract). The reference teaches a mixer that is capable to be automatically activated in response to sensing movement of the apparatus and mounted as a separate component within the vessel (reference #190; [0043]; [0084]; [0128]; [0103]; table 1 (presence of material in vessel indicates movement of dispenser which is considered a sensed movement of vessel since the dispenser is an element of the vessel; as well as user activation is a sensed movement of the apparatus)). It is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating the disclosed mixer, and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” There is no claimed structural limitation imparted on the mixer, such as a sensor, that interfaces with the mixer to permit this functional intended use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the mixer of Jaiswal et al. within the vessel of Dvorak. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach devices for dispensing and producing a food product. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a mixer within the vessel because the mixer stirs and agitates the constituents within the vessel to form a homogenous final food product.
However, the reference does not disclose a base attached below to the vessel. Jaiswal et al. teaches another device for dispensing and producing a food product (title; abstract). The reference teaches a base attached below to the vessel (figures 1 and 2, reference #20C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the base of Jaiswal et al. attached below the vessel of Dvorak. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach devices for dispensing and producing a food product. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a base in order to support and power the vessel.
While the reference discloses multiple receptacles configured to retain two or more packets that nests securely within the receptacle, and each contain ingestible materials that can be selectively added to the vessel (Dvorak packets reference #415, columns 17, lines 42-47), the reference fails to disclose wherein the receptacles are 3-sided wedge-shaped. It is well known in the art that the receptacles can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including 3-sided, circular, trapezoidal, polygonal, etc. (as evidenced by Lyons et al. figures 17 and 18, reference #137, figure 48, reference #4804; Anson et al. figure 3, reference #190A, B, C). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the receptacle of Dvorak. to include a variety of receptacle shapes, as taught by Lyons et al. and Anson et al. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to provide the desired dissolved flow rate (Anson et al. column 10, lines 5-26). Lyons and Anson further teach the ingestible material is in multiple wedge-shaped packets (Lyons figures 17 and 18, #101; Anson figure 3, #140) for easy insertion of materials.
Regarding claim 73, Dvorak in view of Jaiswal et al., Lyons et al. and Anson et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a controller and a sensor unit, and the mixer is capable to be activated via the controller and sensor unit in response to motion of the apparatus (Jaiswal et al. reference #190, 320, 340; [0043]; [0046]; [0084]; [0014];[0128]; [0103]; table 1).
Regarding claim 74, Dvorak in view of Jaiswal et al., Lyons et al. and Anson et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a controller and a sensor unit, and the mixer is capable to be activated via the controller and sensor unit in response to motion of the apparatus (Jaiswal et al. reference #190, 320, 340; [0043]; [0046]; [0084]; [0014];[0128]; [0103]; table 1).
Regarding claim 77, Dvorak in view of Jaiswal et al., Lyons et al. and Anson et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein each of the multiple wedge-shaped packets is nested within one of the multiple 3-sided wedge-shaped receptacles (Dvorak packets reference #415, columns 17, lines 42-47 modified by Lyons et al. and Anson et al. to be 3 sided wedge-shaped packets (Lyons et al. figure 17, reference #137 and figure 48B and Anson et al. figure 3, reference #140A, B, C, 190A, 190B, 190C)).
Regarding claims 78 and 79, Dvorak in view of Jaiswal et al., Lyons et al. and Anson et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the mixer comprises a unit that provides mixing activation in response to motion of the apparatus (Jaiswal et al. reference #190; [0043]; [0084]; [0103]; [0128]).
Claims 63, 66, 67, 73, 74, 77, 78 and 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0120815) in view of Jaiswal et al., Lyons et al. and Anson et al.
Regarding claim 63, Mitchell discloses a personal portable fluid dispensing apparatus (abstract; figure 1) comprising:
a vessel (figures 1 and 3, reference #12); and
a dispenser in communication with the vessel (figures 1-3, reference #10), the dispenser comprising:
two or more receptacles configured to retain one or more packets that contain ingestible materials that can be selectively added to the vessel (figures 2a and 2c, reference #16, 42 and 44; figure 11, receptacles, not labeled);
a striker configured to contact a packet in a receptacle (figures 2c, 3A and 3B, reference #49);
a base attached below to the vessel (figure 1, bottom surface of reference #12 is a base to walls of vessel 12).
While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific dimensions. The reference discloses wherein the apparatus is a portable handheld water bottle, and it is known in the art that a portable handheld water bottle falls within the claimed dimensions. It would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Mitchell to have a height of about 8-15 inches and a cross-sectional dimension of about 2.5 to 5 inches so that the apparatus can be easily carried around to many different places while still holding enough drinkable liquid and because since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a mixer mounted as a separate component within the vessel, and wherein the mixer is capable to be activated in response to motion of the apparatus.
Jaiswal et al. teaches another device for dispensing and producing a food product (title; abstract). The reference teaches a mounted as a separate component within the vessel, and wherein the mixer is capable to be activated in response to motion of the apparatus (reference #190; [0043]; [0084]; [0128]; [0103]; table 1 (presence of material in vessel indicates motion of dispenser which is considered a detected motion of vessel since the dispenser is an element of the vessel; as well as user activation is a motion of the apparatus)). It is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating the disclosed mixer, and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” There is no claimed structural limitation imparted on the mixer, such as a sensor, that interfaces with the mixer to permit this functional intended use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the mixer of Jaiswal et al. within the vessel of Mitchell. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach devices for dispensing and producing a food product. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a mixer within the vessel because the mixer stirs and agitates the constituents within the vessel to form a homogenous final food product.
While the reference discloses wherein the two or receptacles comprise multiple wedge-shaped receptacles, and each of the multiple wedge-shaped receptacles containing a wedge-shaped packet that nests securely within the respective wedge-shaped receptacle, and each packet containing ingestible material that can be selectively added to the vessel (figures 2a and 2c, reference #16, 42 and 44; figures 10 and 13, #242), the reference fails to disclose wherein the wedge-shaped receptacles are 3-sided. It is well known in the art that the receptacles can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including 3-sided, circular, trapezoidal, polygonal, etc. (as evidenced by Mitchell figures 2a and 2c, reference #16, 42 and 44; Lyons et al. figures 17 and 18, reference #137, figure 48, reference #4804; Anson et al. figure 3, reference #190A, B, C). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify wedge-shaped receptacle of Mitchell to include a variety of receptacle shapes, as taught by Mitchell, Lyons et al. and Anson et al. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to provide the desired dissolved flow rate (Anson et al. column 10, lines 5-26).
Regarding claim 66, Mitchell as modified discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses a mixer that is capable to be activated as recited (Jaiswal et al. [0043]; [0084]; [0128]; table 1 (presence of material in vessel indicates motion of dispenser which is considered a detected motion of vessel since the dispenser is an element of the vessel; as well as user activation is a motion of the apparatus)). It is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating the disclosed mixer, and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” There is no claimed structural limitation imparted on the mixer, such as a sensor, that interfaces with the mixer to permit this functional intended use.
Regarding claim 67, Mitchell discloses a personal portable fluid dispensing apparatus (abstract; figure 1) comprising:
a vessel (figures 1 and 3, reference #12); and
a striker configured to contact a packet in a receptacle (figures 2c, 3A and 3B, reference #49);
a striker capable to pierce through one or more packets, wherein the lever is mechanically connected to the striker to active the striker (see figures 3A and 3B, reference #26; [0053]); and
a base attached below to the vessel (figure 1, bottom surface of reference #12 is a base to walls of vessel 12); and
the apparatus comprises multiple wedge-shaped packets that comprise ingestible material (figures 2a and 2c, reference #42; figures 10 and 13, #242).
While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific dimensions. The reference discloses wherein the apparatus is a portable handheld water bottle, and it is known in the art that a portable handheld water bottle falls within the claimed dimensions. It would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Mitchell to have a height of 6-25 inches and a cross-sectional dimension of about 2.5 to 5 inches so that the apparatus can be easily carried around to many different places while still holding enough drinkable liquid and because since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a mixer mounted as a separate component within the vessel.
Jaiswal et al. teaches another device for dispensing and producing a food product (title; abstract). The reference teaches a mixer that is capable to be automatically activated in response to sensing movement of the apparatus and mounted as a separate component within the vessel (reference #190; [0043]; [0084]; [0128]; [0103]; table 1 (presence of material in vessel indicates movement of dispenser which is considered a sensed movement of vessel since the dispenser is an element of the vessel; as well as user activation is a sensed movement of the apparatus)). It is noted that the limitation is directed to a manner of operating the disclosed mixer, and neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” There is no claimed structural limitation imparted on the mixer, such as a sensor, that interfaces with the mixer to permit this functional intended use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the mixer of Jaiswal et al. within the vessel of Mitchell. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach devices for dispensing and producing a food product. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a mixer within the vessel because the mixer stirs and agitates the constituents within the vessel to form a homogenous final food product.
While the reference discloses multiple wedge-shaped receptacles configured to retain two or more wedge-shaped packets that contain ingestible materials that can be selectively added to the vessel (figures 2a and 2c, reference #16, 42 and 44), the reference fails to disclose wherein the wedge-shaped receptacles are 3-sided. It is well known in the art that the receptacles can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including 3-sided, circular, trapezoidal, polygonal, etc. (as evidenced by Mitchell figures 2a and 2c, reference #16, 42 and 44; Lyons et al. figures 17 and 18, reference #137, figure 48, reference #4804; Anson et al. figure 3, reference #190A, B, C). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify wedge-shaped receptacle of Mitchell to include a variety of receptacle shapes, as taught by Mitchell, Lyons et al. and Anson et al. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to provide the desired dissolved flow rate (Anson et al. column 10, lines 5-26).
Regarding claim 73, Mitchell as modified discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a controller and a sensor unit, and the mixer is capable to be activated via the controller and sensor unit in response to motion of the apparatus (Jaiswal et al. reference #190, 320, 340; [0043]; [0046]; [0084]; [0014];[0128]; [0103]; table 1).
Regarding claim 74, Mitchell as modified discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a controller and a sensor unit, and the mixer is capable to be activated via the controller and sensor unit in response to motion of the apparatus (Jaiswal et al. reference #190, 320, 340; [0043]; [0046]; [0084]; [0014];[0128]; [0103]; table 1).
Regarding claim 77, Michell as modified discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein each of the multiple wedge-shaped packets that comprise ingestible material is nested within one of the multiple 3-sided wedge shaped receptacles (figures 2a and 2c, reference #42; figures 10, 11 and 13, #242 with receptacles shown in figure 11, not labeled) (modified by Anson and Lyons to be 3 sided).
Regarding claims 78 and 79, Mitchell as modified discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the mixer comprises a unit that provides mixing activation in response to motion of the apparatus (Jaiswal et al. reference #190; [0043]; [0084]; [0103]; [0128]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the system of Jaiswal is much different from the system in Lyons and therefore a person skilled in the art would not have looked to a yogurt maker for a single component to import into the Lyons et al. device. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. First, Applicant’s statement is conclusory. Applicant has not provided any reason or evidence for why Jaiswal/a yogurt maker is a different system than Lyons/Dvorak/Mitchell, beyond just making the statement. Second, applicant makes the same argument for incorporating Jaiswal components into the other reference Dvorak, but still refers to them as Lyons et al. (see page 7 of Remarks). This only proves the point that Applicant is making conclusory arguments without saying why there would be no reason to combine. Jaiswal is directed to a device for producing and dispensing a food product, just like Lyons, Dvorak, and Mitchell. All references are in the same field of producing and dispensing food products and therefore one skilled in the art would look to all the references being combinable.
Applicant additionally argues Jaiswal fails to disclose a mixer that is configured to be automatically activated in response to sensing movement of the apparatus. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Applicant has provided no evidence for why Jaiswal fails to disclose the mixer as recited in the claims, beyond stating the conclusory statement. As explained above, Jaiswal discloses a mixer, including the functional limitations after the “configured” language (see #190, paragraphs [0043]; [0084]; [0103]; [0128], and table 1).
Furthermore, Applicant has not addressed the 103 rejection of Mitchell in view of Jaiswal, Lyons and Anson.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights