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 .
The amendment filed December 22, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12-16, and 20-29 are pending in the application. Claims 7, 10, 11, and 17-19 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guattari FR 2370649 (hereinafter “Guattari”) (refer to the corresponding machine translation).
With respect to claim 27, Guattari teaches a container for pouring a powdery or granular product (P1, 1st paragraph).
It is noted that the recitation of “for dispensing a flowable solid ” in the preamble of claim 27 is a statement of intended use or field of use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding the limitation of the container comprising: an interior volume defined in part by a top wall, side walls, and a bottom wall, wherein the top wall, side walls, and the bottom wall comprise a unitary structure as recited in claim 27, Guattari teaches a box of unitary structure with an interior volume defined by a top wall, side walls, and a bottom wall (P2, 3rd paragraph; Figs. 1-2).
Regarding the limitation of comprising a partition comprising a first partition and a second partition wall that is spaced apart from the first partition wall, wherein the partition separates the interior volume into a storage volume and an outlet passage, and wherein the first partition wall extends down from a top of the outlet passage and the second partition wall extends down from a top of the storage volume, wherein the storage volume comprises a floor and is defined in part by the second partition wall; a dosing chamber wall extending parallel to the second partition wall; and a dosing chamber defined at least partially by the dosing chamber wall and the second partition wall as recited in claim 27, Guattari teaches a wall (4) (partition comprising first partition wall and second partition wall) separates a chimney (3) (outlet passage) from a storage volume. The storage volume comprises a floor. Another wall (6) (dosing chamber wall) is parallel to wall (4) (partition) and forms the dosing portion (P1, 3rd-4th paragraphs; P2, 3rd-4th paragraphs; Figs. 1-2).
Regarding the limitation of comprising an outlet, wherein the outlet is the only exterior opening in the container as recited in claim 27, Guattari teaches the box comprises only one opening (2) (P1, 1st paragraph; P2, 3rd paragraph; Fig. 1).
Regarding the limitation of wherein the storage volume is in direct communication with the dosing chamber as recited in claim 27, Guattari teaches the storage is in communication with the dosing portion (P1, 3rd-4th paragraphs; P2, 1st paragraph; Figs.1-2).
Regarding the limitation of wherein the outlet passage extends from the dosing chamber to the outlet as recited in claim 27, Guattari teaches the chimney (3) (outlet passage) extends from the dosing section to the opening (2) (P1, 3rd–4th paragraphs; P2, 1st and 3rd paragraphs; Fig. 1).
Regarding the limitation of wherein the partition and the dosing chamber wall restrict the flow of the flowable solid from the storage volume when the container is at least partially inverted to dispense a dose of flowable solid each time the container is at least partially inverted as recited in claim 27, it is noted that this recitation relates to functional language. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. See MPEP 2103 and 2111.04.
Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the product would naturally arrive at these claimed features since Guattari teaches a container that is substantially similar to the presently claimed container as addressed above. Additionally, Guattari teaches tilting the box in order to pour a portion of the powdery or granular material from the storage volume into the dosing portion and providing successive doses with this motion. While the box is in the tilted position, no other product, other than that in the dosing portion, is able to be discharged out of the box due to wall (4) (partition) and wall (6) (dosing chamber wall) (P1, 4th paragraph; P2, 1st-5th paragraphs; Figs. 1-2). Further, the functional language is not considered to confer patentability to the claim.
With respect to claim 28, Guattari is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 27 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the floor is defined by the bottom wall, and wherein the dosing chamber wall extends up from the floor of the storage volume as recited in claim 28, Guattari teaches the storage volume is defined by a bottom wall, and the wall (6) (dosing chamber wall) extends up from the bottom wall of the storage volume (P2, 3rd-5th paragraphs; Figs. 1-2).
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song US 4779771 (hereinafter “Song”).
With respect to claim 27, Song teaches a container for pouring granulated solids (C1, L7-10).
It is noted that the recitation of “for dispensing a flowable solid ” in the preamble of claim 27 is a statement of intended use or field of use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding the limitation of the container comprising: an interior volume defined in part by a top wall, side walls, and a bottom wall, wherein the top wall, side walls, and the bottom wall comprise a unitary structure as recited in claim 27, Song teaches the container has a bottom wall, top wall, and side walls defining an interior volume (C1, L33-35; C2, L27-32; and Figs. 2-3).
Regarding the limitation of comprising a partition comprising a first partition and a second partition wall that is spaced apart from the first partition wall, wherein the partition separates the interior volume into a storage volume and an outlet passage, and wherein the first partition wall extends down from a top of the outlet passage and the second partition wall extends down from a top of the storage volume, wherein the storage volume comprises a floor and is defined in part by the second partition wall; a dosing chamber wall extending parallel to the second partition wall; and a dosing chamber defined at least partially by the dosing chamber wall and the second partition wall as recited in claim 27, Song teaches a vertical partition (17) (partition comprising a first partition wall and a second partition wall) separates the interior volume into a storage volume and a channel (16) (outlet passage). The storage volume comprises a bottom partition (28 or 29) (floor). The bottom vertical partition (21) (dosing chamber wall) extends parallel to the vertical partition (17) (partition). A dosing chamber is defined by the bottom vertical partition (21) (dosing chamber wall) and the vertical partition (17) (partition) (C1, L43-47: C2, L32-35, 52-55, and 58-63; Figs. 2-3 and 9).
Regarding the limitation of comprising an outlet, wherein the outlet is the only exterior opening in the container as recited in claim 27, Song teaches the container comprises an outlet and is the only exterior opening in the container (C1, L43-47; Figs.2-3).
Regarding the limitation of wherein the storage volume is in direct communication with the dosing chamber as recited in claim 27, Song teaches the storage volume is in communication with the dosing chamber (C2, L52-55; Figs. 2-3).
Regarding the limitation of wherein the outlet passage extends from the dosing chamber to the outlet as recited in claim 27, Song teaches the channel (16) (outlet passage) extends from the dosing chamber to the opening (C1, L43-47; C2, L32-35; Figs. 2-3).
Regarding the limitation of wherein the partition and the dosing chamber wall restrict the flow of the flowable solid from the storage volume when the container is at least partially inverted to dispense a dose of flowable solid each time the container is at least partially inverted as recited in claim 27, it is noted that this recitation relates to functional language. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. See MPEP 2103 and 2111.04.
Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the product would naturally arrive at these claimed features since Song teaches a container that is substantially similar to the presently claimed container as addressed above. Additionally, Song teaches when the spout is directed downwardly, the quantity of granulated material within the dosing chamber flows out through the channel (16), and the vertical partition (17) and the bottom vertical partition (21) (dosing chamber wall) restrict the flow of the granulated solid from the storage volume when the container is inverted (C1, L47-52; Figs. 2, 3, and 8). Further, the functional language is not considered to confer patentability to the claim.
With respect to claim 29, Song is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 27 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the dosing chamber wall extends down from the floor of the storage volume as recited in claim 29, Song teaches the bottom vertical partition (21) (dosing chamber wall) extends down from the bottom partition (28 or 29) (floor) (C2, L58-63; Figs. 2-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 12-16, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antal, Sr. et al. US 20140312075 (hereinafter “Antal’) in view of Smith US 2815154 (hereinafter “Smith”).
With respect to claim 1, Antal teaches a container for dispensing a flowable product, such as a granular or powdered material (Abstract; paragraphs [0001] and [0008]; and Fig. 1-4, 10).
It is noted that the recitation of “for dispensing a flowable solid ” in the preamble of claim 1 is a statement of intended use or field of use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding the limitation of the container comprising: an interior volume; a partition separating the interior volume into a storage volume and an outlet passage, wherein the storage volume comprises a floor as recited in claim 1, Antal teaches the interior volume of container body 12 includes an internal storage chamber 20, a bottom end 18, and outlet passage of the discharge tube 22 (Figs. 3-4; paragraph [0029]).
Regarding the limitation of comprising a wall extending up from the floor; and a dosing chamber defied at least partially by the wall and the partition as recited in claim 1, Antal teaches a dosing chamber 32 defined by the discharge tube 22 and a wall at the bottom of the container (Figs. 3-4; paragraphs [0030] and [0033]).
Regarding the limitation of wherein the storage volume is in direct communication with the dosing chamber as recited in claim 1, Antal teaches the internal storage container 20 is in direct communication with the dosing compartment 32 (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding the limitation of an outlet directed perpendicular to the outlet passage, wherein the outlet passage extends from the dosing chamber to the outlet as recited in claim 1, Antal teaches the interior passage of the discharge tube 22 extends from the dosing compartment 32 to the discharge opening 28 (Figs. 3-4; and paragraph [0030]).
However, Antal does not expressly disclose the outlet is directed perpendicular to the outlet passage.
Smith teaches a readily attachable cap for containers (8). The upper portion (30) of the cap has a dispensing slot on the side (40) of the cap through which instant coffee or tea is discharged. The cap also has a flat disk-like lid (12) having an off-center opening (14) that is underneath and parallel to the upper portion (30) of the cap. The off-center opening (14) communicates with the container (8) and the dispensing slot (40) to suitably measure coffee from the container (8) and dispense it into a cup through the dispensing slot (40) (C1, L15-16 and 30-50; C2, L19-21, 36-39, and 46-50; Fig. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Smith, to select the cap with a dispensing slot on the side (outlet) in the container of Antal based in its suitability for its intended purpose with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Antal and Smith similarly teach dispensing flowable products, Antal teaches a cap member on the top end of the container body with at least one opening (paragraph [0011]), Smith teaches the instant coffee or tea may be readily measured and emptied out (C1, L21-24 and 49-50), and said combination would amount to the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success with said modification. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)) (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding the limitation of wherein the partition and the wall restrict the flow of the flowable solid from the storage volume when the container is at least partially inverted to dispense a dose of flowable solid each time the container is at least partially inverted, and wherein each dose has an equal volume as recited in claim 1, it is noted that this recitation relates to functional language. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. See MPEP 2103 and 2111.04.
Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the product would naturally arrive at these claimed features since modified Antal teaches a container that is substantially similar to the presently claimed container as addressed above. Additionally, Antal teaches inversion of the container causes the dose of material in the dosing compartment 32 to move into and through the discharge tube 22 and discharged through the opening, and the material in the storage chamber 20 is blocked from discharge (paragraph [0033]; Fig.3-4). Antal also teaches each dose has equal volume since the volume of the dosing chamber does not change between doses (paragraph [0033]; Figs. 3-4). Further, the functional language is not considered to confer patentability to the claim.
With respect to claim 2, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein each dose has a volume from 0.1 mL to 250 mL as recited in claim 2, Antal does not expressly disclose this quantity.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the size of the dosing compartment 32 of modified Antal with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the size of the dosing compartment 32 is a matter of choice and contingent upon the flowable material selected and the desired dosage thereof (paragraphs [0001], [0008], [0032], and [0033]; Figs. 1-4) and 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).
With respect to claim 3, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the dosing chamber is sized to accommodate a single dose of flowable solid as recited in claim 3, modified Antal teaches this limitation since Antal teaches the dosing compartment 32 is a single dose (Figs. 3-4).
With respect to claim 4, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein a height of the outlet passage is at least three times a height of the dosing chamber as recited in claim 4, modified Antal teaches this limitation since Antal teaches the height of the discharge tube 22 is at least 3 times a height of the dosing compartment 32 (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 5, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein at least a portion of the interior volume forms a U-shape as recited in claim 5, modified Antal teaches this limitation since Antal teaches the internal storage chamber 20, dosing compartment 32, and outlet passage of the discharge tube 22 form a U shape (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 6, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of further comprising the flowable solid disposed in the storage volume, wherein the flowable solid is a beverage concentrate as recited in claim 6, Antal teaches flowable powdered or granular material within the storage chamber 20 (paragraphs [0001], [0008], [0032], and [0033]; and Figs. 3-4).
However, Antal does not expressly disclose the flowable material is a beverage concentrate.
Smith teaches a readily attachable cap for containers (8). A quantity of instant coffee or tea from the container (8) may be dispensed it into a cup through the dispensing slot (40) (C1, L15-16 and 30-50; C2, L19-21, 36-39, and 46-50; Fig. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Smith, to select instant coffee or tea as the flowable material in Antal based in its suitability for its intended purpose with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Antal and Smith similarly teach dispensing flowable substances from a dispensing device, Antal is not limited to the particular flowable material selected (paragraphs [0001] and [0008]), and said combination would amount to the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success with said modification. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)) (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 8, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of further comprising a closure configured to reversibly seal the outlet as recited in claim 8, Antal is modified by Smith teaches this limitation since Smith is relied upon for the teaching of a cap with an opening on the side (outlet) as addressed above in claim 1, and Smith teaches the dispensing slot (40) may have an element to open and close the slot (C2, L49-50 and 54-56).
With respect to claim 12, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of further comprising a base that defines the floor and the wall, the wall extending from the floor to the bottom of the dosing chamber as recited in claim 12, modified Antal teaches this limitation since Antal teaches the bottom end 18 of the container includes a wall that extends to a dosing compartment 32 (paragraph [0030]; Figs. 3-4).
With respect to claim 13, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the outlet and the storage volume are each disposed above the dosing chamber as recited in claim 13, Antal as modified by Smith teaches this limitation since Antal teaches the discharge opening 28 and the internal storage chamber 20 are above the dosing compartment 32 (Figs. 3-4; paragraph [0030]). Additionally, Smith is relied upon for the teaching of the cap with an opening on the side (outlet) as addressed above in claim 1, and Smith teaches the cap comprising an opening on the side (outlet) is on top of the container (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 14, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of further comprising a lead-in passage defined by the partition and the wall, wherein the lead-in passage is in direct communication with the storage volume as recited in claim 14, modified Antal teaches this limitation since Antal teaches a passageway to the discharge tube 22 is formed between the internal storage chamber 20, the outside of the discharge tube 22, and the wall extending to the dosing compartment 32 (paragraph [0033]; Fig. 4).
Regarding the limitation of wherein the dosing chamber is disposed below the lead-in passage and is in direct communication with the lead-in passage as recited in claim 14, modified Antal teaches this limitation since Antal teaches the dosing compartment 32 is below the passageway and in direct communication with it (paragraphs [0030] and [0033]; Fig. 4).
Regarding the limitation of wherein when the storage volume is filled with an amount of flowable solid between one dose and the capacity of the storage volume and when the container is in an upright position, a single dose of flowable solid is disposed in the dosing chamber, wherein when the container is in a tilted orientation, the partition separates the single does from any remaining flowable solid, and wherein when the container is in an inverted orientation, the container is configured to dispense only the single dose through the outlet as recited in claim 14, it is noted that this recitation relates to functional language. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. See MPEP 2103 and 2111.04.
Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the product would naturally arrive at these claimed features since modified Antal teaches a container that is substantially similar to the presently claimed container as addressed above and in claim 1. Additionally, Antal teaches flowable powdered or granular material from the storage chamber 20 fills the single dose dosing compartment 32 when the container 10 is in the upright position (paragraphs [0001], [0008], [0032]-[0033]; Figs. 3 and 4). Tilting the container 10 directs a controlled dose of the flowable powdered or granular material into the discharge tube 22 (paragraphs [0001], [0008], [0032]-[0033], and [0038]; Figs. 3 and 4). Antal also teaches inversion of the container 10 causes the single dose of the flowable powdered or granular material to move through the discharge tube 22 and out of the discharge opening 28 (paragraphs [0001], [0008], [0032]-[0033], and [0038]; Figs. 3 and 4). Further, the functional language is not considered to confer patentability to the claim.
With respect to claim 15, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 14 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the dosing chamber is configured to automatically received another dose of flowable solid material from the storage volume when the container returns to the upright orientation from the tilted orientation or the inverted orientation as recited in claim 15, it is noted that this recitation relates to functional language. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. See MPEP 2103 and 2111.04.
Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the product would naturally arrive at these claimed features since modified Antal teaches a container that is substantially similar to the presently claimed container as addressed above in claims 1 and 14. Additionally, Antal teaches a dose of the flowable powdered or granular material within the storage chamber 20 flows into the dosing compartment 32 when the container 10 is in the upright position (paragraphs [0001], [0008], [0032]-[0033]; Figs. 3 and 4). Further, the functional language is not considered to confer patentability to the claim.
With respect to claim 16, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 14 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the container is in the tilted orientation when the container is rotated greater than 0 degrees and less than 115 degrees from the upright orientation, and wherein the container is in the inverted orientation when the container is rotated greater than 115 degrees and less than 180 degrees from the upright orientation as recited in claim 16, it is noted that this recitation relates to functional language. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. See MPEP 2103 and 2111.04.
Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the product would naturally arrive at these claimed features since modified Antal teaches a container that is substantially similar to the presently claimed container as addressed above in claims 1 and 14. Also, the functional language is not considered to confer patentability to the claim.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the degrees of rotation for the tilted orientation and inverted orientation of modified Antal with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because teaches rotation of the vessel from the upright position to tilt or invert it (paragraphs [0032]-[0033] and [0038]) and 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).
With respect to claim 20, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 14 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the lead-in passage and a second passage each extend vertically as recited in claim 20, modified Antal teaches this limitation since Antal teaches material within the storage chamber 20 flows into the dosing compartment 32 around the inlet end 24 of the discharge tube 22, and the material moves through the discharge tube and out of the discharge opening 28 (paragraphs [0032]-[0033]; Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 21, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of further comprising a bottom wall that defines the floor as recited in claim 21, modified Antal teaches this limitation since Antal teaches the container comprises a bottom end 18 that defines the floor (paragraph [0029]), & Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 22, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 21 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the bottom wall further defines a bottom of the dosing chamber as recited in claim 22, modified Antal teaches this limitation since Antal teaches the bottom end defines the dosing compartment 32 (paragraph [0036]; and Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 23, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 22 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the wall extends between side walls of the container as recited in claim 23, modified Antal teaches this limitation since Antal teaches the wall extends between the side walls of the container (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 24, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the dosing chamber is fixed in position relative to the storage volume as recited in claim 24, modified Antal teaches this limitation since Antal teaches the dosing compartment is fixed in position relative to the internal storage chamber 20 (paragraph [0036]; Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 25, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of further comprising an opening that is coaxial with the outlet to form a filling path extending through the outlet passage to the storage volume as recited in claim 25, Antal as modified by Smith teaches this limitation since Antal teaches the internal storage chamber 20 and discharge opening 28 of the discharge tube 22 form a path (Fig. 4). Additionally, Smith is relied upon for the teaching of the cap comprising an opening on the side (outlet) as addressed above in claim 1. Smith also teaches the cap has a flat disk-like lid (12) having an off-center opening (14) that is underneath and parallel to the upper portion (30) of the cap. An open chamber (34) (opening that is coaxial with the outlet) is formed between the disk-like lid (12) and the upper portion (30) of the cap. The off-center opening (14) communicates with the container (8), open chamber (34), and the dispensing slot (40) to suitably measure coffee from the container (8) and dispense it into a cup through the dispensing slot (40) (C1, L30-50; C2, L19-21, 36-41, and 46-50; Fig. 1, 2, and 7).
With respect to claim 26, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the outlet is the only exterior opening in the container as recited in claim 26, Antal as modified by Smith teaches this limitation since Smith is relied upon for the teaching of the cap comprising an opening on the side as addressed above in claim 1, and Smith teaches only one dispensing slot (40) is present on the cap (C2, L49-50; and Fig. 1 and 6).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antal, Sr. et al. US 20140312075 (hereinafter “Antal’) in view of Smith US 2815154 (hereinafter “Smith”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Corbett et al. US 20120248117 (hereinafter “Corbett”).
With respect to claim 9, modified Antal is relied upon for the teaching of the container of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the container is entirely recyclable as recited in claim 9, modified Antal does not expressly disclose these features.
Corbett teaches a recyclable container made from HDPE (high density polyethylene) (Abstract; paragraphs [0005] and [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Corbett, to select HDPE (high density polyethylene) as the material of the container of modified Antal based in its suitability for its intended purpose with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Antal and Corbett similarly teach containers, Corbett teaches the packaging is environmentally efficient (paragraphs [0005]), Antal teaches the container may be formed from any material and is not limiting (paragraph [0042]), and said combination would amount to the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success with said modification. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)) (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed December 22, 2025 are acknowledged.
Due to the amendments to the claims, the 35 USC 112 rejection in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn (P7).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art of record are considered but they are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues Guattari does not disclose the claimed partition and dosing chamber wall structure. Wall 4 does not include a first partition wall and a second partition wall that is spaced apart from the first partition wall (P7-P9).
Examiner disagrees. The invention of claim 27 is anticipated by Guattari. As addressed above, Guattari teaches a wall (4) (partition comprising first partition wall and second partition wall) separates a chimney (3) (outlet passage) from a storage volume. Another wall (6) (dosing chamber wall) is parallel to wall (4) (partition) and forms the dosing portion (P1, 3rd-4th paragraphs; P2, 3rd-4th paragraphs; Figs. 1-2). As shown in the three-dimensional figure (Fig. 1), wall (4) has a second partition wall (right side panel) that is space apart from a first partition wall (left side panel) which is identical to the claimed partition.
Applicant argues Song does not disclose the claimed partition and dosing chamber wall structure. Vertical partition 17 does not include a first partition wall and a second partition wall that is spaced apart from the first partition wall. Although Song discloses additional partitions, none of these extend down from a top of the outlet passage or down from a top of a storage volume (P7-P9).
Examiner disagree. The invention of claim 27 is anticipated by Song. As addressed above, Song teaches a vertical partition (17) (partition comprising a first partition wall and a second partition wall) separates the interior volume into a storage volume and a channel (16) (outlet passage), and the bottom vertical partition (21) (dosing chamber wall) extends parallel to the vertical partition (17) (partition) (C1, L43-47: C2, L32-35, 52-55, and 58-63; Figs. 2-3). As shown in the figures (Fig. 2-3 and 9), vertical partition (17) has a second partition wall (right side panel) that is space apart from a first partition wall (left side panel) which is identical to the claimed partition.
Applicant argues the Office’s rejection fails to address the claims as presented. Independent claim 1 recites “a wall extending up from the floor of the storage volume”, and the Office still has not addressed the specific claim language. A wall “at the bottom” of the container is not the same as a wall extending up from the floor of the storage volume as claimed and as described in the Applicant’s specification. The Office has not shown that Antal discloses a wall extending up from the floor of the storage volume. The Antal-Smith combination does not disclose a wall extending up from the floor of the storage volume. The unlabeled angled feature of Fig. 4 extends down-not up-from planar surface portion 56. Antal tails to disclose “a wall extending up from the floor of the storage volume”. Smith fails to cure the deficiencies of Antal, and the Office does not rely on Smith for this feature (P9-P11).
Applicant also argues Antal does not disclose “wherein the bottom wall further defines a bottom of the dosing chamber” in claim 22. The Office’s rejection provides no clarity as to which components of Antal allegedly disclose the features of claim 22. Antal does not teach the dosing compartment is fixed in position relative to the internal storage chamber 20 in claim 24. Antal’s operation requires movement of its dosing compartment 32 relative to storage compartment 20. Smith does not cure the deficiencies of Antal, and the Office does not allege that Smith teaches any feature of claim 24 (P14-P16).
Examiner disagrees. The invention of claim 1 as well as dependent claims 22 and 24 are obvious in view of modified Antal. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Examiner has repeatedly addressed the claim language “a wall extending up from the floor of the storage volume” as well as claims 22 and 24 (see paragraph [0036] and annotated Fig. 4 of Antal provided below). However, it appears Applicant continues to ignore the teachings of Antal. Additionally, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, Applicant is reminded that limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, Antal successfully teaches the presently claimed features.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitation of “wherein the dosing chamber is fixed in position relative to the storage volume” in claim 24 is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant is reminded the subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP 2111 and 2111.01. As previously discussed, Antal teaches the sealing member 30 is secured within the bottom end of the container body 12, and the dosing chamber is provided in the sealing member 30 (paragraph [0030]). See also Fig. 4 below which shows that the dosing chamber 32 is always secured below the storage chamber 20. Thus, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language, Antal successfully teaches the dosing chamber is fixed in position relative to the storage volume. Additionally, the presence of moving parts in the container of Antal does not preclude it from having the dosing chamber fixed in position relative to the storage volume as presently claimed since the dosing chamber is permanently placed below the storage chamber.
PNG
media_image2.png
436
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues the Office’s “simple substitution” rationale is inappropriate for the proposed modification. A skilled artisan would not have been able to simply swap Antal’s cap for Smith’s cap with predictable results. Although both Antal and Smith are related to dispensing flowable products, they do so in a completely different way, and each of their caps perform different functions that are specific to their respective designs for dispensing the flowable product. The modification proposed by the Office is not simply swapping one cap for another, rather, it would require a complete redesign of Antal’s dispensing mechanism to be compatible with Smith’s cap. Thus, the cap from Smith cannot simply substitute the cap of Antal without significant redesign to Antal’s dispensing mechanisms, and the Office’s “simple substitution” rationale is inappropriate. The Office’s “selection of a known material” rationale is inappropriate for the proposed modification because the claims do not recite materials of the container, and Office’s modification is not related to a material. Instead, the proposed modification amounts to a redesign of Antal’s dispensing system, including replacing components. The Office’s “substantially similar” rationale is inappropriate and improperly shifts the burden to the Applicant. Two things being “substantially similar” does not mean it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to combine them or modify one using the other. Here, the Office has not cited anything in the prior art that would suggest the desirability of the proposed modification. It is the Office’s burden to prove obviousness with rationale based in the prior art. The burden shifts to Applicant only if the Office has established a prima facie case of obviousness, which the Office has not done. Thus, it is improper to shift burden to the Applicant to prove “clear and convincing evidence.” (P11-P14).
Examiner disagrees. Modified Antal teaches the invention of claim 1, and a prima facie case of obviousness has adequately been established. The Examiner also recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to modify the prior art is found within the references themselves as well as in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant is also reminded that examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141.
Additionally, a "motivation to combine may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill." Zup v. Nash Mfg., 896 F.3d 1365, 1371, 127 USPQ2d 1423, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 [107 USPQ2d 1706] (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 [92 USPQ2d 1849] (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-21)).
As previously addressed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the cap with a dispensing slot on the side (outlet) in the container of Antal based in its suitability for its intended purpose with a reasonable expectation of success because Antal and Smith similarly teach dispensing flowable products, Antal teaches a cap member on the top end of the container body with at least one opening (paragraph [0011]), Smith teaches the instant coffee or tea may be readily measured and emptied out (C1, L21-24 and 49-50), and said combination would amount to the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Further, as stated in MPEP 2145 III., “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]I is not necessarily that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve the ability to combine their specific structures.”).
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 TYNESHA L. MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 PM ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/T.L.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793