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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 18, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 11, 15-18 and 21-26 are currently pending and rejected.
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.
Claim 21-23, 25 and 26 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.
Claim 21 recites that “the front wall and the rear wall being rectangular in shape with rounded corners.” This limitation appears to be directed to figure 1. However, figure 1 does not show the front and rear wall as being rectangular in shape but rather is square shaped with rounded corners (see page 10, paragraph 50 of the specification as filed). While a square is a rectangle, a rectangle cannot be a square. Therefore, the limitation is new matter.
Claims 22, 23, 25 and 26 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
Claim 24 recites that the front wall and the rear wall are generally square in shape. Claim 21 recites that the front and rear wall are coupled together along at least two edges of each of the front wall and the rear wall and that the front wall is smaller than the rear wall. In light of the front wall being smaller than the rear wall, it is not clear as to how the front and rear wall can both be generally square but also have their edges coupled together.
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.
Claims 11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grauer (DE 202010013048) in view of Bilyea (US 20070128316) and Koskinen (US 20130040019) and in further view of Jung (KR 20030023099), Bouse (US 20150232158) and Tinklenberg (US 6058639).
Regarding claim 11, Grauer discloses a tea bag holder (figure 1, item 11, 12) for use with a tea bag (figure 1, item 2) and a beverage container (figure 1, item 1), the tea bag holder consisting of (and comprising) a front wall, a rear wall and a space between the front and rear wall that is sized to receive the tea bag (see figure 1, item 2) (a rear wall has been construed as the portion that is closest to the beverage container and the front wall is farthest away from the beverage container).
Grauer also teaches a resealable closure being configured to close the space defined between the front wall and the rear wall (see figure 1, item 13; paragraph 25).
Grauer further teaches attaching the holder to a beverage container (see figure 1, item 1 and 11), wherein the attaching is performed by encircling an elastic band about the beverage container (see figure 1, item 11 and paragraph 15 – “band 11 is made of a (spring) elastic material”).
Claim 11 differs from Grauer in specifically reciting, “wherein the front wall is coupled to the rear wall along at least two edges of each of the front wall and the rear wall.”
Bilyea teaches providing a tea bag holder (see figure 2, 3 and 5) having a storage area (see figure 5, item 50; figure 1, item 18) that is sized to receive a tea bag, the storage area defined between a front wall (see figure 2, item 22) and a rear wall (figure 3, item 14, 38), the front wall being coupled to the rear wall along at least two edges of each of the front wall and rear wall (see the two edges of each wall between item 18; alternatively the edges at 21 can be construed as front wall edges, and the edges at 20 can be construed as rear wall edges, which couple the front and rear walls together). Koskinen also teaches two edges of a tea bag holder (see figure 1, item 2f and 2g) that couple a front wall and rear wall and which create a storage space within which a tea bag is contained prior to use and can be disposed of after use (see at least paragraph 10: “The protective package stands well upright, supported by the bottom expanded by the supporting edges, and the liquids drizzling from the wetted material of the filter bag do not leak anywhere”; see also paragraph 22: “All the liquid runs from the filter bag to the bottom of the package and does not leak….”). As Koskinen suggests using a tea bag holder for a similar purpose as Grauer and Bilyea, to thus modify the specific shape of Grauer’s tea bag holder such that it comprises a front wall coupled to the rear wall along at least two edges of each of the front wall and the rear wall, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of engineering and/or design based on other conventional shapes of tea bag holders used for a similar function of holding a tea bag.
Regarding a resealable closure formed on either the front wall or the rear wall, the resealable closure being configured to close the space defined between the front wall and the rear wall, Koskinen teaches a resealable closure (see figure 1, item 2c). Bilyea also teaches at figure 4 and 5, item 54, which can be construed as a closure formed on the rear wall that is configured to close the space between the front and rear wall and is therefore a resealable closure because it is affixed into slot 52 (see paragraph 29).
To thus modify the combination and to use a flap attached to the rear wall and that can close the space between the front and rear wall would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of being able to contain a used tea bag so as to minimize spilling of the used tea bag, while foregoing the need for a separate closure lid. Such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the advantageous purpose of preventing one from losing the lid.
Grauer suggests bands that are elastic so as to provide a tight fit between the band and the container (see paragraph 26) and also suggests that the tea bag holder can be affixed to the band using any form of fastening means to hang the receptacle 12 to the band 11 (paragraph 19).
Claim 11 differs from the above combination in specifically reciting, “a rubber band coupled to the rear wall through two apertures extending through the rear wall, with the two apertures being offset from sidewalls of the tea bag holder, wherein the rubber band is formed as a loop with a diameter sized to stretch and fit around an outer surface of beverage containers having differing diameters.”
Regarding the use of a rubber band, Jung evidences bands used to secure an auxiliary container (figure 1, item 4) to a larger container (Figure 3, item 8) using a rubber band (figure 3, item 4; abstract, paragraph 36, 47 of the machine translation – “band of rubber”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Jung’s rubber band is an elastic band for securing the auxiliary container.
Since Grauer is already suggesting using an elastic band to therefore modify Grauer and to use a rubber band would have been an obvious substitution of one type of elastic band material for another, used for performing a similar function of securing an auxiliary holder to a larger container. In view of Jung, the combination teaches the rubber band having a diameter size that is capable of stretching and fitting around an outer surface of beverage containers having differing diameters, because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that a band of rubber is capable of stretching to fit around various container diameters.
Regarding the rubber band being coupled to the rear wall through two apertures extending through the rear wall, with the two apertures being offset from sidewalls of the holder, the claim differs from the above combination in this regard.
However, Grauer is not limiting as to the particular method by which the band has been secured to the holder (see paragraph 19).
Nonetheless, Bouse evidences elastic bands (see figure 1, item 12; paragraph 13 – “strap 12 can be elastic”) that can be secured to a holder capable of holding food (see figure 1 and 3, item 35, 41; paragraph 14 – “food”) by weaving the elastic band through apertures in the rear wall of the holder (see figure 1 and 4, item 39; paragraph 12 – “backside surface 37 includes at least two apertures 39 through which a strap can be weaved in order to serve as a supplemental means for securing the holder 31”). Bouse’s apertures (39) are also offset from side walls of the holder (35, 41). Additionally, Tinklenberg similarly teaches passing a rubber band (see figure 1-2, item 10 and column 3, lines 3-12) through two apertures (Figure 1 and 2, item 13, 14) as a means for securing an article to a rubber band.
To therefore modify the combination and provide two apertures extending through the rear wall of the holder through which the rubber band can be inserted, as taught by Bouse and Tinklenberg would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on a substitution of conventional expedients both recognized to be used for the purpose of securing a holder to a larger container.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, in view of Bouse and Tinklenberg, the combination teaches that the two apertures are sized to allow the rubber band to pass through the two apertures (claim 15) and where the two apertures are each circular apertures (claim 16 – see Tinklenberg figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, in view of Bouse and Tinklenberg, the combination teaches and suggests that the rubber band is slidable relative to the rear wall because the combination does not teach a permanent attachment between the rubber band and the rear wall.
Regarding claim 18, the claim differs from Grauer in specifically reciting, “wherein the front wall being coupled to the rear wall forms the shape of an envelope-shaped structure.”
However, as shown in figure 2 and 3, Bilyea teaches that the front and rear walls are coupled to form what can be construed as an “envelope-shaped” structure. It is noted that the claims are not seen to limit the particular shape of the envelope. In any event, in view of Koskinen as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the combination suggests another form of an envelope structure where the front wall is coupled to the rear wall. As Koskinen suggests using a tea bag holder for a similar purpose as Grauer and Bilyea, to thus modify the specific shape of Grauer’s tea bag holder, if necessary, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of engineering and/or design based on other conventional shapes of tea bag holders used for a similar function.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grauer (DE 202010013048) in view of Bilyea (US 20070128316), Koskinen (US 20130040019) and Rambold (US 3175911) and in further view of Jung (KR 20030023099), Bouse (US 20150232158) and Tinklenberg (US 6058639).
Regarding claim 21, Grauer discloses a tea bag holder (figure 1, item 11, 12) for use with a tea bag (figure 1, item 2) and a beverage container (figure 1, item 1), the tea bag holder comprising a front wall, a rear wall and a space between the front and rear wall that is sized to receive the tea bag (see figure 1, item 2) (a rear wall has been construed as the portion that is closest to the beverage container and the front wall is farthest away from the beverage container).
Grauer also teaches a resealable closure being configured to close the space defined between the front wall and the rear wall (see figure 1, item 13; paragraph 25).
Grauer further teaches attaching the holder to a beverage container (see figure 1, item 1 and 11), wherein the attaching is performed by encircling an elastic band about the beverage container (see figure 1, item 11 and paragraph 15 – “band 11 is made of a (spring) elastic material”).
Claim 21 differs from Grauer in specifically reciting, “wherein the front wall is coupled to the rear wall along at least two edges of each of the front wall and the rear wall.”
Bilyea teaches providing a tea bag holder (see figure 2, 3 and 5) having a storage area (see figure 5, item 50; figure 1, item 18) that is sized to receive a tea bag, the storage area defined between a front wall (see figure 2, item 22) and a rear wall (figure 3, item 14, 38), the front wall being coupled to the rear wall along at least two edges of each of the front wall and rear wall (see the two edges of each wall between item 18; alternatively the edges at 21 can be construed as front wall edges, and the edges at 20 can be construed as rear wall edges, which couple the front and rear walls together). Koskinen also teaches two edges of a tea bag holder (see figure 1, item 2f and 2g) that couple a front wall and rear wall and which create a storage space within which a tea bag is contained prior to use and can be disposed of after use (see at least paragraph 10: “The protective package stands well upright, supported by the bottom expanded by the supporting edges, and the liquids drizzling from the wetted material of the filter bag do not leak anywhere”; see also paragraph 22: “All the liquid runs from the filter bag to the bottom of the package and does not leak….”). Rambold also teaches front and rear walls of a holder for tea bags that are coupled together (see figure 2). As Koskinen suggests using a tea bag holder for a similar purpose as Grauer and Bilyea, to thus modify the specific shape of Grauer’s tea bag holder such that it comprises a front wall coupled to the rear wall along at least two edges of each of the front wall and the rear wall, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of engineering and/or design based on other conventional shapes of tea bag holders used for a similar function of holding a tea bag.
Regarding a resealable closure formed on either the front wall or the rear wall, the resealable closure being configured to close the space defined between the front wall and the rear wall, Koskinen teaches a resealable closure on the rear wall (see figure 1, item 2c) as does Rambold. Bilyea also teaches at figure 4 and 5, item 54, which can be construed as a closure formed on the rear wall that is configured to close the space between the front and rear wall and is therefore a resealable closure because it is affixed into slot 52 (see paragraph 29).
To thus modify the combination and to use a flap attached to the rear wall and that can close the space between the front and rear wall would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of being able to contain a used tea bag so as to minimize spilling of the used tea bag, while foregoing the need for a separate closure lid. Such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the advantageous purpose of preventing one from losing the lid.
Grauer suggests bands that are elastic so as to provide a tight fit between the band and the container (see paragraph 26) and also suggests that the tea bag holder can be affixed to the band using any form of fastening means to hang the receptacle 12 to the band 11 (paragraph 19).
Claim 21 differs from the above combination in specifically reciting, “a rubber band coupled to the rear wall through two apertures extending through the rear wall, with the two apertures being offset from sidewalls of the tea bag holder, wherein the rubber band is formed as a loop with a diameter sized to stretch and fit around an outer surface of beverage containers having differing diameters.”
Regarding the use of a rubber band, Jung evidences bands used to secure an auxiliary container (figure 1, item 4) to a larger container (Figure 3, item 8) using a rubber band (figure 3, item 4; abstract, paragraph 36, 47 of the machine translation – “band of rubber”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Jung’s rubber band is an elastic band for securing the auxiliary container.
Since Grauer is already suggesting using an elastic band to therefore modify Grauer and to use a rubber band would have been an obvious substitution of one type of elastic band material for another, used for performing a similar function of securing an auxiliary holder to a larger container. In view of Jung, the combination teaches the rubber band having a diameter size that is capable of stretching and fitting around an outer surface of beverage containers having differing diameters, because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that a band of rubber is capable of stretching to fit around various container diameters.
Regarding the rubber band being coupled to the rear wall through two apertures extending through the rear wall, with the two apertures being offset from sidewalls of the holder, the claim differs from the above combination in this regard.
However, Grauer is not limiting as to the particular method by which the band has been secured to the holder (see paragraph 19).
Nonetheless, Bouse evidences elastic bands (see figure 1, item 12; paragraph 13 – “strap 12 can be elastic”) that can be secured to a holder capable of holding food (see figure 1 and 3, item 35, 41; paragraph 14 – “food”) by weaving the elastic band through apertures in the rear wall of the holder (see figure 1 and 4, item 39; paragraph 12 – “backside surface 37 includes at least two apertures 39 through which a strap can be weaved in order to serve as a supplemental means for securing the holder 31”). Bouse’s apertures (39) are also offset from side walls of the holder (35, 41). Additionally, Tinklenberg similarly teaches passing a rubber band (see figure 1-2, item 10 and column 3, lines 3-12) through two apertures (Figure 1 and 2, item 13, 14) as a means for securing an article to a rubber band.
To therefore modify the combination and provide two apertures extending through the rear wall of the holder through which the rubber band can be inserted, as taught by Bouse and Tinklenberg would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on a substitution of conventional expedients both recognized to be used for the purpose of securing a holder to a larger container.
Regarding the claim 21 limitation of, “the front wall and the rear wall being rectangular in shape with rounded corners and the front wall being smaller than the rear wall,” Koskinen teaches front and rear walls that can be construed as being rectangular and with a front wall that is smaller than the rear wall (see figure 1-2). Koskinen teaches that this configuration can be useful for providing a closure flap folded from the rear wall (see paragraph 18). Rambold also teaches a front and rear wall, which front wall is smaller than the rear wall such that the rear wall can also provide a flap closure to the tea bag holder. As Grauer is not limiting as to the particular shape of the tea bag holder, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grauer to use a rectangular shaped front and rear wall as taught by Koskinen and Rambold as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design based on conventional configurations used to old used tea bags. While Koskinen and Rambold do not specifically discuss, “rounded corners” since Koskinen and Rambold teach front and rear walls coupled together along two edges and where the front wall is smaller than the rear wall and which form an envelope for holding a tea bag, it is not seen that patentability can be predicated on the particular shape of the corners of the front and rear wall; and such a modification would have been an obvious change of shape that would have been a matter of engineering and/or design.
Regarding claim 22, in view of Koskinen and Rambold, the combination teaches the rear wall has a greater height than the front wall.
Regarding claim 23, figure 2 of Koskinen and figure 2 of Rambold both teach the front wall is coupled to the rear wall at three edges of each of the front wall and the rear wall.
Regarding claim 24, since the prior art in view of Koskinen and Rambold both teach a tea bag holder with a front wall that is smaller than a rear wall and which tea bag holder has rectangular shape, it is not seen that patentability can be predicated on the specific shape of the front and rear walls being generally square in shape, as such a modification would have been an obvious change in shape that would have been a matter of engineering and/or design.
Regarding claim 25, while Koskinen and Rambold do not specifically discuss, “the front wall has two rounded corners and the rear wall has four rounded corners” since Koskinen and Rambold teach front and rear walls coupled together along two edges and where the front wall is smaller than the rear wall and which form an envelope for holding a tea bag, it is not seen that patentability can be predicated on the particular shape of the corners of the front and rear wall; and such a modification would have been an obvious change of shape that would have been a matter of engineering and/or design.
Regarding claim 26, Koskinen and Rambold teach the front wall and the rear wall are flat.
Claims 11 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilyea (US 20070128316) in view of Grauer (DE 202010013048) and Koskinen (US 20130040019) and in further view of Arnold (US 20140339244) and Nico (“Rubber band production technics”) and in further view of Bouse (US 20150232158), Tinklenberg (US 6058639) and Nielsen (GB 2286816).
Regarding claim 11, Bilyea teaches a tea bag holder (see figure 2, 3 and 5) and a beverage container (6) the tea bag holder consisting of a front wall (see figure 2, item 22) coupled to a rear wall (figure 3, item 14, 38) and defining a space between the front wall and the rear wall, the space being sized to receive the tea bag (paragraph 24), wherein the front wall is coupled to the rear wall along at least two edges of each of the front wall and rear wall (see the two edges of each wall between item 18; alternatively the edges at 21 can be construed as front wall edges, and the edges at 20 can be construed as rear wall edges, which couple the front and rear walls together).
Regarding the limitation of, “a resealable closure formed on either the front wall or the rear wall, the resealable closure being configured to close the space defined between the front wall and the rear wall,” it is noted that Bilyea teaches at figure 4 and 5, item 54, what can be construed as a closure formed on the rear wall that is configured to close the space between the front and rear wall and is therefore a resealable closure because it is affixed into slot 52 (see paragraph 29).
If it could have been construed that this was not a closure configured to close the space between the front and rear wall and is a resealable closure, then it is noted that Koskinen teaches a flap attached to a rear wall (see figure 1, item 2c) that is configured to close the space between the front wall and the rear wall to contain the used tea bag.
To thus modify Bilyea and to use a flap attached to the rear wall and that can close the space between the front and rear wall would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of being able to contain a used tea bag so as to minimize spilling of the used tea bag.
Claim 11 differs from the Bilyea / Koskinen combination in specifically reciting, “a rubber band coupled to the rear wall through two apertures extending through the rear wall, with the two apertures being offset from sidewalls of the tea bag holder, wherein the rubber band is formed as a thin loop with a diameter sized to stretch and fit around an outer surface of beverage containers having differing diameters.”
Grauer teaches a storage holder (figure 1, item 12) that receives a tea bag (see paragraph 1 and 20) and is coupled to a band (figure 1, item 11) that encircles a beverage container (see figure 1, item 1) and where the band can be elastic (see paragraph 15 of the machine translation “elastic material”) thus teaching and suggesting a band that is resilient. Grauer teaches that the storage holder used to hold the tea bag (see figure 1, item 2 and 12; paragraph 20 of the machine translation) can be affixed to the band using any form of fastening means to hang the receptacle 12 to the band 11 (paragraph 19). Grauer also teaches providing a tight fit between the band and the container (see paragraph 26 of the machine translation).
While Grauer teaches resilient and elastic bands, the reference does not specifically teach that the band is a “rubber band.”
Arnold teaches an insulating sleeve that can be construed to be a band (see figure 2 and 6) and can be made from materials such as vulcanized natural rubber, because such materials allow for the band to stretch around containers of various sizes (see paragraph 20 and 32). Arnold teaches a flexible band using vulcanized natural rubber and Nico evidences that vulcanized natural rubber is what has been used to make rubber bands – therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Arnold is also teaching what can be construed as a rubber band.
To therefore modify Bilyea and to use a rubber band as the insulating sleeve would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for providing a tight fit of Bilyea’s sleeve to a container while also providing the ability to stretch and conform to differing sized containers.
Regarding the rubber band being formed as a loop, in view of Arnold, the combination teaches a loop. Arnold also teaches in paragraph 32 that the height of the sleeve can be adjusted thus suggesting “thinner” rubber bands (see paragraph 32, the last sentence).
To therefore modify the combination and to use a rubber band loop would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on the desired size of the band – which would have been an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, especially since the prior art teaches that one of the purposes of the band is similar to that of Applicant, which is for securing a tea bag holder to a container.
Regarding the rubber band being coupled to the rear wall through two apertures extending through the rear wall, with the two apertures being offset from sidewalls of the holder, the claim differs from the above combination in this regard.
However, Bouse evidences elastic bands (see figure 1, item 12; paragraph 13 – “strap 12 can be elastic”) that can be secured to a holder capable of holding food (see figure 1, item 35, 41; paragraph 14 – “food”) by weaving the elastic band through apertures in the rear wall of the holder (see figure 1 and 4, item 39; paragraph 12 – “backside surface 37 includes at least two apertures 39 through which a strap can be weaved in order to serve as a supplemental means for securing the holder 31”). Bouse’s apertures (39) are also offset from side walls of the holder (35, 41). Additionally, Tinklenberg similarly teaches passing a rubber band (see figure 1-2, item 10 and column 3, lines 3-12) through two apertures (Figure 1 and 2, item 13, 14) as a means for securing an article to a rubber band. Additionally, Nielsen (GB 2286816) teaches a means to secure a holder (see figure 1 and 12, item 1) to a looped structure (see figure 12, item 50), by coupling the looped structure through two apertures(Figure 1 and 2, item 17) that extend through the rear wall of the holder (figure 1 and 2, item 8). That is, Nielsen discloses a holder having a storage area (5) for contents such as tea (see the abstract) and where a wall of the holder, which can be considered a “rear wall” has two apertures (17) there-through. The apertures are offset from the sidewalls of Nielsen’s holder 5. That is, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Nielsen’s holder would have had some form of sidewall, since there is a containment volume. Nielsen further teaches that the apertures serve as suspension areas intending the rest on the looped surface so that he holder can safely rest on an edge of the looped surface (see page 9, lines 13-24). Nielsen is similar to Bilyea because Nielsen is also directed to suspending a tea holder from a container. Additionally, Bilyea also teaches securing the holder to a looped structure type structure for securing the holder to the looped structure (see figure 3, item 30 and paragraph 27).
Since Bilyea teaches attaching the tea bag holder to the band but is not limiting as to the attachment structure, to thus modify Bilyea and to use an attachment structure that is part of the rear wall of the holder and includes two apertures through which the rubber band looped structure can pass through and where the apertures are offset from Bilyea’s holder sidewalls, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a substitution of one conventional expedient for securing an auxiliary container, for another, both recognized for performing a similar function. It is further noted that in view of Nielsen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the apertures and the securing structure as taught by Nielsen can be positioned at 38 of figure 3 of Bilyea. Wall 38 can be construed as being part of the rear wall 14 and therefore would have resulted in the rubber band being coupled to the rear wall through the two apertures.
Further regarding the specific shape of the tea bag holder as recited in claim 11, it is noted that if it could have been construed that Bilyea did not specifically teach the claimed structure of the front wall coupled to the rear wall along at least two edges of each of the front wall and the rear wall, then it is noted that Koskinen also teaches two edges of a tea bag holder (see figure 1, item 2f and 2g) that couple a front wall and rear wall and which create a storage space within which a tea bag is contained prior to use and can be disposed of after use (see at least paragraph 10: “The protective package stands well upright, supported by the bottom expanded by the supporting edges, and the liquids drizzling from the wetted material of the filter bag do not leak anywhere”; see also paragraph 22: “All the liquid runs from the filter bag to the bottom of the package and does not leak….”). As Koskinen suggests using a tea bag holder for a similar purpose as Bilyea, to thus modify the specific shape of Bilyea’s tea bag holder, if necessary, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of engineering and/or design based on other conventional shapes of tea bag holders used for a similar function.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, in view of Bouse, Tinklenberg and Nielsen, the combination teaches that the two apertures are sized to allow the rubber band to pass through the two apertures (claim 15) and where the two apertures are each circular apertures (claim 16 – see Tinklenberg and Nielsen).
Regarding claim 17, Bilyea teaches that the rear wall can provide an attachment mechanism as shown in figure 3, item 38 such that the looped band is slidable relative to the rear wall. Additionally, the combination teaches and suggests that the rubber band is slidable relative to the rear wall because the combination does not teach a permanent attachment between the rubber band and the rear wall.
Regarding claim 18, as shown in figure 2 and 3, Bilyea teaches that the front and rear walls are coupled to form what can be construed as an “envelope-shaped” structure. It is noted that the claims are not seen to limit the particular shape of the envelope. In any event, in view of Koskinen as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the combination suggests another form of an envelope structure where the front wall is coupled to the rear wall. As Koskinen suggests using a tea bag holder for a similar purpose as Bilyea, to thus modify the specific shape of Bilyea’s tea bag holder, if necessary, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of engineering and/or design based on other conventional shapes of tea bag holders used for a similar function.
Claims 21-26 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilyea (US 20070128316) in view of Grauer (DE 202010013048), Koskinen (US 20130040019) and Rambold (US 3175911) and in further view of Arnold (US 20140339244) and Nico (“Rubber band production technics”) and in further view of Bouse (US 20150232158), Tinklenberg (US 6058639) and Nielsen (GB 2286816).
Regarding claim 21, Bilyea teaches a tea bag holder (see figure 2, 3 and 5) and a beverage container (6) the tea bag holder comprising a front wall (see figure 2, item 22) coupled to a rear wall (figure 3, item 14, 38) and defining a space between the front wall and the rear wall, the space being sized to receive the tea bag (paragraph 24), wherein the front wall is coupled to the rear wall along at least two edges of each of the front wall and rear wall (see the two edges of each wall between item 18; alternatively the edges at 21 can be construed as front wall edges, and the edges at 20 can be construed as rear wall edges, which couple the front and rear walls together).
As shown in figure 2 and 5, Bilyea teaches a rectangular front and rear wall and the reference teaches that the front wall is smaller than the rear wall.
Regarding the limitation of, “a resealable closure formed on either the front wall or the rear wall, the resealable closure being configured to close the space defined between the front wall and the rear wall,” it is noted that Bilyea teaches at figure 4 and 5, item 54, what can be construed as a closure formed on the rear wall that is configured to close the space between the front and rear wall and is therefore a resealable closure because it is affixed into slot 52 (see paragraph 29).
If it could have been construed that this was not a closure configured to close the space between the front and rear wall and is a resealable closure, then it is noted that Koskinen teaches a flap attached to a rear wall (see figure 1, item 2c) that is configured to close the space between the front wall and the rear wall to contain the used tea bag. Rambold in similar in this regard (see figure 2).
To thus modify Bilyea and to use a flap attached to the rear wall and that can close the space between the front and rear wall would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of being able to contain a used tea bag so as to minimize spilling of the used tea bag.
Claim 21 differs from the combination in specifically reciting, “a rubber band coupled to the rear wall through two apertures extending through the rear wall, with the two apertures being offset from sidewalls of the tea bag holder, wherein the rubber band is formed as a thin loop with a diameter sized to stretch and fit around an outer surface of beverage containers having differing diameters.”
Grauer teaches a storage holder (figure 1, item 12) that receives a tea bag (see paragraph 1 and 20) and is coupled to a band (figure 1, item 11) that encircles a beverage container (see figure 1, item 1) and where the band can be elastic (see paragraph 15 of the machine translation “elastic material”) thus teaching and suggesting a band that is resilient. Grauer teaches that the storage holder used to hold the tea bag (see figure 1, item 2 and 12; paragraph 20 of the machine translation) can be affixed to the band using any form of fastening means to hang the receptacle 12 to the band 11 (paragraph 19). Grauer also teaches providing a tight fit between the band and the container (see paragraph 26 of the machine translation).
While Grauer teaches resilient and elastic bands, the reference does not specifically teach that the band is a “rubber band.”
Arnold teaches an insulating sleeve that can be construed to be a band (see figure 2 and 6) and can be made from materials such as vulcanized natural rubber, because such materials allow for the band to stretch around containers of various sizes (see paragraph 20 and 32). Arnold teaches a flexible band using vulcanized natural rubber and Nico evidences that vulcanized natural rubber is what has been used to make rubber bands – therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Arnold is also teaching what can be construed as a rubber band.
To therefore modify Bilyea and to use a rubber band as the insulating sleeve would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for providing a tight fit of Bilyea’s sleeve to a container while also providing the ability to stretch and conform to differing sized containers.
Regarding the rubber band being formed as a loop, in view of Arnold, the combination teaches a loop. Arnold also teaches in paragraph 32 that the height of the sleeve can be adjusted thus suggesting “thinner” rubber bands (see paragraph 32, the last sentence).
To therefore modify the combination and to use a rubber band loop would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on the desired size of the band – which would have been an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, especially since the prior art teaches that one of the purposes of the band is similar to that of Applicant, which is for securing a tea bag holder to a container.
Regarding the rubber band being coupled to the rear wall through two apertures extending through the rear wall, with the two apertures being offset from sidewalls of the holder, the claim differs from the above combination in this regard.
However, Bouse evidences elastic bands (see figure 1, item 12; paragraph 13 – “strap 12 can be elastic”) that can be secured to a holder capable of holding food (see figure 1, item 35, 41; paragraph 14 – “food”) by weaving the elastic band through apertures in the rear wall of the holder (see figure 1 and 4, item 39; paragraph 12 – “backside surface 37 includes at least two apertures 39 through which a strap can be weaved in order to serve as a supplemental means for securing the holder 31”). Bouse’s apertures (39) are also offset from side walls of the holder (35, 41). Additionally, Tinklenberg similarly teaches passing a rubber band (see figure 1-2, item 10 and column 3, lines 3-12) through two apertures (Figure 1 and 2, item 13, 14) as a means for securing an article to a rubber band. Additionally, Nielsen (GB 2286816) teaches a means to secure a holder (see figure 1 and 12, item 1) to a looped structure (see figure 12, item 50), by coupling the looped structure through two apertures(Figure 1 and 2, item 17) that extend through the rear wall of the holder (figure 1 and 2, item 8). That is, Nielsen discloses a holder having a storage area (5) for contents such as tea (see the abstract) and where a wall of the holder, which can be considered a “rear wall” has two apertures (17) there-through. The apertures are offset from the sidewalls of Nielsen’s holder 5. That is, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Nielsen’s holder would have had some form of sidewall, since there is a containment volume. Nielsen further teaches that the apertures serve as suspension areas intending the rest on the looped surface so that he holder can safely rest on an edge of the looped surface (see page 9, lines 13-24). Nielsen is similar to Bilyea because Nielsen is also directed to suspending a tea holder from a container. Additionally, Bilyea also teaches securing the holder to a looped structure type structure for securing the holder to the looped structure (see figure 3, item 30 and paragraph 27).
Since Bilyea teaches attaching the tea bag holder to the band but is not limiting as to the attachment structure, to thus modify Bilyea and to use an attachment structure that is part of the rear wall of the holder and includes two apertures through which the rubber band looped structure can pass through and where the apertures are offset from Bilyea’s holder sidewalls, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a substitution of one conventional expedient for securing an auxiliary container, for another, both recognized for performing a similar function. It is further noted that in view of Nielsen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the apertures and the securing structure as taught by Nielsen can be positioned at 38 of figure 3 of Bilyea. Wall 38 can be construed as being part of the rear wall 14 and therefore would have resulted in the rubber band being coupled to the rear wall through the two apertures.
Further regarding the specific shape of the tea bag holder as recited in claim 21, it is noted that if it could have been construed that Bilyea did not specifically teach the claimed structure of the front wall coupled to the rear wall along at least two edges of each of the front wall and the rear wall, then it is noted that Koskinen also teaches two edges of a tea bag holder (see figure 1, item 2f and 2g) that couple a front wall and rear wall and which create a storage space within which a tea bag is contained prior to use and can be disposed of after use (see at least paragraph 10: “The protective package stands well upright, supported by the bottom expanded by the supporting edges, and the liquids drizzling from the wetted material of the filter bag do not leak anywhere”; see also paragraph 22: “All the liquid runs from the filter bag to the bottom of the package and does not leak….”). Koskinen suggests using a tea bag holder for a similar purpose as Bilyea. Rambold also teaches the front and rear walls of a tea bag holder coupled along front and rear edges. Therefore, to modify the specific shape of Bilyea’s tea bag holder, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of engineering and/or design based on other conventional shapes of tea bag holders used for a similar function.
Further regarding the claim 21 limitation of, “the front wall and the rear wall being rectangular in shape with rounded corners and the front wall being smaller than the rear wall,” Koskinen teaches front and rear walls that can be construed as being rectangular and with a front wall that is smaller than the rear wall (see figure 1-2). Koskinen teaches that this configuration can be useful for providing a closure flap folded from the rear wall (see paragraph 18). Rambold also teaches a front and rear wall, which front wall is smaller than the rear wall such that the rear wall can also provide a flap closure to the tea bag holder. As Bilyea is not limiting as to the particular shape of the tea bag holder, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bilyea to use a rectangular shaped front and rear wall as taught by Koskinen and Rambold as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design based on conventional configurations used to old used tea bags. While Koskinen and Rambold do not specifically discuss, “rounded corners” since Koskinen and Rambold teach front and rear walls coupled together along two edges and where the front wall is smaller than the rear wall and which form an envelope for holding a tea bag, it is not seen that patentability can be predicated on the particular shape of the corners of the front and rear wall; and such a modification would have been an obvious change of shape that would have been a matter of engineering and/or design.
Regarding claim 22, in view of Koskinen and Rambold, the combination teaches the rear wall has a greater height than the front wall.
Regarding claim 23, figure 2 of Koskinen and figure 2 of Rambold both teach the front wall is coupled to the rear wall at three edges of each of the front wall and the rear wall.
Regarding claim 24, since the prior art in view of Koskinen and Rambold both teach a tea bag holder with a front wall that is smaller than a rear wall and which tea bag holder has rectangular shape, it is not seen that patentability can be predicated on the specific shape of the front and rear walls being generally square in shape, as such a modification would have been an obvious change in shape that would have been a matter of engineering and/or design.
Regarding claim 25, while Koskinen and Rambold do not specifically discuss, “the front wall has two rounded corners and the rear wall has four rounded corners” since Koskinen and Rambold teach front and rear walls coupled together along two edges and where the front wall is smaller than the rear wall and which form an envelope for holding a tea bag, it is not seen that patentability can be predicated on the particular shape of the corners of the front and rear wall; and such a modification would have been an obvious change of shape that would have been a matter of engineering and/or design.
Regarding claim 26, Koskinen and Rambold teach the front wall and the rear wall are flat.
Response to Arguments
On pages 5-8 of the response, Applicant urges that none of the cited references teach, suggest or discloses a tea bag holder consisting of the features listed in claim 11, where "consisting of' signifies that the invention consists solely of the elements/features listed in the claim. Applicant urges that it is not reasonable to combine the number of references relied on and therefore the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight.
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive because Grauer teaches the structure of the claimed tea bag holder, consisting of the front and rear wall, with a resealable closure and an elastic band coupled to the holder to form a loop that is able to fit around an outer surface of a beverage container. While Grauer is not specific as to the particular shape of the front wall and the rear wall, the use of an attached resealable closure and apertures in the rear wall through which the rubber band can be coupled to the rear wall, each of these individual elements have been suggested by the prior art, and it would therefore have been obvious to have modified Grauer's storage space to have a front wall coupled to the rear wall based on other known shapes for tea bag storage holders and to use a rubber bag attached to the rear wall through two apertures