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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on or after September 8, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-30 remain pending in the application. Claim 1 is amended. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed September 8, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The amendments to claim 1 overcome the originally set forth 112b rejection: The examiner agrees. The amendments to Claim 1 set forth additional structure which further define the structure of the stop mechanism. The rejection is withdrawn. However, the “stop mechanism” is still interpreted to be an equivalent structure to the “stop block” described in later claims.
Tuan does not teach a stop mechanism having a body configured to be coupled to the body of an appliance and/or a lid of an appliance and/or a lid of an appliance such that its position limits an amount that the lid can be opened: The amendments to claim 1 do not overcome the prior art as Tuan teaches a stop mechanism having a body configured to be coupled to at least one of a body of an appliance and a lid of an appliance, such that its position limits an amount that the lid can be opened (Pg. 3 [0038] Figure 9 Element 31 and 32).
Double Patenting Rejections & Objections
Claim 30 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of Claim 32 of copending Application No. 17/671,832. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 30 of this application is patentably indistinct from Claim 32 of Application No. 17/671,832. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822. A side-by-side comparison of the claims is provided below:
Current Application No. 17/671,858
Copending Application No. 17/671,832
Claim 15: An appliance, comprising: a body; a lid, hingedly connected to the body and configured to move between: a closed position in which the lid covers a top of the body, and a fully open position in which the lid does not cover the body; and a stop mechanism attached to at least one of the body of the appliance and the lid, configured to limit an amount that the lid can be opened; wherein an opening angle defines an angle between the top of the body and the lid when in the fully open position.
Claim 30: The appliance of claim 15, further comprising a flare coupled to the body of the appliance to increase an anti-tipping stability of the appliance.
Claim 17: An appliance, comprising: a body having a bottom portion configured to rest on a surface; and a flare coupled to the body and configured to provide an anti-tipping stability to the appliance.
Claim 30: The appliance of claim 17, further including a lid
Claim 31: The appliance of claim 30, wherein: the appliance body includes a container and a handle; and the lid is hingedly attached to at least one of the container and the handle, thereby allowing the lid to open and close over the container.
Claim 32: The appliance of claim 31, wherein the appliance body further includes a stop block arranged to limit an extent to which the lid can be opened.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Furthermore, claims 15- 27 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1-14 of the same application. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). A side-by-side comparison of the claims is provided below:
Claims 1-14
Claims 15-27
Claim 1: A stop mechanism having a body configured to be coupled to at least one of a body of an appliance and a lid of an appliance such that its position limits an amount that the lid can be opened.
Claim 4: An appliance, comprising: a body; a lid, hingedly connected to the body and configured to move between: a closed position in which the lid covers a top of the body, and a fully open position in which the lid does not cover the body; and the stop mechanism of claim 1; wherein an opening angle defines an angle between the top of the body and the lid when in the fully open position.
Claim 15: An appliance, comprising: a body; a lid, hingedly connected to the body and configured to move between: a closed position in which the lid covers a top of the body, and a fully open position in which the lid does not cover the body; and a stop mechanism attached to at least one of the body of the appliance and the lid, configured to limit an amount that the lid can be opened; wherein an opening angle defines an angle between the top of the body and the lid when in the fully open position.
Claim 2: The stop mechanism of claim 1, comprising: a contact surface configured to make coupling contact with the body of the appliance; and a stop extension configured to engage the lid of the appliance so as to impede opening of the lid beyond a predetermined opening angle.
Claim 16: The appliance of claim 15, wherein the stop mechanism includes: a contact surface coupled to the body of the appliance; and a stop extension configured to engage the lid of the appliance so as to impede opening of the lid beyond a predetermined opening angle
Claim 3: The stop mechanism of claim 1, comprising: a contact surface configured to make coupling contact with the lid of the appliance; and a stop extension configured to engage the body of the appliance so as to impede opening of the lid beyond a predetermined opening angle.
Claim 17: The appliance of claim 15, wherein the stop mechanism includes: a contact surface coupled to the lid of the appliance; and a stop extension configured to engage the body of the appliance so as to impede opening of the lid beyond a predetermined opening angle.
Claim 5: The appliance of claim 4, wherein the stop mechanism is configured to limit a maximum opening angle.
Claim 18: The appliance of claim 15, wherein the stop mechanism is configured to limit a maximum opening angle.
Claim 6: The appliance of claim 5, wherein the stop mechanism is configured to limit the maximum opening angle to less than 90 degrees.
Claim 19: The appliance of claim 18, wherein the stop mechanism is configured to limit the maximum opening angle to less than 90 degrees.
Claim 7: The appliance of claim 5, wherein the stop mechanism is configured to limit the maximum opening angle to an angle in a range of about 50 degrees to about 60 degrees.
Claim 20: The appliance of claim 18, wherein the stop mechanism is configured to limit the maximum opening angle to an angle in a range of about 50 degrees to about 60 degrees.
Claim 8: The appliance of claim 5, wherein the stop mechanism includes a stop block configured to engage the body of the appliance and the lid when the lid is opened to the maximum opening angle.
Claim 21: The appliance of claim 18, wherein the stop mechanism includes a stop block configured to engage the body of the appliance and the lid when the lid is opened to the maximum opening angle.
Claim 9: The appliance of claim 8, wherein the stop block is coupled to the lid.
Claim 22: The appliance of claim 21, wherein the stop block is coupled to the lid.
Claim 10: The appliance of claim 8, wherein the stop block is coupled to the body of the appliance.
Claim 23: The appliance of claim 22, wherein the stop block is coupled to the body of the appliance.
Claim 11: The appliance of claim 10, wherein: the body of the appliance includes a handle, and the stop block is coupled to the handle.
Claim 24: The appliance of claim 23, wherein: the body of the appliance includes a handle, and the stop block is coupled to the handle.
Claim 12: The appliance of claim 8, wherein the stop mechanism further includes a biasing element configured to urge the lid toward the fully open position when the lid is moved toward the closed position past a predetermined bias point.
Claim 25: The appliance of claim 21, wherein the stop mechanism further includes a biasing element configured to urge the lid toward the fully open position when the lid is moved toward the closed position past a predetermined bias point.
Claim 13: The appliance of claim 12, wherein the biasing element includes a spring.
Claim 26: The appliance of claim 25, wherein the biasing element includes a spring.
Claim 14: The appliance of claim 13, wherein the spring is a torsion spring.
Claim 27: The appliance of claim 26, wherein the spring is a torsion spring.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 15-18, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tuan (US Patent No. 2016/0029848 A1.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
474
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Tuan teaches a stop mechanism having a body configured to be coupled to at least one of a body of an appliance and a lid of an appliance, such that its position limits an amount that the lid can be opened (Pg. 3 [0038] Figure 9 Element 31 and 32) and thus reads on the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claims 2 and 16: Tuan further teaches the stop mechanism of claim 1, comprising: a contact surface (Pg. 3 [0038] Figure 9 Element 32) configured to make coupling contact with the body of the appliance; and a stop extension (Pg. 3 [0038] Figure 9 Element 32). The stop mechanism, as taught by Tuan, can be configured to engage the lid of the appliance so as to impede opening of the lid beyond a predetermined opening angle and thus reads on the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claims 3 and 17: Tuan further teaches the stop mechanism of claim 1, comprising: a contact surface (Pg. 3 [0038] Figure 9 Element 32) configured to make coupling contact with the lid of the appliance; and a stop extension (Pg. 3 [0038] Figure 9 Element 32). The invention as taught by Tuan can be configured to engage the body of the appliance so as to impede opening of the lid beyond a predetermined opening angle and thus reads on the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 4: Tuan further teaches an appliance ( Figure 1 All Elements), comprising: a body (Figure 1 Element 52 [0020] ); a lid, hingedly connected to the body and configured to move between: a closed position in which the lid covers a top of the body, and a fully open position in which the lid does not cover the body (Figure 1 Element 30 [0019]); and the stop mechanism of claim 1; wherein an opening angle defines an angle between the top of the body and the lid when in the fully open position (Pg. 3 [0038] Figure 9 Element 32). As all of the limitations of this claim are taught in the reference, the prior art reads on the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claims 5 and 18: Tuan further teaches that the stop mechanism is configured to limit a maximum opening angle (Pg. 3 [0038] Figure 9 Element 32). Given that the invention, as presented by Tuan, has a stop mechanism that has the capacity to be configured to limit the maximum opening angle of the lid, the prior art reads on the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 15: Tuan further teaches An appliance ( Figure 1 All Elements) comprising: a body (Figure 1 Element 52 [0020] ); a lid, hingedly connected to the body and configured to move between: a closed position in which the lid covers a top of the body, and a fully open position in which the lid does not cover the body (Figure 1 Element 30 [0019]); and a stop mechanism attached to at least one of the body of the appliance and the lid, configured to limit an amount that the lid can be opened; wherein an opening angle defines an angle between the top of the body and the lid when in the fully open position (Pg. 3 [0038] Figure 9 Element 32). As all of the limitations of this claim are taught in the reference, the prior art reads on the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 28: Tuan further teaches that the appliance is a beverage brewer (Figure 1 All Elements). The invention, as presented by Tuan has the capacity to brew beverages and thus reads on the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 29: Tuan further teaches that the appliance is a coffee brewer (Figure 1 All Elements). The invention, as presented by Tuan has the capacity to brew coffee and thus anticipates the limitations of the applicant’s claim as presented.
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.
Claims 6-12 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan (US Patent Application Pub No. 2016/0029848 A1) in view of Manara et al. (US Patent No. 11,060,333 B2):
Regarding Claim 6 and 19: Tuan does not teach that stop mechanism is configured to limit the maximum opening angle to less than 90 degrees.
However, Manara et al. does disclose that the stop mechanism is configured to limit the maximum opening angle to less than 90 degrees. (Col 10 Lines 57-58 Figure 2 Elements 22 and 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Tuan to include such limitations, as suggested and taught by Manara, for the purpose of providing a more adaptable experience to the end user and minimizing the potential for harm due to spilling hot liquid from the appliance while in use.
Regarding Claims 7 and 20: Tuan does not teach that the stop mechanism is configured to limit the maximum opening angle to an angle in a range of about 50 degrees to about 60 degrees.
However, Manara et al. does disclose that the stop mechanism is configured to limit the maximum opening angle to an angle in a range of about 50 degrees to about 60 (Col 24 Lines 24-29 Figure 2 Elements 22 and 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Tuan to include such limitations, as suggested and taught by Manara, for the purpose of providing a more adaptable experience to the end user and minimizing the potential for harm due to spilling hot liquid from the appliance while in use.
Regarding Claims 8 and 21: Tuan further teaches that the stop mechanism includes a stop block configured to engage the body of the appliance and the lid when the lid is opened to the maximum opening angle ([0038] Element 31 and 32). All limitations presented in Claim 8 and 21 are taught by Tuan.
Regarding Claims 9 and 22: Tuan further teaches the appliance of claim 8, wherein the stop block is coupled to the lid ([0038] Element 30-33). All limitations presented in Claims 9 and 10 are taught by Tuan.
Regarding Claims 10 and 23: Tuan further teaches the appliance of claim 8, wherein the stop block is coupled to the body of the appliance ([0038] Elements 30-33). All limitations presented in Claims 10 and 23 are taught by Tuan.
Regarding Claims 11 and 24: Tuan further teaches that the body of the appliance includes a handle ([0007] Figure 1 Element 21), and the stop block is coupled to the handle (Figure 1 Elements 21 and 32 [0038]). All limitations presented in Claims 11-24 are taught by Tuan.
Regarding Claims 12 and 25: Tuan does not teach that the stop mechanism includes biasing element configured to urge the lid toward the fully open position when the lid is moved toward the closed position past a predetermined bias point.
However, Manara does teach that the stop mechanism includes biasing element configured to urge the lid toward the fully open position when the lid is moved toward the closed position past a predetermined bias point (Col. 1 Lines 50-55 Figure 2 Elements 22 and 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Tuan to include such limitations, as suggested and taught by Manara, for the purpose of providing increased ease of use to the end user by providing a means by which the container of the appliance stays open while being filled.
Claims 13-14 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuan (US Patent Application Pub No. 2016/0029848 A1) as above modified by Manara et al. (US Patent No. 11,060,333 B2) in further view of Poerner (EP 1548367 A2).
Regarding Claims 13 and 26: Tuan as modified by Manara does not teach that the biasing element includes a spring.
However, Poerner et al. does disclose a biasing element of a stop mechanism that includes a spring (a torque device including a spring [025] Lines 1-8).
Regarding Claims 14 and 27: Poerner et al. further teaches that the Spring of Claim 13 is a “torsion spring” (a torque device including a spring [025] Lines 1-8). All limitations of Claim 14 are disclosed in Poerner.
Given that the limitations of Claims 13-14 and 26-27 are disclosed in the prior art, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the device in Tuan as modified by Manara et al. to include a Spring (Claims 13 and 26) and further a torsion Spring (Claims 14 and 27), as suggested and taught by Poerner, for the purpose of providing additional support for the lid and improving the means by which the container of the appliance stays open while being filled.
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 SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761