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 Amendments
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment, filed on 7 July 2025 is acknowledged and entered.
By this Amendment, the Applicant amended claims 1-15, and added claims 16-18. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: In light of the amended claims, the objection to Claim 13 is withdrawn. the amendments raise new ground(s) of objections as explained below.
Claim Rejections, 35 USC 112(a): In light of the amended Claims 1, 2-3, 6, and 11, the rejections of Claims 2-3, 6, and 11 are withdrawn. However, the amendments raise new ground(s) of rejections as explained below.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s amendment raises new grounds of rejections. Please see the section below titled “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112”.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant continues to contain the limitation “at least one retention portion with a width at least approximately similar to the width of at least one of the upstream portion and the downstream portion of the flow regulation means”, which was cited in the previous Office Action as having an indefinite scope.
Regarding Claim 4, Applicant continues to claim “flow regulation means” with “a resistance to elastic formation”, which was cited in the previous Office Action as lacking support in the written description.
Claim Rejections, 35 USC 112(b): In light of the amended claims, the rejections of Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-9, and 14 are withdrawn. However, the amendments raise new ground(s) of rejections as explained below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 7 July 2025, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 -15 under USC § 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered in light of the amendments made to the claims, and are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues (pg 11) that the previously cited art (Windmiller, US 2014/0373973) fails to disclose the amended Claim 1, with specific regards to the limitations:
- “flow regulation means configured to only provide flow passage in case of being impinged with an upstream flow pressure bigger than a previously defined value of flow pressure”, and
- “the flow regulation means is a single piece configured to provide liquid sealing of the base wall”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that the cited section (para 197) of the Windmiller reference teaches valve diaphragm 1248, formed from an elastomeric material. This component is, by definition of a “valve diaphragm”, configured to only provide flow passage in case of being impinged with an upstream flow pressure bigger than a previously defined value of flow pressure.
Given Applicant’s broad and functionally described claim limitation, this component of Windmiller is a “flow regulation means” (e.g. a “valve diaphragm”) that is a single piece, and is also configured to “provide liquid sealing of the base wall” 1248. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive, and the rejection stands.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application additionally includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
- Drinking recipient, fluid collection volume, upstream portion, downstream portion, flow passage section, exterior section, introduced at Claim 1,
- Retention portion, seating portion, transversal section, introduced at Claim 2,
- Slot- like section, introduced at Claim 4,
- Beverage discharge disposition, introduced at Claim 13
- Individual portion, beverage discharge disposition, introduced at Claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 contains a typographical error (duplicates of the word “of”) in the last clause of the claim: “….a wall thickness of the flow regulation wall is smaller than at least one of a wall thickness of of the said upstream portion and the said downstream portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Specification identifies a “retention portion” as item 111, and a “seating portion” as item 112 at several locations throughout the Specification. However, at page 15, para 2, the “seating portion” is identified as item 111. For the purposes of examination, the “seating portion” of the written description is interpreted to correspond to item 112 in the Drawings. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the amended claim contains the following limitations:
“the flow regulation means is a single piece…”
“…the flow regulation means comprising an upstream portion and a downstream portion and extends at least partially inside of the base opening, the flow regulation means present:
- only an exterior surface of the upstream portion configured to be removably retained on the base opening, or
- the exterior surface of the upstream portion and an exterior surface of the downstream portion both configured to be removably retained on the base opening”.
The concept of “flow regulation means wherein only an exterior surface of the upstream portion (is) configured to be removably retained on the base opening” is not described in the Specification, nor readily apparent in the Figures.
Additionally, this amended limitation appears to contradict the Claim 1 requirement that “the flow regulation means is a single piece”. Examiner further notes that the “single piece” nature of the flow regulation means was the central part of Applicant’s argument to differentiate the claimed invention over the prior art.
Applicant’s Specification instead teaches removing the entire “flow regulation means from the base opening, for example for the purpose of replacing them” (see at least pg 6, para 7 and pg 15, para 3 of the Specification).
The amendment to Claim 1 therefore renders the claim indefinite, as the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding Claim 2, Although amended, the claim continues to contain the limitation “at least one retention portion with a width at least approximately similar to the width of at least one of the upstream portion and the downstream portion of the flow regulation means”. As cited in the previous Office Action (pg 12), the phrase “at least approximately similar” is indefinite, as it is unclear what Applicant considers to be “approximately similar”. As written, the limitation could be reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as “at least one retention portion with a width larger than the width of at least one of the upstream portion and the downstream portion of the flow regulation means”. It is unclear if Applicant intends to limit the maximum size of the retention portion; therefore, the scope of the claim remains unclear. The rejection of Claim 2 under 35 USC 112(b) stands.
Regarding Claim 4. Although amended, the claim continues to contain the limitation “...the flow regulation means has a resistance to elastic deformation, at least in the region of the at least one flow passageway”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, Applicant’s disclosure does not teach this limitation, and appears to teach the direct opposite of the claimed limitation:
(Page 3, last paragraph): “In particular, this objective is solved according to the present invention by means of drinking recipients that present flow regulation means provided as a single piece, preferentially in a synthetic material with elastic behaviour”.
(Page 4, first paragraph): “...flow regulation means adapted so that can confine a space of tubular section upstream of flow regulation wall that presents at least one slot-like opening for flow passage adapted so that can be opened in at least partially elastic manner, preferentially in elastic manner...”
(Page 16, third paragraph): “In fact, it has been established that in this case better elastic opening and closing behaviour of the flow passageway (134) can be attained...”
The scope of the claim remains unclear and deemed indefinite.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim contains the limitation “the liquid sealing of the base wall prevents radial flow”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, this feature is not mentioned in either the Specification (Examiner further notes that the word “radial” does not appear in the Specification), nor indicated in the Drawings.
Regarding Claims 2-18, these claims depend upon Claim 1, and therefore suffer the same deficiencies in addition to the issues as noted above for Claims 2, 4, and 18.
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 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 1-2, 4-7, and 10-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Windmiller (US 2014/0373973).
Regarding Claim 1, Windmiller discloses a drinking recipient, characterized in that presenting
- a base wall (Fig 47 and para 195, “bottom cover” 1242) and a sidewall (Fig 47, Examiner’s annotations) extending from the base wall thereby confining a fluid collection volume of the drinking recipient (para 178, “Cavity” 1012 of “body portion” 1010 of “body assembly” 1000), and collecting a beverage discharged through the base wall in a prevailing flow direction opposite the direction of the gravity force (via "one-way valve assembly 1244, which, per para 196 is "operatively connected to bottom cover 1242 and disposed over central opening 1242b", and "enables passage of fluid into cavity 1012 of body portion 1010”),
- wherein the base wall has a base opening extending along the prevailing flow direction (Fig 47, Examiner's annotations) and comprises flow regulation means (para 197, "valve diaphragm" 1248), configured to only provide flow passage in case of being impinged with an upstream flow pressure bigger than a previously defined value of flow pressure (Per para 194, “Bottom lid assembly 1200 is substantially similar to base assembly 540”, and the operation of base assembly 540 and similar cavity 502a is disclosed by Windmiller at para 153. Per Windmiller;
"A pressure of the fluid "F" to be delivered to cavity 502a of body portion, which is greater than a predetermined pressure (e.g. greater than about 10 psi or 68.95 pascal), causes membrane 548b to separate from annular wall 546b of valve insert 546 and permits fluid to flow between membrane 548b and annular wall 546b, through apertures 548c, and out through apertures 550b of valve cap 550 into cavity 502a of body portion 502").
- the flow regulation means is a single piece (para 197: "Valve diaphragm 1248 is formed from an elastomeric material") configured to provide liquid sealing of the base wall (via membrane 1248b; item 1248 is “configured to” provide liquid sealing of the central opening 1242b within base wall 1242 as shown at paras 196-198 and at least at Fig 47),
- the flow regulation means comprising an upstream portion (para 197, “annular wall” 1248a) and a downstream portion (“membrane” 1248b) and extends at least partially inside of the base opening, (Fig 47 shows item 1248 as fitting inside the central opening 1242b defined by "annular rim" 1242c, see Examiner's annotations and para 197),
- the flow regulation means present:
- only an upstream portion with an exterior section adapted so that can be removably retained on the base opening, or
- the exterior surface of the upstream portion and an exterior surface of the downstream portion both configured to be removably retained on the base opening (item 1248 is shown in Fig 47 as being removable from bottom cover 1242. Therefore, all components of item 1248, to include the exterior surfaces of 1248a and 1248b) is considered as being “configured to be removably retained on the base opening”), and
- wherein at least one of the upstream portion (para 197, “annular wall” 1248a) and the downstream portion (“membrane” 1248b) has a tubular shape (item 1248 and wall 1248a both have a tubular shape as shown in Fig 47) confining a flow passage section upstream of a flow regulation wall (defined by valve insert 1246, see para 196) comprising at least one flow passageway (apertures 1248c of membrane 1248b) extending transversally relative to the prevailing flow direction (see at least Fig 47 and para 197; apertures 1248c are “disposed radially outward of inner annular wall 1246b of valve insert 1246”),
- the at least one flow passageway being configured to be elastically enlarged from a closed position to an open position, in case of being impinged with the upstream flow pressure bigger than the previously defined value of flow pressure (paras 153 and 194-197, wherein valve diaphragm is specifically identified as being made of elastomeric material. Therefore, the flow passageway (apertures 1248c) would be “elastically enlarged” in a manner known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, at para 153:
“Once the pressure of the fluid is reduced below a predetermined level, membrane 548b re-engages or returns into contact with annular wall 546b of valve insert 546 to once again create the fluid tight seal therebetween and prevent leakage of fluid from cavity 502a of body portion 502 back through one-way valve assembly 540”.
A similar operation based on pressure is also disclosed at para 199).
PNG
media_image1.png
808
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Windmiller discloses a drinking recipient, wherein:
- the base opening (Fig 47, Examiner’s annotations) comprises at least one retention portion (Fig 47, para 194, and Examiner’s annotations, see arrow pointing to the circular wall surrounding central opening 1242b) with a width at least approximately similar (broadly interpreted by Examiner) to the width of at least one of the upstream portion (1248a) and the downstream portion (1248b) of the flow regulation means (1248), and
- the base opening comprises at least one seating portion (1242c) having at least one surface extending in a rim-like manner (per para 196, item 1242c is an "annular rim") in a transversal direction relative to the prevailing flow direction (see Fig. 17, Examiner's annotations),
- said at least one seating portion reducing a diameter of said base opening ("annular wall 1246b, a part of "valve insert" 1246" is shown in Fig. 47 to abut "annular rim" 1242c. This configuration provides a reduction in the central opening, as annotated by Examiner. See also paras 196-197).
Regarding Claim 4, Windmiller discloses a drinking recipient, wherein
- the at least one flow passageway (1248c) is slot-like, with at least one of: a linear shape and a curved shape (apertures 1248c are broadly interpreted by Examiner to be “curved”),
- the flow regulation means (1248) has a resistance to elastic deformation (please see the rejection of this limitation under 35 USC 112(a) above; Examiner reserves comment on the “resistance to elastic deformation”, pending Applicant’s amendment or further explanation), at least in the region of the at least one flow passageway, such that the at least one flow passageway only opens in case of being impinged with the flow pressure bigger than the previously defined value of flow pressure (as explained in the rejection of Claims 1 and 2 above, flow regulation means 1248 operates under pressure differential. Please also see paras 153 and 199).
Regarding Claim 5, Windmiller discloses a drinking recipient, wherein the upstream portion (1248b) extends completely inside of the base wall (1248b is completely inside the circumference of base wall 1242, as shown in Fig 47) with at least most of the upstream portion extending along the prevailing flow direction inside of said at least one retention portion (also shown in Fig 47).
Regarding Claim 6, Windmiller discloses a drinking recipient, wherein the downstream portion (1248a) extends completely inside of the base wall (1248a is completely inside the circumference of base wall 1242, as shown in Fig 47) with at least a majority extending inside of said at least one retention portion along the prevailing flow direction (also shown in Fig 47).
Regarding Claim 7, Windmiller discloses a drinking recipient, wherein the upstream portion (1248b) has an exterior dimension in a direction transverse to the prevailing flow direction different from an exterior dimension of the downstream portion (1248a, this limitation shown at Fig 47).
Regarding Claim 10, Windmiller discloses a drinking recipient, wherein an exterior contour of at least one of said upstream portion and said downstream portion (1248 includes upstream and downstream portions 1248a and 1248b) is similar to the interior contour of a respective retention portion of the at least one retention portion (Fig 47, para 194, and Examiner’s annotations, see arrow pointing to the circular wall surrounding central opening 1242b), and the flow regulation means (1248) is pressured-fitted to the respective retention portion by at least one of said downstream portion or said upstream portion (see para 153 and Examiner’s rationale presented in the 35 USC 102 rejection of Claim 1 above, wherein the components of 1248 operate in accordance with pressure from Fluid F).
Regarding Claim 11, the claim contains the phrase/limitation “the flow regulation means is arranged on the at least one seating portion with a slot-like perimeter space associated with one of said upstream portion and said downstream portion, and not the other one of said upstream portion and said downstream portion.”
Examiner applies broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 11, and interprets this phrase/limitation as “an upstream or downstream portion of the flow regulation means, said portion having a diameter smaller than the seating portion”, which would result “a slot-like perimeter space”. Examiner further notes that Applicant’s disclosure only mentions a “a slot-like perimeter space” at Specification, pg 15, second paragraph, and offers no guidance concerning relative dimensions or novel or unexpected results of such a feature, or any distinguishable feature of this feature over the prior art at large. The following (3rd) paragraph of Applicant’s Specification may provide a reason for the “slot-like perimeter space”, that is to remove the flow regulation means. However, as written, it is unclear if this is truly Applicant’s intent for the claimed feature.
In the absence of any further guidance from Applicant’s disclosure, and in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner further broadly interprets Claim 11 as being anticipated by any “drinking recipient” with removable flow regulation means.
WIndmiller teaches a drinking recipient with removable flow regulation means 1248 (see at least Fig 47, wherein item 1248 is clearly shown as being removable from seating portion 1242c, due to 1248 having a smaller diameter than 1242c. When fitted together, there would necessarily be “a slot-like perimeter space” between the two components.
Regarding Claim 12, Windmiller discloses a drinking recipient, wherein the flow regulation means (1248) is arranged on the at least one seating portion (1242c) with at least an upstream-oriented face of said upstream portion being aligned with, or being projected in an engagement extension above of, an upstream-oriented face of said base opening of the base wall (see Fig 47).
Regarding Claim 13, Windmiller teaches a drinking recipient according to claim 1 (see the rejection of Claim 1 above), wherein the drinking recipient is configured to be operatively placed on a beverage discharge disposition functionally connected to a beverage preparation apparatus (charging system 1000) and retained, via a base region, to the beverage discharge disposition by means of mechanical engagement (see at least Fig 10 and para 131. Examiner notes that all embodiments of the Windmiller reference, to include the components relied upon in the rejection of Claim 1 above, are “configured” for use with the charging system of Fig 10 and para 131), and the drinking recipient further comprises flow constraining means (Fig 47 and para 198, valve cap 1250) associated with the base opening, to control the beverage flow to enter the drinking recipient along a non-vertical direction or a direction different from the prevailing flow direction.
Examiner notes for the record that the present Claim 13 has been amended from an independent Claim to now depend upon Claim 1, and requires the “flow regulation means” of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, Examiner reserves final comment of patentability for this claim pending resolution of the above rejection under 35 USC 112(a) under new matter. However, Examiner further notes that valve diaphragm 1248 of the Windmiller reference (see the rejection of Claim 1 above) provides a “fluid tight seal” per at least para 197. Such a seal a) provides liquid sealing of the base wall 1242, and b) would “prevent radial flow”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 18.
Additionally, Fig 47 of Windmiller shows flow regulation means 1248 as “contacting” base wall 1242 when assembled, as also claimed by Applicant at Claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windmiller.
Regarding Claim 8, Windmiller discloses a drinking recipient, wherein the upstream portion (see at least Windmiller, Fig. 47, item 1248a) comprises a transversal section of flow passage that is similar to the transversal section of the flow passage of the downstream portion (1248b). Fig 47 shows the diameter of the flow passage as being equal on both sides of flow regulation means 1248; therefore the “transversal sections” (broadly interpreted by Examiner as “diameter” of components 1248a and b are “similar”.
The Windmiller reference additionally teaches the upstream portion (1248a) ha(ving) an upstream-oriented surface that extends in a rim-like transversal extension, that provides a perimeter surface configured for liquid sealing of said flow passage (Fig. 47, Examiner’s annotations).
PNG
media_image2.png
860
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 8, as shown above, the Windmiller reference teaches "an upstream portion ha(ving) an upstream-oriented surface that extends in a rim-like transversal extension, but does not explicitly state said extension as extending “beyond the flow passage section”, as claimed by Applicant.
However, Examiner notes that phrases “beyond the flow passage section”, or even simply “flow passage section” do not appear in Applicant’s Specification. Applicant appears to only partially define, as best understood by Examiner, a “flow passage section” at para 83, wherein “at least one of said upstream and downstream portions (131, 132) confines an interior flow section of tubular shape upstream of a flow regulation wall (133) that presents a flow passageway (134) extending in a generally transversal manner relative to the prevailing flow direction”.
In light of the above, Examiner, interprets the terms “flow passage section” as being the space upstream of flow passageway 134 (wherein item 134 is a slit, slot, or other aperture common to a duckbill valve), that is within the perimeter defined by the upstream portion of the flow regulation means.
Windmiller, therefore, teaches at least an upstream portion (1248a), with “an upstream-oriented surface that extends in a rim-like transversal extension” (Fig. 47) further confining an interior flow section of tubular shape upstream of a flow regulation wall (valve insert 1246) that presents a flow passageway (the interior of the 1248a) extending in a generally transversal manner relative to the prevailing flow direction, and therefore at partially reads upon Applicant’s claim.
The “upstream-oriented surface that extends in a rim-like transversal extension” of the Windmiller reference can additionally teach Applicant’s claimed phrase of extending “beyond the flow passage section”. Although the Windmiller reference does not explicitly address relative dimensions of flow regulation means 1248, upstream portion 1248a, downstream portion 1248b, and flow passage section 1246, Fig 47 appears to show, or at least strongly implies, that the horizontal dimensions of 1248 are indeed longer than the vertical dimensions of 1246. Given the broadness of Applicant’s Claim 8, vagueness of Applicant’s Specification, and the general teachings of Windmiller above, Examiner concludes that even if Windmiller did not explicitly teach the relative dimensions (e.g., “an upstream-oriented surface that extends in a rim-like transversal extension beyond the flow passage section”) of Claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try, as a matter of routine optimization, to configure the relative dimensions of the flow regulation and flow passage components, and achieve the desired fluid flow rate and/or minimize leakage. Please see MPEP 2144.5.
Claims 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windmiller, in view of Nabeiro (US 2019/0282023).
Regarding Claims 9 and 14-15, the applied reference (Nabiero) has a common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The following rejections of Claims 9 and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 9, Windmiller teaches the claimed invention, to include flow regulation means, but does not discuss dimensions of this component, and is therefore silent on the specific dimensions as required at Applicant’s Claim 9.
Nabeiro, however, teaches the specific dimensions of Applicant’s Claim 9 (see at least Figs. 5-6 and para 52), and therefore teaches a drinking recipient (4), wherein the flow regulation means (“flux regulation disposition” 42) has at least one of:
- a maximum length along the prevailing flow direction of 8 mm;
- a maximum width along the direction transversal to the prevailing flow direction of 12 mm (the Nabiero reference teaches a “a characteristic cross dimension, for example a diameter, smaller than 0.5 mm, preferentially smaller than 0.2 mm”);
- a flow width of the flow passage section upstream of the flow regulation wall smaller than 10 mm; or
- a width dimension of the at least one flow passageway on the flow regulation wall smaller than 7 mm.
PNG
media_image3.png
814
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
WIndmiller and Nabiero each teach flow regulation means in a bottle-type beverage container. The Nabiero reference additionally teaches specific guidance through component dimensioning, providing a simple, economic solution for the consistent placement of drinking recipients.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the claimed invention to ensure that the maximum width along the direction transversal to the prevailing flow direction of flow regulation means 1286 of the Windmiller reference was indeed smaller than 12 mm, as taught by Nabiero, in order to gain the advantages of a simple, economic solution for the consistent placement of drinking recipients.
Regarding Claim 14, the Windmiller reference teaches a system for distribution of edible products (e.g., a “beverage”, as taught throughout the reference), comprising:
- the drinking recipient according to claim 1 (see the rejection of Claim 1 above);
- an individual portion of an edible substance (the amount of beverage that would fit inside the disclosed “bottle assembly, as taught throughout the reference”; and
-a beverage preparation apparatus (charging system 1000, see at least Fig 10 and para 131. Examiner notes that all embodiments of the Windmiller reference, to include the components relied upon in the rejection of Claim 1 above, are “configured” for use with the charging system of Fig 10 and para 131).
Further regarding Claim 14, the Windmiller reference teaches many of the additional limitations of Applicant’s Claim 14. However, given the extremely functionally-described nature of Applicant’s claim, and in the interests of clarity and compact prosecution, Examiner further relies on the aforementioned Nabiero reference.
Nabiero teaches (see at least Abstract and Claims 1 and 14):
A system for distribution of edible products (Abstract: “A system (1) for preparing beverages”, and Claim 1) comprising:
-the drinking recipient according to claim 1 (the Nabiero reference teaches beverage recipient 4);
-an individual portion (7) of an edible substance; and
-a beverage preparation apparatus (5) comprising:
- a beverage discharge disposition (3) configured to provide support for operative placement of the drinking recipient, and comprising discharge means configured to discharge a beverage discharge (BD) along the prevailing flow direction opposite to the direction of the gravity force into the drinking recipient (Fig 6, “discharge element 31”, and paras 41-42, Fig 6, beverage discharge (BD), which points upward, and Claim 14: “conduction of said beverage discharge flow (BD) to a beverage discharge disposition (3) comprising a discharge element (31) provided so that the beverage discharge flow (BD) flows along a direction that is generally opposite the gravity force direction”).
- a beverage preparation device configured to be actuated between a first and second position, and vice-versa, to collect and eject the individual portion (admitted by Applicant as being known to the prior art. See Applicant’s Specification, pg. 1, second paragraph. See also Nabeiro para 46, wherein items 8 and 3 are “mobile”, and “can be moved outside and inside, between a respective open and closed position, and vice-versa, relative to said exterior surface of the apparatus casing”), wherein
- the drinking recipient (4) is configured to be placed in operative position of beverage discharge and retained on the beverage discharge disposition (3, shown at Fig 6),
- the drinking recipient (4) and beverage discharge (3) are configured for, based on the drinking recipient being in the operative position, direct contact between the flow regulation means of the drinking recipient (Fig 6 and para 50, flux regulation disposition 42) and the discharge means (31) through which the flow regulation means is compressed by the discharge means along the prevailing flow direction (as indicated by the arrow in Fig 6), and
- the upstream portion of the flow regulation means (the “upstream portion” of one-way valve 42, described at paras 53-58) provides the only liquid sealing means since item 42 is a “one way valve”, it is the inherent “sealing means”) of a fluid connection between the drinking recipient (4) and beverage discharge disposition (3).
WIndmiller and Nabiero each teach each teach flow regulation means in a bottle type beverage container. Although the Windmiller reference provides generic guidance concerning the base charging system, the Nabiero reference advantageously teaches specific guidance for said charging system, providing a simple, economic solution for the consistent placement of drinking recipients.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the claimed invention to add the specifics of the Nabiero reference (namely with regards to the base charging system) to the drinking recipient system of Windmiller, in order to gain the advantages of a simple, economic solution for the consistent placement and charging of drinking recipients.
Regarding Claim 15, the Windmiller reference teaches a process for operating a drinking recipient, comprising:
- providing the drinking recipient according to claim 1 (see the rejection of Claim 1 above);
- providing a beverage preparation apparatus comprising beverage discharge means (charging system 1000, see at least Fig 10 and para 131. Examiner notes that all embodiments of the Windmiller reference, to include the components relied upon in the rejection of Claim 1 above, are “configured” for use with the charging system of Fig 10 and para 131).;
Further regarding Claim 15, the Windmiller reference teaches many of the additional limitations of Applicant’s Claim 15. However, given the extremely functionally-described nature of Applicant’s claim, and in the interests of clarity and compact prosecution, Examiner further relies on the aforementioned Nabiero reference.
Nabiero teaches:
- A process for operating a drinking recipient (4), comprising:
- providing the drinking recipient (4) according to claim 1;
- providing a beverage preparation apparatus (5) comprising beverage discharge means (Fig 6, “discharge element 31”, and para 42); and
- placing the drinking recipient (4) on the beverage discharge disposition of the beverage preparation apparatus (3) and moving the drinking recipient to an operative position where the beverage discharge disposition retains the drinking recipient (3, see Abstract and at least para 16, wherein a drinking recipient is at least manually placed on (e.g. “retained” on the beverage discharge position);
wherein the beverage discharge means (31) elastically compresses the upstream portion of the flow regulation means (the “upstream portion” of one-way valve 42, described at paras 53-58) provided on a base region (41) of said drinking recipient (4), when drinking recipient is moved to said operative position and the upstream portion of the flow regulation means provides the liquid sealing between the drinking recipient and the beverage discharge disposition (since item 42 is a “one way valve”, it inherently provides “liquid sealing”).
WIndmiller and Nabiero each teach each teach flow regulation means in a bottle type beverage container. Although the Windmiller reference provides generic guidance concerning the base charging system, the Nabiero reference advantageously teaches specific guidance for said charging system, providing a simple, economic solution for the consistent placement of drinking recipients.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the claimed invention to add the specifics of the Nabiero reference (namely with regards to the base charging system) to the drinking recipient system of Windmiller, in order to gain the advantages of a simple, economic solution for the consistent placement and charging of drinking recipients.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windmiller, in view of Hantsoo et al. (US 2008/0223478).
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, the Windmiller reference teaches the claimed invention, to include upstream portion 1248a, downstream portion 1248b, retention portion (Fig 47, para 194, and Examiner’s annotations, see arrow pointing to the circular wall surrounding central opening 1242b), and a base wall 1242. However, the Windmiller reference does not discuss relative dimensions of these components, and it is unclear from the Figures of Windmiller if:
- the upstream portion extends at least partially outside of the base wall, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 16, or
- the downstream portion extends at least partially outside of the at least one retention portion, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 17.
Examiner, however, makes the following observations:
- Applicant’s disclosure merely mentions the limitations of Claims 16 and 17 once at pg 12, third paragraph of the Specification, and provides no indication of novel or unexpected results from dimensioning these individual components as described in Claims 16 and 17, or any particular reason for ensuring the “at least partial” extensions of the upstream and downstream portions. In the absence of such guidance, Examiner concludes that the limitations of Claims 16 and 17 are a matter of design choice.
- As shown above in the rejection of Claim 1, the device of Windmiller performs the same function (e.g., providing a seal against gravitational flow) as the device of Applicant, even if the upstream and downstream portions 1248a and b do not “partially extend”, as claimed at Applicant’s Claims 16 and 17.
Examiner further asserts that it is known in the art to extend the upstream and downstream portions of flow regulation means, if so desired. Hantsoo et al. provides such an example, and teaches (see Fig 1 and at least para 94) flow regulation means (umbrella check valve) 19 with upstream and downstream portions (Examiner’s annotations), retention portion 18, and base wall 11. Examiner further notes that the apparatus of the Hantsoo reference provides the same function (e.g., providing a seal against gravitational flow) as the devices of both Applicant and the Windmiller reference. The Hantsoo reference therefore teaches the following:
Further regarding Claim 16: a drinking recipient (container 11, see at least Abstract) wherein the upstream portion (Examiner’s annotations) extends at least partially outside of the base wall (shown at Fig 1).
Further regarding Claim 17: a drinking recipient (11) wherein the downstream portion (Examiner’s annotations) extends at least partially outside of the at least one retention portion (perforated stopper 18, see at least Abstract).
PNG
media_image4.png
722
586
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Windmiller and Hantsoo references each teach flow regulation means in a bottle-type beverage container. The Hantsoo reference additionally teaches a method of further ensuring fluid flow into the container, and provides further prevention of leakage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the flow regulation means 1248 of Windmiller with the flow regulation means 19 of Hantsoo et al., if desired, and therefore at least partially extending the upstream and downstream portions since a) doing so would be a matter of obvious design choice, and b) one could gain the advantage of further prevention of leakage.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windmiller, in view of Uitbeijerse et al. (US 2016/0305558).
Regarding Claim 3, Windmiller discloses a drinking recipient, wherein the flow regulation means (1248) is configured such that at least one of:
- said upstream portion comprises the flow regulation wall arranged at least in a proximity of a downstream edge of the upstream portion, or
- said downstream portion (1248a) comprises the flow regulation wall (1246) arranged at least in the proximity of a downstream edge of the downstream portion (1248a is defined as an “annular wall”).
Further regarding Claim 3, Windmiller does not teach the relative dimensions of the flow regulation means components, and is therefore silent on “a wall thickness of the flow regulation wall (being) smaller than at least one of a wall thickness of
Uitbeijerse et al., however, teaches “a wall thickness of the flow regulation wall (being) smaller than at least one of a wall thickness of thickness of the flow regulation wall (designated as a “closing part” for each embodiment) as being between 0 and 0.05mm.
Although the Uitbeijerse reference does not provide specific or relative dimensions of the “upstream portion” of the overall flow regulation (e.g. “valve”) assembly, it is clear in each of the aforementioned Figures that the valve assembly and associated flow path are in the shape of an isosceles trapezoid (Examiner further notes the Uitbeijerse uses the specific term “isosceles trapezoid” to describe the flow components in several sections of the reference, to include para 80 with regards to Figs. 9-10). The Figures of the Uitbeijerse reference at least strongly suggest that the thickness of the upstream portion (see Examiner’s annotations below) is greater than the specified “0 and 0.05mm” of the “closing part” in each disclosed embodiment.
PNG
media_image5.png
796
700
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner therefore broadly interprets the sum teachings of the Uitbeijerse reference as reading upon Applicant’s claim, and teaches ““a wall thickness of the flow regulation wall (see at least “closing part” 630, 730) is smaller than at least one of a wall thickness of
The Windmiller and Uitbeijerse references each teach flow regulation means in a bottle type beverage container. The Uitbeijerse reference additionally teaches component dimensioning with very small flow regulation wall thickness to maximize fluid flow efficiency and eliminate manufacturing steps, by rendering additional slitting or cutting steps unnecessary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the claimed invention to ensure that the wall thickness o