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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2010/079225 to Baratte (“Baratte”) in view of U.S. PGPUB 2016/0332123 A1 to Trulaske et al. (“Trulaske”).
As to claim 1, Baratte discloses a sparkling beverage container (tasting glass 1) into which a sparkling beverage is poured for consumption comprising a barrier wall (parison 2) made of at least one structural material, the barrier wall defining an internal surface having a bottom portion between a bottom (Fig. 3 shows the ribs extend from the bottom of the glass 1) of the barrier wall and a region of maximum diameter (Fig. 4 shows the largest diameter at line 6) and an edge portion (upper rim 5) located above the bottom portion (Fig. 3 shows the upper rim 5 is above the bottom of the glass), the barrier wall comprising, in the bottom portion, a pattern (ribs 7) occupying an area of the bottom portion and having an open cross shape (Fig. 3 shows the ribs 7 occupy an area of the bottom of the glass in an open cross shape); but does not teach a pattern occupying an area of between 0.01 and 5% of the area of the bottom portion; the barrier wall comprising, in the bottom portion, a plurality of open perforations (6) forming a pattern and whereby prolonged bubbling of at least ten minutes is produced when a fresh sparkling beverage is poured into the sparkling beverage container.
Baratte discloses the claimed invention except for a pattern occupying an area of between 0.01 and 5% of the area of the bottom portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the pattern occupy an area between 0.01 and 5% of the area of the bottom portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Trulaske teaches the barrier wall (sidewall 26) comprising a plurality of open (Trulaske, pg. 1-2, ¶ 0009 and pg. 6, ¶ 0061) perforations (plurality of nucleation sites 44) forming a pattern and whereby prolonged bubbling of at least ten minutes is produced when a fresh sparkling beverage is poured into the sparkling beverage container (Trulaske, pg. 9-10, ¶ 0091). Trulaske teaches when a carbonated beverage is poured into a container, due to partial pressure conditions present some portion of carbon dioxide will begin to nucleate to form gas bubbles within the beverage. This will be facilitated by and occur at nucleation sites 44. The bubbling would occur regardless of the amount of area of nucleation sites. It would have been obvious to put the nucleation over an area of the bottom to create the desired amount of bubbles in the beverage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the perforations and the prolonged bubbling of Trulaske with the pattern as taught by Baratte to provide longevity of the bubbles exceeding ten minutes (Trulaske, pg. 9-10, ¶ 0091).
As to claim 2, Baratte modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, wherein the cross has straight-line segment branches (Baratte Fig. 3 shows the ribs 7 are straight-line segments).
As to claim 3, Baratte modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, wherein the cross has a number of branches comprised between 3 and 10, said branches are contiguous or not contiguous (Baratte Fig. 3 shows three ribs 7 that are not contiguous).
As to claim 4, Baratte modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, wherein the cross has at least one discontinuity (Baratte Fig. 3 shows at least one discontinuity at the dome 8).
As to claim 5, Baratte modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, wherein the pattern has a plurality of point areas (Baratte Fig. 3 shows that there are a plurality of points along the ribs 7) having said perforations (Trulaske, pg. 6, ¶ 0061, plurality of nucleation sites 44).
As to claim 6, Baratte modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, wherein the barrier wall forms a gob having a diameter at a mouth defined by the edge portion smaller than a diameter at mid-height (Baratte Fig. 2 shows the diameter at the mouth smaller than a diameter at mid-height) and a height greater than a diameter at mid-height (Baratte Fig. 2 shows a height greater than a diameter at mid-height).
As to claim 7, Baratte modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, wherein said cross has at least two branches extending, in developed length, over more than 90% of the maximum radius of the bottom portion (Baratte Fig. 3 shows the three ribs extending over more than 90% of the maximum radius of the bottom portion), said two branches being opposite if the number of branches is even and disposed at least 120° from each other if the number of branches is odd (Baratte, pg. 4, lines 24-25).
As to claim 8, Baratte modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim1, wherein the cross is centered on an axis of symmetry of the container (Baratte Fig. 3 shows the ribs 7 are centered on an axis of symmetry of the container).
As to claim 9, Baratte modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, wherein the cross has branches with a width comprised between 0.1 and 5 mm (Baratte, pg. 4, line 40-pg. 5, line 1).
As to claim 10, Baratte modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, wherein the cross has branches of equal lengths (Baratte Fig. 2 shows the ribs 7 have equal lengths), equal widths (Baratte, pg. 4, line 40-pg. 5, line 1), and a discontinuity in the center (Baratte Fig. 3 shows the discontinuity at the dome 8).
As to claim 11, Baratte modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1 wherein the barrier wall is made of transparent glass (Baratte, pg. 4, line 26).
As to claim 12, Baratte modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1 in the form of a stemmed glass (Baratte Fig. 2 shows a stemmed glass).
As to claim 13, Baratte modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1 in the form of a flute-shaped champagne glass (Baratte, pg. 3, line 22).
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent No. DE 4015188 A1 to Jinro Co., LTD (“Jinro”) in view of Trulaske.
As to claim 1, Jinro discloses a sparkling beverage container (container 1) into which a sparkling beverage is poured for consumption comprising a barrier wall (Jinro Fig. 3 shows the inner wall of the container 1) made of at least one structural material (Jinro, pg. 3, lines 17-19), the barrier wall defining an internal surface having a bottom portion between a bottom (bottom 2) of the barrier wall and a region of maximum diameter (Jinro Fig. 4 shows the largest diameter at line 6) and an edge portion (upper rim 5) located above the bottom portion (Jinro Fig. 3 shows the upper rim 5 is above the bottom of the glass), the barrier wall comprising, in the bottom portion, a plurality of open perforations (integral pores 3) forming a pattern (Jinro Fig. 4 shows the integral pores 3 forming a pattern) occupying an area of the bottom portion and having an open cross shape (Jinro Fig. 4 shows the integral pores 3 occupy an area of the bottom of the glass in an open cross shape), but does not teach a pattern occupying an area of between 0.01 and 5% of the area of the bottom portion; and whereby prolonged bubbling of at least ten minutes is produced when a fresh sparkling beverage is poured into the sparkling beverage container.
Jinro discloses the claimed invention except for a pattern occupying an area of between 0.01 and 5% of the area of the bottom portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the pattern occupy an area between 0.01 and 5% of the area of the bottom portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Trulaske teaches whereby prolonged bubbling of at least ten minutes is produced when a fresh sparkling beverage is poured into the sparkling beverage container (Trulaske, pg. 9-10, ¶ 0091). Trulaske teaches when a carbonated beverage is poured into a container, due to partial pressure conditions present some portion of carbon dioxide will begin to nucleate to form gas bubbles within the beverage. This will be facilitated by and occur at nucleation sites 44. The bubbling would occur regardless of the amount of area of nucleation sites. It would have been obvious to put the nucleation over an area of the bottom to create the desired amount of bubbles in the beverage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the prolonged bubbling of Trulaske with the container as taught by Jinro to provide longevity of the bubbles exceeding ten minutes (Trulaske, pg. 9-10, ¶ 0091).
As to claim 2, Jinro modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, wherein the cross has straight-line segment branches (Jinro Fig. 4 shows the lines that make up the pattern of the pores 3 have straight-line segments).
As to claim 3, Jinro modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, wherein the cross has a number of branches comprised between 3 and 10, said branches are contiguous or not contiguous (Jinro Fig. 4 shows several branches that are contiguous).
As to claim 4, Jinro modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, wherein the cross has at least one discontinuity (Jinro Fig. 4 shows squares in the middle of the pattern that are a discontinuity).
As to claim 5, Jinro modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, wherein the pattern has a plurality of point areas having said perforations (Jinro, pg. 3, lines 29-31).
As to claim 6, Jinro modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the barrier wall forms a gob having a diameter at a mouth defined by the edge portion smaller than a diameter at mid-height and a height greater than a diameter at mid-height.
Jinro teaches wherein the barrier wall (side wall 2’) forms a gob (Jinro Fig. 7 shows an alternative embodiment where the glass has the shape of a wine goblet) having a diameter at a mouth defined by the edge portion smaller than a diameter at mid-height (Jinro Fig. 7 show the diameter at the mouth is smaller than a diameter at mid-height) and a height greater than a diameter at mid-height (Jinro Fig. 7 show the height is greater than a diameter at mid-height).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the shape of Jinro to make the container as taught by Jinro modified by Trulaske to have the length of time during which the bubbles rise to be comparable with that of the first embodiment (Jinro, pg. 4, lines 3-4).
As to claim 8, Jinro modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, wherein the cross is centered on an axis of symmetry of the container (Jinro Fig. 4 shows the pattern of the pores 3 is centered on the bottom 2 of the container 1).
As to claim 11, Jinro modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1 wherein the barrier wall is made of transparent glass (Jinro, pg. 3, line 18-19).
As to claim 12, Jinro modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, but does not teach in the form of a stemmed glass.
Jinro teaches in the form of a stemmed glass (Jinro Fig. 7 shows an embodiment as a stemmed glass).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the shape of Jinro to make the container as taught by Jinro modified by Trulaske to have the length of time during which the bubbles rise to be comparable with that of the first embodiment (Jinro, pg. 4, lines 3-4).
As to claim 13, Jinro modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1, but does not teach in the form of a flute-shaped champagne glass.
Jinro teaches in the form of a flute-shaped champagne glass (Jinro Fig. 7 shows an embodiment as a stemmed glass).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the shape of Jinro to make the container as taught by Jinro modified by Trulaske to have the length of time during which the bubbles rise to be comparable with that of the first embodiment (Jinro, pg. 4, lines 3-4).
As to claim 14, Jinro modified by Trulaske teaches the sparkling beverage container according to claim 1 wherein the barrier wall is made of a transparent material (Jinro, pg. 3, line 18-19) whereby movement of the fresh sparkling beverage generated by the bubbling is visible with a rotary stirring movement that is significant (Jinro, pg. 3, lines 24-28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the limitation of “prolonged bubbling of at least ten minutes is produced when a fresh sparkling beverage is poured into the sparkling beverage container” is not taught by Trulaske. However, in the specification the applicant does not define the term “prolonged bubbling”. So with the broadest reasonable plain dictionary definition of prolonged being “continuing for a notably long time” and bubbling being “to form or produce bubbles”. So Trulaske does teach that the head on the top of the beer is produced largely by the nucleating bubbles and the longevity of the head exceeded ten minutes, therefore Trulaske teaches “prolonged bubbling of at least ten minutes”.
Also the applicant argues that Baratte teaches away from including internal ribs, however Baratte does teach the surface is treated by a series of bubble hook impacts to promote the creation of bubble seeds. Therefore Baratte does teach an internal surface with something added to create bubbles.
The applicant argues that the Jinro reference was found non-applicable by the International Examiner, however, this Examiner viewed the reference differently and has therefore rejected the claim using the Jinro reference as described above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON LYNN POOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7427. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 10-3 EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 24 October 2025