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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herold (US Publication 2014/0109669) in view of Tam (US Publication 2022/0192418).
With regards to claim 1, Herold teaches a handle-less pitcher comprising:
a sidewall (14, 16, 18, 20; [0024]) extending a sidewall distance upwardly from a periphery of a bottom surface (12) to an upper rim (where 10 is pointed to in FIG. 1-2); and
a plurality of spouts (22, 24, 26, 28) radially spaced apart along the sidewall ([0024]), wherein each spout defines a pouring void having a tapering shape ([0027]) extending between upper base and a lower singular point (bottom most point of 22; [0036]; FIG. 1-2), wherein the upper base terminates at the upper rim, whereby the sidewall distance is configured so that when an average human hand grips the handle-less pitcher ([0015]), said human hand contacts at least three spouts of the plurality of spouts ([0015], “grasp any pair of side walls” includes 3 spouts).
However, Herold is silent regarding wherein the singular point is spaced apart from the upper base by a distance that is approximately eighty percent of the sidewall distance.
It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Herold teaches a general spacing of the singular point ([0027]; bottom most point of the “outwardly flared channel”) and finding an optimum point would be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find the optimum singular point as taught by Herold to provide a smooth channel to pout fluent materials as originally intended ([0027]).
Furthermore, Herold, as modified, is silent regarding wherein each spout defines a pouring void having a tapering triangular prism shape extending between upper triangular base and a lower singular point.
Tam teaches pitcher (abstract) comprising a plurality of spouts (130A-C; FIG. 1), wherein each spout (each of 130A-C) defines a pouring void having a tapering triangular prism shape (FIG. 1-3) extending between upper triangular base and a lower singular point (127; [0039-0040]; FIG. 1-3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace one type of shape for a spout such as those taught by Herold with another known type of shape for a spout such as those taught by Tam with reasonable expectation of controlling the pour stream from the pitcher ([0019]; Tam).
With regards to claim 2, Herold, as combined with Tam, teaches the handle-less pitcher of claim 1, wherein the plurality of spouts (22, 24, 26, 28 of Herold having the spout shape 130 of Tam) is approximately equally spaced apart (FIG. 1-2; Herold).
With regards to claim 3, Herold, as combined with Tam, teaches the handle-less pitcher of claim 1. However, Herold, as combined with Tam, is silent regarding wherein the plurality of spouts is five spouts defining a quasi-pentagonal cross-section orthogonal a longitudinal axis of the sidewall.
It has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP§ 2144.04, part VI, B). In this instance, there has been no unexpected result disclosed due to the additional number of spouts.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the number of spouts (i.e. for additional unit markings) on the pitcher as taught by Herold, as combined with Tam with reasonable expectation of pouring fluid/liquid from the pitcher as originally intended.
With regards to claim 5, Herold, as combined with Tam, teaches the handle-less pitcher of claim 1, wherein each spout (22, 24, 26, 28 of Herold having the spout shape 130 of Tam) is a tapering triangular prism shape (FIG. 1-3; Tam).
With regards to claim 6, Herold, as combined with Tam, teaches the handle-less pitcher of claim 5, wherein the tapering triangular prism shape (22, 24, 26, 28 of Herold having the spout shape 130 of Tam) has rounded edges (FIG. 1-3; Tam).
With regards to claim 7, Herold, as combined with Tam, teaches the handle-less pitcher of claim 1, wherein the sidewall is transparent or semi-transparent ([0026]; Herold) and provides incremental measuring hashes ([0025]; Herold).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853