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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending. Claims 1, 8, and 9 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8, and 9 have been amended to include the limitation, “wherein said bowl of said spoon has a rear edge abutting said shell”. This limitation is not supported in the original disclosure. Drawings and page 4 of applicant’s specification makes clear that the bowl 16 is attached to handle 20 and is not abutting shell 14.
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 1-16 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 have been amended to include the limitation, “wherein said bowl of said spoon has a rear edge abutting said shell”. However, the claim makes clear the shell comprises a first and second piece with the first piece being attached to the handle proximate the bowl and the second piece being attached to the first piece. Thus, the claim appears to contradict itself. The first part of claim seems to imply the shell abuts the handle rather than the bowl, and the newly amended limitation states that the shell abuts the bowl.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-10, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avetisyan (WO2012/060730) in view of Miceli (PGPub# US 2007/0209523 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Avetisyan teaches a beverage infusion, straining, and stirring device (figure 1) comprising: a spoon 3 comprising a bowl 3 attached to a first end of a handle 2; a shell (1 & Lid) comprising a first piece and a second piece (Description: water permeable container with lid,) the first piece being fixedly attached to the handle proximate to the bowl, the second piece being selectively attachable to the first piece, wherein the shell is configured for insertion and retention of a substrate for preparing a beverage (container is closed with lid to retain a brewing agent.); and a plurality of openings positioned in the shell (water permeable container would read on a plurality of openings), wherein the handle is configured for grasping in a hand of a user, positioning the user for submerging the shell in water and for stirring the water, wherein the openings are configured for passage of the water through the shell for infusing the water and generating the beverage (design of shell is for retaining brewing agent for a user to submerge the shell in water to infuse the water with the brewing agent). (Description and Figure 1)
Avetisyan does not explicitly teach wherein said bowl of said spoon has a rear edge abutting said shell, said bowl having a pair of side edges extending from said rear edge and tapering towards a rounded and pointed front end of said bowl opposite said rear edge.
However, Miceli teaches a similar apparatus as cited in alternative rejection below. Miceli teaches the bowl having a pair of side edges extending from said rear edge and tapering towards a rounded and pointed front end of said bowl opposite said rear edge. (figures 1 and 2) Miceli further teaches that the shell 2 being fixedly attached to spoon by loop 20. Miceli teaches the loop size is selected such that the shell and loop do not slide over the bowl of the spoon and is retained for steeping. (par. 12)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the spoon of Avetisyan in view of the shape of Miceli as both are art recognized suitable equivalent bowl shapes for spoons. It would have further been obvious to rearrange the shell position to abut the bowl of the spoon, as Miceli makes clear the position of the shell does not matter as long as the shell is retained and does not pass through the bowl of the spoon to allow for the intended steeping as taught by Miceli. Rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided. See MPEP 2144.04 VI
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Avetisyan teaches wherein the spoon and the shell comprise plastic. (description)
Regarding claims 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 16, Avetisyan teaches the use of the container for retaining a brewing agent. Thus the openings of the container would be capable of storing the substrate in various forms in order to retain the brewing agent while brewing a beverage. (description)
Regarding claim 13, Avetisyan teaches wherein the second piece is fused to the first piece. (container and lid are connected/combined/fused to secure brewing agent)
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 13- rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miceli (PGPub# US 2007/0209523 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Miceli teaches a beverage infusion, straining, and stirring device (figure 1) comprising: a spoon 25 comprising a bowl 35 attached to a first end of a handle 30; a shell (par. 5 and 13: Container has 2 pieces stitched together.) comprising a first piece and a second piece, the first piece being fixedly attached to the handle proximate to the bowl (container attached to bowl by 20), the second piece being selectively attachable to the first piece (par. 5 stitched together), wherein the shell is configured for insertion and retention of a substrate for preparing a beverage (container is closed with to retain a brewing agent.); and a plurality of openings positioned in the shell (water permeable container would read on a plurality of openings), wherein the handle is configured for grasping in a hand of a user, positioning the user for submerging the shell in water and for stirring the water, wherein the openings are configured for passage of the water through the shell for infusing the water and generating the beverage (design of shell is for retaining brewing agent for a user to submerge the shell in water to infuse the water with the brewing agent). (figures 1-3 and par: 4-17)
Miceli teaches said bowl having a pair of side edges extending from said rear edge and tapering towards a rounded and pointed front end of said bowl opposite said rear edge. (figures 1 and 2)
Miceli does not explicitly teach wherein said bowl of said spoon has a rear edge abutting said shell.
However, Miceli further teaches that the shell 2 being fixedly attached to spoon by loop 20. Miceli teaches the loop size is selected such that the shell and loop do not slide over the bowl of the spoon and is retained for steeping. (par. 12)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the shell position to abut the bowl of the spoon, as Miceli makes clear the position of the shell does not matter as long as the shell is retained and does not pass through the bowl of the spoon to allow for the intended steeping as taught by Miceli. Rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided. See MPEP 2144.04 VI
Regarding claims 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 16, Miceli teaches the use of the container for retaining a brewing agent. Thus the openings of the container would be capable of storing the substrate in various forms in order to retain the brewing agent while brewing a beverage. (description)
Regarding claim 13, Miceli teaches wherein the second piece is fused to the first piece. (container and lid are stitched/combined/fused to secure brewing agent)
Claims 3-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avetisyan (WO2012/060730) or Miceli (PGPub# US 2007/0209523 A1) in view of Ning (CN 201131563).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 11, and 12, Avetisyan and Miceli does not explicitly teach wherein the first piece and the second piece are cylindrical (claim 3) and wherein: the first piece is circumferentially larger than the second piece and internally threaded adjacent to a perimeter of the first piece; and the second piece is externally threaded adjacent to a circumference of the second piece, such that the second piece is threadedly attachable to the first piece (claim 4).
However, Ning teaches a tea making spoon. (figure 1) Ning teaches that the container for storing tea can be cylindrical and included a threaded connection where the threads of the first piece 4 are internal and the second piece 1 threads are external and fit withing the first piece. (figure 1 and description)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the shape and thread connection of Ning for the containers of Avetisyan or Miceli, in order to form a secure and reusable connection for a container for retaining a brewing agent.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avetisyan (WO2012/060730) in view of Ning (CN 201131563).
Regarding claim 8, Avetisyan teaches a beverage infusion, straining, and stirring device comprising: a spoon comprising a bowl attached to a first end of a handle, the spoon comprising plastic, metal, wood, ceramic, or bamboo; a shell comprising a first piece and a second piece, the first piece being attached to the handle proximate to the bowl, the second piece being selectively attachable to the first piece, wherein the shell is configured for insertion and retention of a substrate for preparing a beverage, the shell comprising plastic, metal, wood, ceramic, or bamboo, and a plurality of openings positioned in the shell, wherein the handle is configured for grasping in a hand of a user, positioning the user for submerging the shell in water and for stirring the water, wherein the openings are configured for passage of the water through the shell for infusing the water and generating the beverage, the openings being sized for retention of the substrate in a filter bag, the substrate in shredded leaf form, or the substrate in ground form, wherein the shell is configured for insertion and retention of a tea bag, shredded tea leaves, and ground coffee, respectively. (See rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 above).
Avetisyan does not explicitly teach wherein the first piece and the second piece are cylindrical and wherein: the first piece is circumferentially larger than the second piece and internally threaded adjacent to a perimeter of the first piece; and the second piece is externally threaded adjacent to a circumference of the second piece, such that the second piece is threadedly attachable to the first piece.
However, Ning teaches a tea making spoon. (figure 1) Ning teaches that the container for storing tea can be cylindrical and included a threaded connection where the threads of the first piece 4 are internal and the second piece 1 threads are external and fit withing the first piece. (figure 1 and description)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the shape and thread connection of Ning for the containers of Avetisyan, in order to form a secure and reusable connection for a container for retaining a brewing agent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim amendment overcomes previous 112b rejection. Examiner agrees and withdraws rejection.
Applicant argues that claim amendments overcome previous 102 rejection in view of Avetisyan. Examiner agrees but has modified rejection using previously applied art in a 103 rejection.
Applicant argues that claim amendments overcome previous 102 rejection over Miceli. Applicant argues Miceli does not show that the shell is in a fixed position relative to the bowl. Examiner does not agree. First the claim has been amended to recite,” the first piece being fixedly attached to the handle.” Examiner finds that the loop 20 fixedly connects the shell 2 to the handle as discussed in par. 12 and shown in figures 1-2. Examiner has modified the rejection into a 103 to account for abutting limitation.
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 IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761