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 § 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 1-7 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. In independent claim 1, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the base”. Applicant deleted the previous antecedent basis for this term.
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 1-7 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 new requirement that the base is removable through the bottom end of the cup is new matter. As seen in Fig. 7, the base (4) is wider than the bottom end of the cup, and while the stirring mechanism can be removed through the bottom end of the cup, the base cannot.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marko (US 6. 10,143,980) in view of Vendrely (US 6,702,455). Regarding claim 1, Marko discloses an electric stirring cup, comprising a hollow cup body (14), wherein a top end of the hollow cup body is connected with a cup cover (12) through threaded connection (see col. 4, line 48); a connecting end is integrally formed on a base (26); an inner wall of a bottom end of the hollow cup body away from the cup cover forms a connecting cavity (see Figs. 1 and 4); an end surface of one end of the connecting end away from the base is integrally formed with a convex block (24); a stirring mechanism (32,34) is installed in the base; and a drinking mechanism (16) is installed on the cup cover; the connecting cavity is in connection with the connecting end (see Figs. 1 and 4). However, a gasket is not disclosed and it is not expressly stated that the lower end of the hollow cup body is threaded. Vendrely teaches threading (at 26) ends of a hollow cup body for threaded connection (26, 22, 32) to a base and well as providing gaskets (158) pressed by pressing rings. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a threaded connection and gasket arrangement as taught by Vendrely to provide access for cleaning while still preventing leakage; in which case the stirring mechanism together with an upper portion of the base would be removable through the bottom end of the hollow cup body.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marko (US 10,143,980) in view of Vendrely (US 6,702,455) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Samuelian (US 3,627,008). The hollow cup body and the base of Marko are of a round table structure with a large upper part and a small lower part; however, flow blocking protrusions are not disclosed. Samuelian teaches providing the inner wall of a highly analogous electric stirring cup with flow blocking protrusions (132). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided flow blocking protrusions as taught by Samuelian to prevent rotation of the fluid contents thereby improving mixing (see col. 3, lines 45-52 of Samuelian).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marko (US 10,143,980) in view of Vendrely (US 6,702,455) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (US 3,061,321). Marko further discloses the convex block is of an upward convex generally spherical structure in the same sense as applicant's drawing and the stirring mechanism penetrates the convex
block and extends into an inner cavity of the hollow cup body (see Figs. 1 and 4 of Marko). As modified
by the teachings of Verdrely (see Fig. 7 thereof), a diameter of one end of the convex block close to the
sealing gasket is smaller than an inner diameter of the pressing ring and the sealing gasket is of an
annular structure. However, the gasket having protrusions is not taught. Smith teach an annular gasket
having plural annular protrusions (16, 18) of semicircular cross section. It would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the gasket with annular protrusions as taught by Smith to improve sealing.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marko (US 10,143,980) in view of Vendrely (US 6,702,455) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cornelius (US 10,994,901). While Marko further discloses that the drinking mechanism comprises a hinged fixed base and a drinking nozzle on a top of the cup cover (see Figs. 1 and 3); as well as a sealing cover (16) connected to the nozzle, the connection is not explicitly stated to be "threaded" and a connecting ring is not explicitly disclosed to be internally rotated and clamped with the sealing cover. Cornelius teaches providing a highly analogous cup body with a drinking mechanism that comprises a hinged fixed base (15) and a drinking nozzle (27); one end of a top (12) of a cup cover is fixedly installed with the hinged fixed base; another end of the top of the cup cover is integrally formed with the drinking nozzle; the hinged fixed base is rotatably installed with a lifting ring (18) and a rotating block (26) through a hinge pin (22); the lifting ring is capable of being turned upward with respect to the rotating block; an outer wall of the rotating block is fixedly connected with a connecting ring; the connecting ring is internally rotated and clamped with a sealing cover (28); and the sealing cover is connected with the drinking nozzle through threaded connection (see col. 5, lines 9-19). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized the drinking mechanism of Cornelius because, as Cornelius explains in col. 5, lines 9-19, there is a recognition in the art that threaded closures are an alternative to other closures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
As seen in instant Fig. 7, the base (4) is below the cup body and cannot be removed through the bottom end of the cup body because it is too big to enter the cup body in the first place.
Vendrely is analogous art with respect to the instant invention because both pertain to stirring devices.
While applicant refers to Marko’s base as “non-detachable”, Marko is simply silent as to whether the base is detachable. As held in In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), it would have been obvious to have made the base detachable for cleaning or repair purposes.
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 DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774