Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/26/26 has been entered.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the aroma container including separate air inlet and air outlet openings, as now recited in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings currently show a single opening 42 into / out of the aroma chamber 24.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 3 is objected to because “according to claim 1-wherein” should be “according to claim 1, wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
5. Claims 1-18 and 20-22 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.
Claim 1 now recites “wherein the aroma container has an air inlet opening into the aroma container for the air flow through the aroma container” and also “the aroma container includes at least one air outlet opening which is in flow connection either with at least one aroma inlet opening into the inner cavity of the transport tube”. The claim effectively claims “an air inlet opening”, “at least one air outlet opening”, and “at least one aroma inlet opening” as seemingly three separate openings. The original Specification and Drawings seem clear that there are really only two openings - reference numbers 42 and 44. Reference number 42 represents the “air outlet opening” (see page 16 lines 14-15) while reference number 44 is said to represent both “the aroma inlet opening” (see page 16 line 15) as well as “the air inlet opening” (see page 17 line 20) where the names “aroma inlet opening” and “air inlet opening” seem to be interchangeable while describing the same opening. Looking at Figures 9a and 11, it seems clear the opening 44 is between the air passage 46 and the tube 22 and the opening 42 is between the aroma container 24 and the air passage 46. The opening 42 is the only opening shown going into or out of the aroma container 24. As such, the originally filed disclosure does not support the present claim limitations where the aroma container has two separate openings - an air inlet opening and an air outlet opening.
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.
6. Claims 1-18 and 20-22 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.
Claim 1 now recites “wherein the aroma container has an air inlet opening into the aroma container for the air flow through the aroma container” and also “the aroma container includes at least one air outlet opening which is in flow connection either with at least one aroma inlet opening into the inner cavity of the transport tube”. The claim effectively claims “an air inlet opening”, “at least one air outlet opening”, and “at least one aroma inlet opening” as seemingly three separate openings. The original Specification and Drawings seem clear that there are really only two openings - reference numbers 42 and 44. Reference number 42 represents the “air outlet opening” (see page 16 lines 14-15) while reference number 44 is said to represent both “the aroma inlet opening” (see page 16 line 15) as well as “the air inlet opening” (see page 17 line 20) where the names “aroma inlet opening” and “air inlet opening” seem to be interchangeable while describing the same opening. Looking at Figures 9a and 11, it seems clear the opening 44 is between the air passage 46 and the tube 22 and the opening 42 is between the aroma container 24 and the air passage 46. The opening 42 is the only opening shown going into or out of the aroma container 24. As the claim seems to recite three separate openings where only two have been disclosed, it is unclear just how many openings are currently being claimed. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the “air inlet opening” and “aroma inlet opening” are one in the same such that a total of two openings are being claimed. This seems to make the most sense in light of the originally filed Specification and Drawings.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
7. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 16, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballentine (US 2010/0213223 A1) in view of Ray (US 5,635,229 A) and Jager et al. (US 11,564,516 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, to the degree the claims are understood, Ballentine discloses a drinking device, comprising: a liquid reservoir (14) that is fillable with drinking liquid, wherein the liquid reservoir includes an attachment (18) configured to be attached to the body or clothing of a user or to a bag to be worn on the body (see Figures); a mouthpiece with a mouth end (46); a transport tube (28/44) for drinking liquid with an inner cavity which provides a flow connection between the liquid reservoir and the mouth end of the mouthpiece; and an additive container (34) is configured for adding an additive substance to an air flow flowing through the additive container; wherein the additive container has a hollow chamber (for receiving the additives 36, 38 - see Figure 5 and [0032]), and wherein the additive container has an air inlet opening (100) into the additive container for the air flow through the additive container; and the additive container includes at least one air outlet opening (100) which is in flow connection with at least one additive inlet opening into the inner cavity of the transport tube for drinking liquid (see flow path 112 in Figures 10 and 16).
Ballentine discloses the additive being “liquid, gel, or other additives” (see [0032]) but fails to disclose a carrier material soaked in an aroma substance. Ballentine is also silent as to the specific length of the transport tube.
Regarding the carrier material, Ray discloses a carrier material (10) saturated with a specific scent being added to a water bottle in a location close to a user’s nose for the retronasal perception of the scent (see col. 3 lines 5-29). Jager teaches that it was already known to provide an aroma like that of Ray within an additive container (20) similar to that of Ballentine in that it is also in fluid communication with a drinking tube (18) for a mixing of the aroma with the fluid being consumed for retronasal perception by the user (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a carrier material saturated with a scent like that of Ray within the additive container of Ballentine, where it was already known to use an additive container for such use in order to provide retronasal perception of a scent, as taught by Jager.
Regarding the tube length and claims 1 and 21, Ballentine appears to show the tube (28/44) having a length of at least 15cm or 20cm based on the presumed size of a human user and proportions shown in Figures 2 and 3. To the degree this may be disputed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have varied the length of the Ballentine tube to any suitable length allowing it to function, in this case a length of at least 15cm or 20cm in order to reach a user’s mouth, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Ballentine as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, wherein Ballentine discloses the liquid reservoir has flexible outer walls (see “flexible” in [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Ballentine as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, Ballentine further disclosing a bite valve (46) at the mouth end of the mouthpiece.
Regarding claim 7, Ballentine as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, Ballentine further disclosing a sealing member (40) which includes a rotary valve (see [0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Ballentine as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, wherein the Ballentine transport tube has a plurality of predetermined bending points (points along its length, see “flexible” in [0025]).
Regarding claim 16, Ballentine as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, Ballentine further disclosing a receptacle (48) for the aroma container (34), into which the aroma container is insertable and which can be mounted on the transport tube (see Figures).
Regarding claim 18, Ballentine as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, wherein Ballentine discloses the liquid reservoir includes a heat-insulating jacket (16).
Regarding claim 20, Ballentine as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, wherein Ballentine discloses the attachment includes an attachment (18) configured to be attached to a belt or an attachment configured to be draped over the shoulder of a user or an attachment configured to be carried as a backpack (see Figures).
Regarding claim 22, Ballentine as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 7, wherein Ballentine discloses the rotary valve is configured to be actuated by pivoting the transport tube in the area of the rotary valve or by pivoting a lever (74).
8. Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jager (US 11,564,516 B2) in view of Gotta (US 4,090,650 A) and Ray (US 5,635,229 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, to the degree the claims are understood, Jager discloses a drinking device for the retronasal perception of an aroma substance (see Abstract), comprising: a liquid reservoir (12) that is fillable with drinking liquid; a mouthpiece with a mouth end (16 or 28); a transport tube (18) for drinking liquid with an inner cavity which provides a flow connection between the liquid reservoir and the mouth end of the mouthpiece (see Figure 20b); and an aroma container (20) is configured for adding an aroma substance to an air flow flowing through the aroma container; wherein the aroma container (20) has a hollow chamber (to receive the aroma substance), and wherein the aroma container has an air inlet opening (inherent opening between 20 and 22) into the aroma container for the air flow through the aroma container; and the aroma container includes at least one air outlet opening (inherent opening between 20 and 22 which is in flow connection either with at least one aroma inlet opening into the inner cavity of the transport tube (see Figures 1, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, and 32) for drinking liquid or in flow connection with an aroma channel extending up to the mouth end of the mouthpiece (see Figures 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, and 33).
Jager fails to disclose an attachment configured to be attached to a body or clothing of a user or to a bag to be worn on the body. Jager is also silent as to the specific material(s) of his aroma substance and thus fails to disclose a carrier material soaked with aroma substance. Finally, Jager fails to disclose the exact length of the tube and thus fails to disclose wherein the transport tube has a length of at least 15cm or at least 20cm.
Regarding the attachment, Gotta teaches that it was already known in the art to provide a liquid reservoir (1) with an attachment (2 or 2/3) configured to be attached to a body of a user (see Figure 3). A person of ordinary skill in the art would look at Gotta and realize the attachment allows for hands-free transport of the liquid reservoir and would have found it obvious to have added a similar attachment to the liquid reservoir of Jager, also for hands-free transport.
Regarding the carrier material, Ray shows that it was already known for the aroma substance of a retronasal perception device to be in the form of a carrier material (10) saturated with a specific scent (see col. 3 lines 5-29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have substituted the aroma substance of Jager with a carrier material saturated with a scent, as taught by Ray. This is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known aroma substance for another in order to provide the predictable result of retronasal perception.
Regarding the length of the tube, Jager shows the transport tube extending most of the way down into the reservoir (see Figure 20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Jager tube with a length of at least 15cm or at least 20cm when using it with a reservoir of at least 20cm or 30cm height so that the tube extended most of the way into the reservoir, as taught by Jager. Furthermore, this modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose the material of the reservoir and thus fails to disclose wherein the liquid reservoir has flexible outer walls. Because Applicant has not challenged Examiner’s use of Official Notice, the fact that it is old and well known in the art of drink bottles like that of Jager for the bottle to be made of plastic or other flexible material is taken to be admitted prior art As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the Jager bottle from plastic or other flexible material. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, wherein Jager discloses the aroma container includes the mouthpiece (see Figure 33).
Regarding claim 4, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, wherein Jager discloses the aroma container is movable between an activated position and a non-activated position (see Figure 22 and col. 21 lines 9-22); wherein in the activated position, the air outlet opening of the aroma container is in flow connection with the transport tube for drinking liquid; and in the non-activated position (see “blocked” in col. 21 line 18), there is no flow connection between the air outlet opening and the transport tube for drinking liquid.
Regarding claim 5, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 4, Jager further disclosing an ergonomically grip (14, see Figure 8) on a side of the aroma container which faces away from the mouthpiece.
Regarding claim 7, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, Jager further disclosing a sealing member (46) which includes a rotary valve (see Figure 8 and col. 16 lines 24-47).
Regarding claim 8, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 4, Jager further disclosing a sealing member which includes a squeeze seal, the actuation of which is coupled with the movement of the aroma container between the activated position and the non-activated position (see “throttle device” and “squeeze device” in col. 4 lines 46-55).
Regarding claim 9, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, Jager further disclosing a sealing member which includes a sealing plunger (see Figures 5, 7, and 11).
Regarding claim 10, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, Jager further disclosing a sealing member which includes at least one one-way valve (see Figures 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 12, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, wherein Jager discloses the transport tube is mounted on the liquid reservoir in such a way that the transport tube can be pulled out of the liquid reservoir and pushed into the liquid reservoir for a predetermined distance in the longitudinal direction of the transport tube (see Figures, tube being attached to the head 14 which can be removed or attached to the reservoir along with the tube).
Regarding claim 16, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, Jager further disclosing a receptacle (14) for the aroma container (20), into which the aroma container is insertable and which can be mounted on the transport tube (see Figure 33).
Regarding claim 22, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 7, wherein Jager discloses the rotary valve is configured to be actuated by pivoting the transport tube in the area of the rotary valve or by pivoting a lever (50).
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballentine (US 2010/0213223 A1) in view of Ray (US 5,635,229 A) and Jager et al. (US 11,564,516 B2) as applied above, further in view of Junkel et al. (US 2006/0086821 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ballentine as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, but so far fails to include a hand pump configured to build up pressure in the inner cavityBallentine to include a hand pump (24) that builds up pressure within the system and results in liquid being drawn from the reservoir (see [0050]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Ballentine drinking device with a hand pump like that of Junkel, the motivation being to help a user extract liquid from the reservoir.
10. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballentine (US 2010/0213223 A1) in view of Ray (US 5,635,229 A) and Jager et al. (US 11,564,516 B2) as applied above, further in view of Healey (DE 202018106851 U1).
Regarding claim 14, Ballentine as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the transport tube is configured to be divided in the longitudinal direction of the transport tube. Healey teaches that it was already known in the art for a drinking tube to be configured to be divided longitudinally via a film hinge (20) so the tube can be opened and cleaned better and more easily. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have configured the Ballentine tube to be divided and opened up for easier and better cleaning, as taught by Healey.
Regarding claim 15, Ballentine as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 14, wherein the transport tube has a film hinge (as taught by Healey) which extends in the longitudinal direction and is configured to be opened in the longitudinal direction.
11. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jager (US 11,564,516 B2) in view of Gotta (US 4,090,650 A) and Ray (US 5,635,229 A) as applied above, further in view of Healey (DE 202018106851 U1).
Regarding claim 14, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the transport tube is configured to be divided in the longitudinal direction of the transport tube. Healey teaches that it was already known in the art for a drinking tube to be configured to be divided longitudinally via a film hinge (20) so the tube can be opened and cleaned better and more easily. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have configured the Jager tube to be divided and opened up for easier and better cleaning, as taught by Healey.
Regarding claim 15, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 14, wherein the transport tube has a film hinge (as taught by Healey) which extends in the longitudinal direction and is configured to be opened in the longitudinal direction.
12. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballentine (US 2010/0213223 A1) in view of Ray (US 5,635,229 A) and Jager et al. (US 11,564,516 B2) as applied above, further in view of Escava et al. (US 2019/0059562 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ballentine as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, but so far fails to include a water filter in flow connection with the transport tube for drinking liquid. Escava teaches that it was already known to provide a water filter within a liquid reservoir and drink tube system (see [0092]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a water filter like that of Escava in the modified Ballentine device, the motivation being to help purify the liquid.
13. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jager (US 11,564,516 B2) in view of Gotta (US 4,090,650 A) and Ray (US 5,635,229 A) as applied above, further in view of Escava et al. (US 2019/0059562 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Jager as modified above would include the drinking device according to claim 1, but so far fails to include a water filter in flow connection with the transport tube for drinking liquid. Escava teaches that it was already known to provide a water filter within a liquid reservoir and drink tube system (see [0092]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a water filter like that of Escava in the modified Jager device, the motivation being to help purify the liquid.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/26 with respect to Ballentine have been fully considered and are persuasive but are also moot in view of the new grounds of rejection where Ray teaches a carrier material soaked in aroma substance.
15. Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/26 with respect to Jager have been fully considered but are not persuasive and are also moot in view of the new grounds of rejection where Gotta teaches a liquid reservoir having an attachment configured to be attached to a body of a user. Applicant has argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that liquid would leak from the bottle or dirt would enter the drinking opening if the bottle were attached to the body, clothing, or bag of a user. Despite these worries, Gotta has shown that such attachment was already known and suitable for use in attaching a liquid reservoir to a user in a hands-free manner.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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 Newhouse can be reached on (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 3/17/26