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 .
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to “also, it is to be understood that the phraseology and terminology used herein is for the purpose of description and should not be regarded as limiting. The use of "including," "comprising," or "having" and variations thereof herein is meant to encompass the items listed thereafter and equivalents thereof as well as additional items. Unless limited otherwise, the terms "connected," "coupled," and "mounted," and variations thereof herein are used broadly and encompass direct and indirect connections, couplings, and mountings. In addition, the terms "connected" and "coupled" and variations thereof are not restricted to physical or mechanical connections or couplings” in paragraph [0009] is ineffective because there is no reference to a specific document or specific structure which applicant is attempting to incorporate into the specification by reference.
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to “it should be understood that embodiments of the invention include hardware components or modules that, for purposes of discussion, may be illustrated and described as if the majority of the components were implemented solely in hardware. It should be noted that a plurality of hardware devices, as well as a plurality of different structural components may be utilized to implement the invention. Furthermore, and as described in subsequent paragraphs, the specific mechanical configurations illustrated in the drawings are intended to exemplify embodiments of the invention and that other alternative mechanical configurations are possible” as in paragraph [0010] is ineffective because applicant appears to be attempting to include additional undescribed embodiments as well as undescribed structural elements in the specification.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the structure of the apparatus and all the elements is not clearly shown or described. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT must be shown [and labeled] or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). None of the element are labeled with a reference number. No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the tangentially connected circles as described in the specification. The circles shown are not connected at a single point. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: No reference numbers are shown in the drawings. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: The specification does not contain any reference numbers. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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.
Claim 1-10 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claims 1-10 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 recites: Claim 1 recites "a latte art cup comprising of a cup..." It is not clear if applicant is claiming two cups as the latte art cup is recited and then “a cup” is also recited.
The relationship between the cup, handle and two circles is not described. Are the circles inside the cup? Are they any random circles which exist in the universe? It is not clear if the circles are tangentially connected to each other, connected to the cup or connected to the handle.
The structure of "two tangentially connected circles" is not clear. Circles does not necessarily define any structure. The drawings appear to show a *disc* having an opening which is offset from the center of the disc. However, this is not claimed or described in the specification as originally filed. It is not clear if the circles have structure or if they are marks on the cup.
Claim 1 recites “tangentially connected circles”, however, the drawings do not show the circles being connected at a single point. Figure one appears to show this and may be two circles drawn on the inside of the cup. It is not clear what is considered a circle in the apparatus. Also, a circle is a two-dimensional object. The “disk” in the Figs 2 and 3 appear to have three dimensions and a hole instead of circles. These figures show 3 circles inside the cup. Also, as the “circles” are at an angle, it is not clear if they would even meet the limitations of a circle. They would seem to be more of an oval.
Claim 2 recites “oriented in such a way as to facilitate latte art.” Based on the claims and specification, it is not clear how one would “facilitate latte art”. The claims do not have any dimensions of the “circles” or state where they are located in the cup. It is not clear how one would orient the circles.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "smaller of the two…circles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The size of the circles is never claimed. It is not stated that one circle is smaller than the other.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "larger of the two…circles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The size of the circles is never claimed. It is not stated that one circle is larger than the other.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the artistic process" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the artistic process”. It is not clear what structural elements or steps in a process applicant is intending to include in the limitation “artistic process”. It is not clear that a process has been started, nor are any steps in a process recited.
Claim 6 recites: "a latte art cup comprising of a cup..." It is not clear if applicant is claiming two cups as the latte art cup is recited and then “a cup” is also recited.
The relationship between the cup, handle and two circles is not described. Are the circles inside the cup? Are they any random circles which exist in the universe? It is not clear if the circles are tangentially connected to each other, connected to the cup or connected to the handle.
The structure of "two tangentially connected circles" is not clear. Circles does not necessarily define any structure. The drawings appear to show a *disc* having an opening which is offset from the center of the disc. However, this is not claimed or described in the specification as originally filed. It is not clear if the circles have structure or if they are marks on the cup.
Claim 6 recites “tangentially connected circles”, however, the drawings do not show the circles being connected at a single point. Figure one appears to show this and may be two circles drawn on the inside of the cup. It is not clear what is considered a circle in the apparatus. Also, a circle is a two-dimensional object. The “disk” in the Figs 2 and 3 appear to have three dimensions and a hole instead of circles. These figures show 3 circles inside the cup. Also, as the “circles” are at an angle, it is not clear if they would even meet the limitations of a circle. They would seem to be more of an oval.
Claim 7 recites “oriented in such a way as to facilitate latte art.” Based on the claims and specification, it is not clear how one would “facilitate latte art”. The claims do not have any dimensions of the “circles” or state where they are located in the cup. It is not clear how one would orient the circles and at what angle or height.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "smaller of the two…circles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The size of the circles is never claimed. It is not stated that one circle is smaller than the other. It is also unclear how one would angle the cup based on the circle as the appropriate angle to hold the cup is not claimed or described in the specification.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "larger of the two…circles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The size of the circles is never claimed. It is not stated that one circle is larger than the other.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the artistic process" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the artistic process”. It is not clear what limitations applicant is intending to include in the limitation “artistic process”. It is not clear that a process has been started, nor are any steps in a process recited.
Claim 10 recites “to indicate sequential fill points.” Do the color of the lines indicate fill points or the circles themselves indicate fill points. Are the colors of the circles needed in order to “facilitate
It should be noted, any amendments to overcome the 112 rejections should not contain new matter. Given the state of the claims, specification and 112 rejections, applicant is requested to specifically identify support, in the specification as originally filed, for each and every amendment to the claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because applicant claims “a method for use” but fails to claim any steps in a method for using the “latte art cup”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bullock et al (US 2022/0218132).
It should be noted the preamble “a latte art cup” is not considered to impart any structure or limitations on the claims, other than “cup.”
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Bullock discloses a cup, see Fig 2, having two tangentially connected circles (116 and 114, or 174 and 186, See Fig 3). Given the indefiniteness of the claims, these are considered to meet the limitation of “tangentially connected” as they are similar to what is shown in Figs 2 and 3 of the present application.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, the cup and circles are capable of having milk poured into them when held at different angles.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 8 and 9, there is one small circle and one large circle as shown in Fig 3. It is not clear how either of the circles would indicate an angle or when the cup is full. The size of the circles is the only “structural” limitation. The remainder of the claim is not considered functional language and not given any patentable weight.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Yeti cups are commonly made in multiple colors with a black rim and clear portions surrounding the holes.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullock et al (US 2022/0218132).
The teachings of Bullock have been discussed above. Yeti cups are commonly made in multiple colors with a black rim and clear portions surrounding the holes, however this is not specifically disclosed.
It is not clear if “indicate sequential fill points” should be given patentable weight. However, it would have been obvious to make each circle a different color since a change in color is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, 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. Circles are of different colors is considered ornamentation only and serves no mechanical function. Therefore, it is not considered to be patentably distinct over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/14/2026