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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/7/2026 has been entered.
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 1-6 and 8-23 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 and 13 include the limitation, “wherein an interior of the brewinq material holder is accessible through the open top of the liquid container when the brewing material holder is operatively suspended within the liquid container.” Applicants’ remarks failed to provide an explanation as to how the newly amended limitation derives support for the current application. The specification provides support for a material holder to be suspended within a container by a cap placed on top of the container. In operation or “operatively suspended” as claimed, the drive assembly is positioned above the container and cap, which appears to render the material holder inaccessible from the top of the liquid container.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 13 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swartz et al.
There is disclosed in Swartz a beverage brewer, comprising: a brewing material holder 114, including a perforated sidewall 912 and an end cap 904, wherein the material holder is configured to hold beverage brewing material suspended within a liquid container having an open top 104, 105 that is uncoupled from a bottom of the liquid container (para. 0021 it is stated that a rotary support shaft of the material holder has a loose fit with a bottom of the container so as to rotate freely, thus no coupling of elements), the container includes an upper rim forming a collar from which the brewing material holder is suspended; a mixing blade arrangement 109 coupled to the brewing material holder at the end cap; and a drive assembly 112, 118 operable to move the mixing blade such that resulting movement of the blade agitates liquid held in the container. Swartz further teaches wherein an interior of the brewinq material holder is accessible through the open top of the liquid container when the brewing material holder is operatively suspended within the liquid container. ((figures 1, 4, par. 23-25) The complete mug apparatus of Swartz with operatively suspended material holder still allows access into/through the open top of the container. This can be seen through holes 408 and 410 in lid 108 which allows access to fluid/air contained within mug and openings in material holder.)
Regarding claim 23, Swartz teaches wherein an interior of the liquid container has a flat bottom. (figure 1, Interior of outer wall of mug 104 has a flat bottom.)
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 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz et al. in view of Rosan, Sr.
Rosan discloses that it is known in the art to provide a blade arrangement 38 within a brewing material holder, wherein the brewing material holder is suspended within a liquid container and rotation of the brewing material holder will allow for rotation of the blade arrangement and liquid within the container.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the blade arrangement of Swartz with the blade arrangement disclosed in Rosan, in order to provide an alternative means for agitating the liquid. Thealternative means eliminating the need for a separate element and connection means for the element.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz et al. in view of Boone et al. ‘072.
Boone discloses that it is known in the art to have a suspended brewing material holder 103 which includes an end cap arrangement which is removable from a sidewall of the holder (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the end cap arrangement of Swartz with that taught in Boone, in order to allow easier entry and removal of a brewing material within the holder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues that the newly amended limitation is not taught by Swarts. Applicant argues Swartz contains a mug arrangement that once coupled would not have an interior this is accessible through the open top of the liquid container.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation is currently being interpreted to read on any pathway that allows for communication between the inside and outside of the container through the container top when the apparatus is put together operatively. The complete mug apparatus of Swartz with operatively suspended material holder still allows access into/through the open top of the container. This can be seen through holes 408 and 410 in lid 108 which allows access to fluid/air contained within mug and openings in material holder.
Examiner recommends applicant include further language to claims to limit the breadth of the limitation regarding accessibility. It is further recommended that an explanation be provided to show support in the original disclosure.
Conclusion
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
