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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9 and 16-21) in the reply filed on 01/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/13/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 and 16-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 states “the filter adapted…” which should be “the filter is adapted…”
Claim 1 ends in a “;” rather than a “.” [period].
Claims 16 and 17 recite “its outer surface” which should be “the outer surface” to be consistent with claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 17 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 2 recites “wherein a length of the skirt portion is fixably foldable upon the outer surface of the container to maintain the floor of the pocket portion above the base of the container,” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by “fixably” foldable. This phrase appears twice in the specification:
[0028] FIG. 2 illustrates an alternate embodiment of the invention. A filter 106 is placed into a container 100. The filter 106 has a skirt portion 110, a length of which 201 is fixably foldable so that it can be pressed against the rim 104 outer surface 105 of the container 100. This grips the filter 106 against the container 100 to help maintain the pocket portion 107 and its floor well above the base 102 of the container 100 and to accommodate the forthcoming solution 101.
[0033] The skirt portion can be fixably folded onto the outer surface 105, wherein the pocket portion 107 is suspended in the container 100 and the handle 1801 is accessible by the user and not obscured by the filter 106.
Based on the direction provided by the specification, it is unclear what is meant by “fixably.” Those of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand what is meant by “foldable” (i.e., capable of being folded). Additionally, those of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand what is meant by “fixedly” (i.e., “in a fixed manner, where “fixed” is defined as “securely placed of fastened”. See merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fixedly and merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fixed, viewed on 01/29/2026). In this case, the specification describes the length of the skirt portion being foldable such that it presses against the rim of the container to hold the filter and pocket portion in place. It is unclear if the claim should be understood to mean that the skirt portion has a length that is capable of being folded in a secure manner or if the term “fixably” takes on another meaning altogether. As best understood, the intention is for the skirt portion to have sufficient size and flexibility to be deformable enough to engage the rim of the container in a secure manner such that the pocket portion is firmly placed within the container.
Claim 17 inherits the above deficiency based on its dependency from the same.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 9, 18, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Melton (US 5775205).
Regarding claim 1, Melton teaches a beverage brewing device (Abstract; infuser for brewing beverages within an associated container) (Figs 1-2) comprising:
a container (12) that holds a quantity of water (15), the container having a base (bottom) and at least one side (sidewall 14) extending up from the base, the at least one side terminating in a rim (rim 17), the at least one side having an outer surface (shown in Fig. 1);
a filter (18), the filter comprising a pocket portion (38), the pocket portion having a floor (44) and at least one wall (41) extending up from the floor (44), the at least one wall terminating in a concentric skirt portion (32 and 20, which are concentric with the well 38 and aid in attaching the filter to the container 12), the filter adapted for the pocket portion to be placed into the container (Figs. 1-2 and 3).
Regarding claim 2, Melton teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches (10:5-40):
In the preferred form of infuser, the unit is made from a thermoformable plastic material such as a styrene-containing copolymer. Preferably, the thickness of the material as formed is about 0.010-0.015 inches. Depending on the forming method, the thickness may vary somewhat throughout the product. The choice of polymer used depends on the exact application, with those skilled in the art being aware of the requirements for flexibility, relatively easy tearability if a pull tab is present, overall stiffness and optionally, colorability. The ability to be embossed or imprinted with various legends, etc. can but need not be important. The openings in the sidewall of the well, whether circular, elongated slots or other formation are created in known ways, including the use of slitters, needle or contoured style punches, perforators or the like. The actual method of manufacture is not important to the success of the invention. The infuser skirt should be flexible enough to deform sufficiently that the rim gripping portions readily engage the curl on the top of a container and create a snug enough fit to be substantially liquid tight. In some cases, a non-plastic material such as paper or fabric may be used, or even metals of thin cross section may be employed. If the infuser is made from more than one material, such as if the well is preformed from a material other than that from which the rim-engaging portion is made, the separate portions may be adhered to each other by heat sealing, adhesives, crimping or other ways known to those skilled in the art.
Melton, as shown in Figures 1-2, teaches wherein a length of the skirt portion is fixably foldable upon the outer surface of the container to maintain the floor of the pocket portion above the base of the container (the skirt portion aids in affixing the filter to the container such that the floor of the pocket portion is maintained above the base of the container. Additionally, the material choice and thickness allows for the skirt portion to be, at least partially, fixably foldable as it is made from a flexible material.).
Regarding claim 3, Melton teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches (10:5-40):
In the preferred form of infuser, the unit is made from a thermoformable plastic material such as a styrene-containing copolymer. Preferably, the thickness of the material as formed is about 0.010-0.015 inches. Depending on the forming method, the thickness may vary somewhat throughout the product. The choice of polymer used depends on the exact application, with those skilled in the art being aware of the requirements for flexibility, relatively easy tearability if a pull tab is present, overall stiffness and optionally, colorability. The ability to be embossed or imprinted with various legends, etc. can but need not be important. The openings in the sidewall of the well, whether circular, elongated slots or other formation are created in known ways, including the use of slitters, needle or contoured style punches, perforators or the like. The actual method of manufacture is not important to the success of the invention. The infuser skirt should be flexible enough to deform sufficiently that the rim gripping portions readily engage the curl on the top of a container and create a snug enough fit to be substantially liquid tight. In some cases, a non-plastic material such as paper or fabric may be used, or even metals of thin cross section may be employed. If the infuser is made from more than one material, such as if the well is preformed from a material other than that from which the rim-engaging portion is made, the separate portions may be adhered to each other by heat sealing, adhesives, crimping or other ways known to those skilled in the art.
Melton, therefore, teaches wherein the skirt portion contains an elastic member, wherein the elastic member secures the skirt portions against the outer surface of the container to maintain the floor of the pocket portion above the base of the container (the skirt portion includes skirt flange 22 and beads 24 and 26, which aids in guiding and affixing the filter to the container such that the floor of the pocket portion is maintained above the base of the container. Additionally, the material choice and thickness allows for the skirt portion to be, at least partially, elastic as it is made from a flexible material.).
Regarding claim 6, Melton teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including wherein a cusp region (cusp defined as the region including 32, 24, and 26 that correspond to the region where the rim 17 of the cup engages the filter) exists between the at least one wall (41) of the pocket portion (38) and the skirt portion (32/20), the filter being adapted for the pocket portion to be placed into the container where the cusp region rests atop the rim (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Melton teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including (10:5-40):
In the preferred form of infuser, the unit is made from a thermoformable plastic material such as a styrene-containing copolymer. Preferably, the thickness of the material as formed is about 0.010-0.015 inches. Depending on the forming method, the thickness may vary somewhat throughout the product. The choice of polymer used depends on the exact application, with those skilled in the art being aware of the requirements for flexibility, relatively easy tearability if a pull tab is present, overall stiffness and optionally, colorability. The ability to be embossed or imprinted with various legends, etc. can but need not be important. The openings in the sidewall of the well, whether circular, elongated slots or other formation are created in known ways, including the use of slitters, needle or contoured style punches, perforators or the like. The actual method of manufacture is not important to the success of the invention. The infuser skirt should be flexible enough to deform sufficiently that the rim gripping portions readily engage the curl on the top of a container and create a snug enough fit to be substantially liquid tight. In some cases, a non-plastic material such as paper or fabric may be used, or even metals of thin cross section may be employed. If the infuser is made from more than one material, such as if the well is preformed from a material other than that from which the rim-engaging portion is made, the separate portions may be adhered to each other by heat sealing, adhesives, crimping or other ways known to those skilled in the art.
Melton, therefore, teaches wherein the filter is made of a material selected from a group consisting of aluminum, paper, wood, stainless steel, linen, cotton, polypropylene, high-density polyethylene, silicone, and nylon (Melton teaches paper as a viable choice).
Regarding claim 9, Melton teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including (10:5-40):
In the preferred form of infuser, the unit is made from a thermoformable plastic material such as a styrene-containing copolymer. Preferably, the thickness of the material as formed is about 0.010-0.015 inches. Depending on the forming method, the thickness may vary somewhat throughout the product. The choice of polymer used depends on the exact application, with those skilled in the art being aware of the requirements for flexibility, relatively easy tearability if a pull tab is present, overall stiffness and optionally, colorability. The ability to be embossed or imprinted with various legends, etc. can but need not be important. The openings in the sidewall of the well, whether circular, elongated slots or other formation are created in known ways, including the use of slitters, needle or contoured style punches, perforators or the like. The actual method of manufacture is not important to the success of the invention. The infuser skirt should be flexible enough to deform sufficiently that the rim gripping portions readily engage the curl on the top of a container and create a snug enough fit to be substantially liquid tight. In some cases, a non-plastic material such as paper or fabric may be used, or even metals of thin cross section may be employed. If the infuser is made from more than one material, such as if the well is preformed from a material other than that from which the rim-engaging portion is made, the separate portions may be adhered to each other by heat sealing, adhesives, crimping or other ways known to those skilled in the art.
Melton, therefore, teaches wherein the skirt portion further comprises a deformable layer (the use of a polymer for the filter, including the skirt portion, means that the skirt portion is, at least partially, deformable as such material is described as being flexible enough to deform sufficiently to engage the rim of the container).
Regarding claim 18, Melton teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 6, including wherein the cusp region comprises at least one hole to allow viewing into the container when the pocket portion is placed into the container (Fig. 2A shows a hole in the cusp region that is covered/uncovered by 50. While this hole is designed so a user can drink the brewed beverage, this hole also would allow for viewing into the container when the pocket portion 38 is placed into the container 12).
Regarding claim 19, Melton teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including wherein the skirt portion is corrugated (The term “corrugated” is defined as “to shape into folds or parallel and alternating ridges and grooves.” See www.thefreedictionary.com/corrugated, viewed on 01/29/2026. The skirt portion, as shown in Figures 1-2 includes parallel and alternating ridges and grooves defined by 22, 24, 26, and 28.).
Regarding claim 21, Melton teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including wherein the concentric skirt portion terminates in a rounded fold (see rounded fold defined by 26 and 22 in Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melton in view of Lake (US 6065609).
Regarding claim 4, Melton teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the floor of the pocket has a conical shape (in this case, the floor of the pocket portion in Melton is flat).
Lake relates to a beverage brewing unit and teaches using a filter having a floor with a conical shape (Fig. 3; filter 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Melton with Lake, by replacing the floor shape of Melton, with the conical shape taught by Lake, for in doing so would merely provide an alternatively shaped filter floor known in the art (i.e., flat vs. conical). Additionally, changing the floor shape from flat to conical would be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed floor was significant. See MPEP 2144.04-IV-B.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melton in view of Bielfeldt (US 6189438).
Regarding claim 5, Melton teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the skirt portion is pleated.
Bielfeldt relates to a filter for use in preparing brewed beverages and teaches the filter (28) having a skirt portion (rim 39) that is pleated (pleats 42, 51, 52).
Bielfeldt teaches that the pleated arrangement allows for mechanical reinforcement of the rim (abstract and 5:64-6:10)..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Melton with Bielfeldt, by replacing the shape of the skirt portion of Melton, with the pleats taught by Bielfeldt, for in doing so would provide a skirt portion having improved mechanical reinforcement.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melton in view of Rivera (US2020/0187705).
Regarding claim 8, Melton teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 7, except as detailed below.
Melton does teach that filter comprises pores (openings 42) and that (6:63-7:6):
If desired, the openings 42 may comprise plural slots in parallel array, or may be patterned or randomly disposed openings of various kinds, if desired. In the form shown in FIGS. 1-3, the well 38 is frusto-conical and includes a generally flat bottom wall 44.
The openings 42 are small enough to retain tea "T" and/or flavor enhancers in the well 38, but are large enough to allow water to readily enter the interior of the well 38 to infuse the water with the flavors extracted from a charge of tea "T" or other flavoring agent. The openings are also large enough to allow diffusion of sugar or cream into the water or other liquid beverage 15, and the well depth is such that the initial water level LI (FIG. 2) will be well below the container rim 17 but above most of the well 38 to allow cream or sugar to be added and mix readily with the water or other liquid being flavored.
Melton, therefore, teaches the openings are of sufficient size to allow water to enter/exit and to retain beverage ingredients. Melton is silent on the pores having an average diameter of between 4 and 1000 μm.
Additionally, Melton describes, in Fig. 6, the openings having a diameter (as opposed to the slots shown in Fig. 2).
Rivera relates to a beverage brewing device and teaches a filter (mesh element 30a that is configured “to keep ground brewing material 30b within the brewing material holder while still allowing the liquid to pass through”-para. 0055).
Rivera teaches pores having an average diameter of between 4 and 1000 µm (para. 0055; examples of suitable mesh materials are fine nylon mesh having 75 micron openings or other suitable size, metal mesh, paper mesh. “Those skilled in the art will recognize that other mesh material of suitable size and material may be used….”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Melton with Rivera, by replacing the shape and size of the filter openings of Melton, with the 75 micron openings taught by Rivera, for in doing so would provide a known size sufficient to retain beverage ingredients while allowing liquid to pass therethrough. Further, using the openings of Fig. 6 of Melton instead of those of Fig. 2 (i.e., openings having a diameter vs. slots) would have been an obvious modification to the shape of the openings and would be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed opening was significant. See MPEP 2144.04-IV-B.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melton in view of Rivera (US2020/0187705).
Regarding claim 20, Melton teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except as detailed below.
Melton states that (10:5-40):
In the preferred form of infuser, the unit is made from a thermoformable plastic material such as a styrene-containing copolymer. Preferably, the thickness of the material as formed is about 0.010-0.015 inches. Depending on the forming method, the thickness may vary somewhat throughout the product. The choice of polymer used depends on the exact application, with those skilled in the art being aware of the requirements for flexibility, relatively easy tearability if a pull tab is present, overall stiffness and optionally, colorability. The ability to be embossed or imprinted with various legends, etc. can but need not be important. The openings in the sidewall of the well, whether circular, elongated slots or other formation are created in known ways, including the use of slitters, needle or contoured style punches, perforators or the like. The actual method of manufacture is not important to the success of the invention. The infuser skirt should be flexible enough to deform sufficiently that the rim gripping portions readily engage the curl on the top of a container and create a snug enough fit to be substantially liquid tight. In some cases, a non-plastic material such as paper or fabric may be used, or even metals of thin cross section may be employed. If the infuser is made from more than one material, such as if the well is preformed from a material other than that from which the rim-engaging portion is made, the separate portions may be adhered to each other by heat sealing, adhesives, crimping or other ways known to those skilled in the art.
Melton, therefore, teaches that the filter can be made from more than one material and that plastic, paper, and fabric may be used.
While Melton teaches paper as a suitable material and fabric can be broadly understood as including linen and cotton, Melton is silent on aluminum, wood, stainless steel, polypropylene, high-density polyethylene silicone, and nylon.
Rivera relates to a beverage brewing device and teaches a filter (mesh element 30a that is configured “to keep ground brewing material 30b within the brewing material holder while still allowing the liquid to pass through”-para. 0055).
Rivera teaches (para. 0055) that nylon, metal, and paper are suitable materials for a filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Melton with Rivera, by adding to the list of suitable materials of Melton, with the nylon and metal material taught by Rivera, for in doing so would amount to the mere selection of known materials based on its suitability for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
In this case, Melton teaches the filter comprising a pocket portion and a skirt portion (as detailed in claim 1, above) and that the pocket portion and the skirt portion can be made of different materials and that those materials include plastic, paper, and fabric. Rivera teaches a similar filter used in preparing brewed beverages and teaches that nylon, metal, and paper are suitable materials for such a filter. Collectively, the prior art teaches that plastic, paper, fabric, metal, and nylon are suitable materials for a filter. In combination, modified Melton teaches wherein the pocket portion and skirt portion are each made from a different material selected from a group consisting of aluminum, paper, wood, stainless steel, linen, cotton, polypropylene, high-density polyethylene, silicone, and nylon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Melton, as detailed above in claim 1, is considered the closest prior art to the claimed invention. While Melton does not teach a handle on the outer surface of the container, those of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious and well known in the art to have, or include, such a handle. US 6065609 to Lake teaches such an arrangement of a handle (16) on an outer surface (14) of a container (12) (See Figs. 1-3). Additionally, US20220369846 to Threlfall (claiming priority to 05/24/2021) also teaches using a handle on an outer surface of a container (Fig. 3).
However, the prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose the skirt portion of the filter comprising a “series of perforations to cause the skirt portion to tear when pressed against the handle” as required in dependent claim 16.
With respect to the skirt portion, Melton states that the skirt “should be flexible enough to deform sufficiently that the rim gripping portions readily engage the curl on the top of a container and create a snug enough fit to be substantially liquid tight” (10:20-23). As such, those of ordinary skill in the art would not consider it obvious to modify the skirt portion of Melton to include such perforations as in doing so would lead to the skirt portion no longer engaging the rim of the container in a manner to be substantially liquid tight.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Melton, as detailed above in claim 1, is considered the closest prior art to the claimed invention. While Melton does not teach a handle on the outer surface of the container, those of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious and well known in the art to have, or include, such a handle. US 6065609 to Lake teaches such an arrangement of a handle (16) on an outer surface (14) of a container (12) (See Figs. 1-3). Additionally, US20220369846 to Threlfall (claiming priority to 05/24/2021) also teaches using a handle on an outer surface of a container (Fig. 3). Further, DE202012100462 to Chang shows a filter (4) that is received within a container (C), the container having a handle (See Figs. 1, 3b, 3c, and 4a-c). Chang further shows a skirt portion (231) accommodating the handle of the container when the skirt portion is folded over the outer surface of the container (Figs. 4A-C).
With respect to the skirt portion, Melton states that the skirt “should be flexible enough to deform sufficiently that the rim gripping portions readily engage the curl on the top of a container and create a snug enough fit to be substantially liquid tight” (10:20-23). As such, those of ordinary skill in the art would not consider it obvious to modify the skirt portion of Melton to include such an opening, required in dependent claim 17, as in doing so would lead to the skirt portion no longer engaging the rim of the container in a manner to be substantially liquid tight. Additionally, there is no evidence, based on the prior art of record, to suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious, or would have otherwise been motivated, to modify Melton to include the skirt portion and opening arrangement of Chang. The skirt portion of Melton and the skit portion of Chang take different forms and do not serve the same or similar purpose. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider it obvious to modify the skirt portion of Melton to include an opening that accommodates the handle when the skirt portion is folded over the outer surface of the container, as required in dependent claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (ET).
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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 C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761