DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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. The claims are rendered indefinite by the limitation recited in each independent claim “a plurality of smooth indentations formed by each tangent line to a curve at a constant angle and thus arranged in a helical configuration around the interior wall face and extending between the opening and the second opposite end”. A tangent line to a curve is the line through two points on the curve infinitesimally close to the given point. In other words, there is only one line tangent to a given point on a curve; it doesn’t make sense to further specify “at a constant angle”. For example, if the curve is a circle, all the tangent lines would lie in the same plane as the circle, and collectively would span the plane itself, less the interior of the circle. Furthermore, a helical configuration can not be formed by lines. Shapes formed of lines at constant angles to curves are cylinders, cones and hyperboloids. Just as a helix does not include any line segment, the generally helical shapes of applicant’s drawing cannot be formed of a set of lines or line segments.
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 1-20 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. While, as explained above, it is unclear what is being claimed, the claims have been considered with respect to the description requirement to the extent possible. The claims do not meet the description requirement due to the limitation recited in each independent claim “a plurality of smooth indentations formed by each tangent line to a curve at a constant angle and thus arranged in a helical configuration around the interior wall face and extending between the opening and the second opposite end”. The application as filed contains one statement concerning tangent lines: “In some embodiment, the interior configuration of the containers of the present disclosure include a smooth space curve with tangent lines at a constant angle with an opening on one end and an enclosed dome on the opposite other end” at [0027]. While both the claim and the specification are unclear concerning the geometry, unlike the claim limitation, the specification does not refer to “indentations formed by each tangent line” and does not relate the tangent lines to “a helical configuration”.
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.
While, as explained above, it is unclear what is being claimed, consideration with respect to the prior art have been attempted to the extend possible, to further prosecution.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ragettli (US 3,495,736). Regarding claim 1, Ragetti discloses a container comprising: a container body (10) having a first end (11) comprising an opening and a second end (12) opposite the first end, the second end having a closed rounded shape, the container body further comprising a container wall between the opening and the second end, the container wall having an interior surface comprising a single substantially continuous rounded wall face with a plurality of smooth indentations (13 and/or 15) therein arranged in a helical configuration around the wall face between the opening and the second opposite end. Regarding claim 2, the plurality of smooth indentations are equally spaced about the rounded wall face (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 3, the plurality of smooth indentations comprises six indentations (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 6 the container has a larger diameter at the first end than at the second end (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 8, the container wall is a single wall and wherein the container wall has an exterior surface with a plurality of protrusions matching the plurality of smooth indentations on the interior surface (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 9, the container wall comprises a double wall configuration having an exterior surface separated from the interior surface (see Fig. 3). Regarding claim 10, the exterior surface comprises a plurality of smooth protrusions matching the plurality of smooth indentations on the interior surface (see Fig. 3). Regarding claim 11, the exterior surface comprises a plurality of smooth protrusions different from the plurality of smooth indentations on the interior surface (see Figs. 3). Regarding claim 12, the exterior surface comprises a smooth exterior surface (see Fig. 3). Regarding claim 13, the exterior surface includes a flat bottom (see Fig. 3). Regarding claim 14, each of the plurality of smooth indentations comprises a depression with rounded
edges providing a substantially continuous smooth surface without sharp edges (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 15, insert for a drinking vessel, comprising: a mixing body (10) comprising a wall, a first end (11) at a first end of the wall comprising an opening, and a second end (12) at an opposite second end of the wall, the second end comprising a closed rounded shape; wherein the wall comprises an interior surface comprising a rounded wall face with a plurality of smooth indentations (13 and/or 15) therein arranged in a helical configuration around the wall face between the opening and the second opposite end. Regarding claim 17, the body has a larger diameter at the first end than at the second end (see Figs. 1 and 3). Regarding claim 19, the wall is a single wall and wherein the wall has an exterior surface with a plurality of protrusions matching the plurality of smooth indentations on the interior surface (see Figs. 1 and 3). Regarding claim 20, each of the plurality of smooth indentations comprises a depression with rounded edges providing a substantially continuous smooth surface without sharp edges (see Figs. 1 and 3).
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holmes (US 2014/0192610). Regarding claim 1, Holmes discloses a container comprising: a container body (10) having a first end (12) comprising an opening and a second end (24) opposite the first end, the second end having a closed rounded shape, the container body further comprising a container wall (18) between the opening and the second end, the container wall having an interior surface comprising a single substantially continuous rounded wall face with a plurality of smooth indentations (22) therein arranged in a helical configuration around the wall face between the opening and the second opposite end. Regarding claim 2, the plurality of smooth indentations are equally spaced about the rounded wall face (see Figs. 3-5). Regarding claim 3, the plurality of smooth indentations comprises six indentations (see Fig. 3 and 4). Regarding claim 4, each of the plurality of smooth indentations subtends an angle of approximately 120 degrees between the first end and the second end (see Figs. 3 and 4). Regarding claim 6 the container has a larger diameter at the first end than at the second end (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 8, the container wall is a single wall and wherein the container wall has an exterior surface with a plurality of protrusions matching the plurality of smooth indentations on the interior surface (see Fig. 3-5). Regarding claim 14, each of the plurality of smooth indentations comprises a depression with rounded edges providing a substantially continuous smooth surface without sharp edges (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 15, insert for a drinking vessel, comprising: a mixing body (10) comprising a wall (18), a first end (12) at a first end of the wall comprising an opening, and a second end (24) at an opposite second end of the wall, the second end comprising a closed rounded shape; wherein the container wall comprises an interior surface comprising a rounded wall face with a plurality of smooth indentations (22) therein arranged in a helical configuration around the wall face between the opening and the second opposite end. Regarding claim 16, each of the plurality of smooth indentations subtends an angle of approximately 120 degrees between the first end and the second end (see Figs. 3 and 4). Regarding claim 17, the container has a larger diameter at the first end than at the second end (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 19, the container wall is a single wall and wherein the container wall has an exterior surface with a plurality of protrusions matching the plurality of smooth indentations on the interior surface (see Figs. 3 and 4). Regarding claim 20, each of the plurality of smooth indentations comprises a depression with rounded edges providing a substantially continuous smooth surface without sharp edges (see Figs. 3 and 4).
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.
While, as explained above, it is unclear what is being claimed, consideration with respect to the prior art have been attempted to the extent possible, to further prosecution.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US 11. 2014/0192610) in view of Beardsell (US 11,613,420). As explained above, most of these claims are anticipated by Holmes alone. Beardsell is cited for teaching the second end of a container being rounded in a hemispherical manner (see col. 3, lines 7-10), as explicitly required by claim 5. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the second end hemispherical as taught by Beardsell, to improve mixing. Such a modification would still satisfy the rounding limitations of the independent claims, 1 and 15. Regarding claims 7 and 18, Holmes teaches the second end being slightly smaller; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have increase the size to improve stability, prevent spilling. Regarding claim 9, Beardsell teaches a double wall configuration (see Fig. 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a double wall configuration as taught by Beardsell to improve thermal insulation. Regarding claims 10 and 11, Beardsell further teaches the exterior surface having both matching and non-matching protrusions. Regarding claim 12, Beardsell further teaches that the exterior surface comprises a smooth exterior surface (see Fig. 41). Regarding claim 13, Beardsell further teaches that the exterior surface includes a flat bottom (See Fig. 41).
Response to Arguments
In remarks, applicant emphasizes the phrase “a single substantially continuous rounded interior wall face” which is recited in one of the two independent claims. This is disclosed by the drawings of Ragetti and Holmes. Contrary to applicant’s remarks, Fig. 1 of Ragettli shows a single cup, while Fig. 2 shows a stack of cups. In Fig. 1, a rounded tapering is seen in the bottom portion of the cup. It is agreed that the bottom is not hemispherical, which is why Beardsell is relied upon concerning a hemispherical end. Contrary to applicant’s remarks, a sphere or dome is a surface, not a curve. A curve must be parametrizable with one variable, a surface with two variables. It is not agreed that the surface having generally helical indentations shown in applicant’s drawings contains any line segment. A helix does not contain any line segments. Cylinders, cones and hyperboloids contain line segment, while the allegedly inventive surface of applicant’s drawing does not.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774