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 Invention I in the reply filed on 24 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 24 December 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(q) because reference characters exist which neither have an associated lead line or indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. MPEP 608.02 V. See 100 in figure 1 for example which has no associated lead line and does not indicate the surface on which it is placed. Additionally see the reference characters of figure 14 which have no associated lead lines. Figure 14 can be corrected by providing lead lines between the reference characters and associated boxes.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(t) because the sheets of drawings should be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, within the sight as defined in paragraph (g) of this section. These numbers, if present, must be placed in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin. The numbers can be placed on the right-hand side if the drawing extends too close to the middle of the top edge of the usable surface. The drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion. The number of each sheet should be shown by two Arabic numerals placed on either side of an oblique line, with the first being the sheet number and the second being the total number of sheets of drawings, with no other marking MPEP 608.02 V.
The drawings are objected to because no single reference character may be used for a given part and a modification of such part. MPEP 608.02(e). See at least figures 10-13 which use identical reference characters for different embodiments.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “D3” has been used to designate both the external diameter of the scoop and external opening diameter of the external vessel opening.
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, one or more whisks defined on the lid of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “D3” has been used to designate external diameter and external opening diameter.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: bridge member in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 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 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 1 is drawn to the sub-combination of an internal container only, for use with some external vessel, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of an internal container and an external vessel. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 1 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 12-17, requiring the internal container be positioned within said external vessel, said lid be fixed to said bowl, and said internal container interior volume be completely separated from an interior volume of said external vessel in a state of non-sustained agitation and said internal container be positioned within said external vessel and said lid be separated from said bowl and said internal container interior volume be exposed to said interior volume of said external vessel in a state of sustained agitation). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the external vessel is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the external vessel are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 1 is required.
Claim 8 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 8 is drawn to the sub-combination of an internal container only, for use with some external vessel, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of an internal container and an external vessel. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 8 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 1-3, requiring said external vessel be subjected to an intermittent acceleration of the external vessel of between about 4 g's and about 30 g's for at least a portion of greater than about 2 seconds in said state of sustained agitation). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the external vessel is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the external vessel are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 8 is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 as claim 8 does not further limit the structure of the internal container. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang (US 20150144657).
Claim 1: Fang discloses a container assembly 10 (internal container) adapted to be positioned within an external vessel, said container assembly 10 (internal container) comprising: a container 20 (bowl) comprising: an internal surface; an external surface; and a rim disposed at an interface of said internal and said external surface and defining an opening of said container 20 (bowl); and a lid 40 configured to mate with said container 20 (bowl) so as to collectively define an interior volume of said container assembly 10 (internal container) adapted to be at least partially filled with a first substance, wherein said lid 40 comprises: a lip positioned along an outer perimeter of said lid 40, wherein in a state of non-sustained agitation, said container assembly 10 (internal container) is capable of being positioned within some external vessel, said lid 40 is capable of being fixed to said container 20 (bowl), and said internal container interior volume is capable of being completely separated from an interior volume of that external vessel, and wherein in a state of sustained agitation, said container assembly 10 (internal container) is capable of being positioned within that external vessel and said lid 40 is capable of being separated from said container 20 (bowl) and said internal container interior volume is capable of being exposed to said interior volume of that external vessel (see annotated partial fig. 6 below and fig. 2-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
744
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: Fang discloses wherein said container assembly 10 (internal container) comprises: a gasket positioned at an interface of said rim and said lip (see annotated partial fig. 6 above).
Claim 4: Fang discloses wherein said gasket is monolithically formed with said container 20 (bowl) (see annotated partial fig. 6 above).
Claim 6: Fang discloses wherein in said state of sustained agitation, said lid 40 is configured to separate from said container 20 (bowl) via a force applied by some external vessel (see fig. 2-3 and 6).
Claim 7: Fang discloses wherein indentations 30 (whisks) are defined on said container 20 (bowl) (see fig. 2-3).
Claim 8: Fang discloses wherein in said state of sustained agitation, some external vessel is capable of being subjected to an intermittent acceleration of the external vessel of between about 4 g's and about 30 g's for at least a portion of greater than about 2 seconds.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freedman (EA 039371).
Claim 1: Freedman discloses a container 100 (internal container) adapted to be positioned within an external vessel, said container 100 (internal container) comprising: a container body 101 (bowl) comprising: an internal surface; an external surface; and a top edge 110 (rim) disposed at an interface of said internal and said external surface and defining an opening of said container body 101 (bowl); and a lid 120 configured to mate with said container body 101 (bowl) so as to collectively define an interior volume of said container 100 (internal container) adapted to be at least partially filled with a first substance, wherein said lid 120 comprises: a dependent skirt 125 (lip) positioned along an outer perimeter of said lid 120, wherein in a state of non-sustained agitation, said container 100 (internal container) is capable of being positioned within some external vessel, said lid 120 is capable of being fixed to said container body 101 (bowl), and said internal container interior volume is capable of being completely separated from an interior volume of that external vessel, and wherein in a state of sustained agitation, said container 100 (internal container) is capable of being positioned within that external vessel and said lid 120 is capable of being separated from said container body 101 (bowl) and said internal container interior volume is capable of being exposed to said interior volume of that external vessel (see first sheet of figures).
Claim 2: Freedman discloses wherein said container 100 (internal container) further comprises: a hinge 140 (bridge member) joining said container body 101 (bowl) to said lid 120 (see first figure of the first sheet of figures).
The bridge member for joining said bowl to said lid is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as hinge strap, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 3: Freedman discloses wherein said internal container comprises: a lid elastomeric seal 212 (gasket) positioned at an interface of said top edge 110 (rim) and said dependent skirt 125 (lip) (see middle figure of the first sheet of figures).
Claim 5: Freedman discloses wherein said lid elastomeric seal 212 (gasket) is discrete from said container body 101 (bowl) and said lid 120 (see middle figure of the first sheet of figures).
Claim 6: Freedman discloses wherein in said state of sustained agitation, said lid 120 is capable of separating from said container body 101 (bowl) via a force applied by some external vessel (see first sheet of figures).
Claim 8: Freedman discloses wherein in said state of sustained agitation, some external vessel is capable of being subjected to an intermittent acceleration of the external vessel of between about 4 g's and about 30 g's for at least a portion of greater than about 2 seconds.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5456929.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736