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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 11 Nov 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I, II, and III are linked by a common inventive concept, there are no serious search or examination burden, and that unity of invention exists. This is not found persuasive because the Restriction is made under 35 U.S.C. 371 regarding Unity of Invention. Therefore, Restriction is proper if the shared technical features do not make a contribution over the prior art. Applicant has not provided any arguments as to why Zickler et al., presented in the Restriction Requirement mailed 9/12/2025, fails to meet the shared technical features of the claims. Furthermore, the shared technical feature is not a special technical feature in view of the prior art rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble appears to be missing the article “an” prior to “at least partially pre-filled beverage can”. 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 7-13 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.
Regarding Claim 7, the term “the fingers” in line 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. The term should be amended to “the plurality of fingers” to properly refer the recited “a plurality of fingers” recited in line 2.
Claims 8-10 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected claim. Furthermore, Claims 9-10 also recites “the fingers” and are rejected for reasons similar to Claim 7.
Regarding Claims 11-13, the term “resilient” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “resilient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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: “a radial clamping module” in claim 1. The term “module” is construed as a generic place holder for performing the claimed function of “radially engaging the beverage can” without sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function. “The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. Emphasis added, See MPEP 2181.I.A.
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. In this case, the corresponding structure is a plurality of fingers extending from the interface body, which fingers are provided with at least one radially extending cam, or like thereof (Page 3, ln. 17-21).
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 § 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) 1-5, 7-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bennett (US 9,215,954- cited in IDS filed 3/27/2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Bennett discloses a shaker top (upper housing 180) for forming a cocktail shaker together with at least partially pre-filled beverage can (lower housing 400), the shaker top comprising: an interface part (upper housing 180) arranged to be liquid-tightly connected to the beverage can (forms a seal between the upper and lower chambers, Col. 6, ln. 27-39), the interface part comprising an interface body (upper housing 180) and a radial clamping module (retaining flange members 450) for radially engaging the beverage can. In view of the interpretation of “radial clamping module” as invoked by 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above, Bennett further teaches wherein the radial clamping module comprises a plurality of fingers extending from the interface body, wherein the fingers are provided with at least one radially extending cam (see 450, Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 2, Bennett further teaches wherein the interface part comprises a fluid inlet passage through the interface body and a fluid outlet passage through the interface body (cap gasket 140), and wherein the shaker top further comprises a cap part (preventer 150) arranged to be connected to the interface part, and arranged to selectively block the fluid outlet passage and allow a fluid flow through the fluid outlet passage (Col. 7, ln. 50-64).
Regarding Claim 3, Bennett further teaches wherein the radial clamping module comprises at least one cam protruding in a radial direction (retaining flange 450, Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 4, Bennett further teaches wherein the at least one cam protrudes towards a center line of the shaker top (towards center vertical axis of the can, Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 5, Bennett further teaches wherein the cap part is rotationally connected to the interface part, such that the cap part can be rotated relative to the interface part between a first orientation where the cap part blocks the fluid outlet passage and a second orientation where the cap part allows a fluid flow through the fluid outlet passage (the underlying preventer rotates, Col. 9, Ln. 35-43).
Regarding Claim 7, Bennett further teaches wherein the radial clamping module comprises a plurality of fingers extending from the interface body, wherein the fingers are provided with at least one radially extending cam (see 450, Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 8, Bennett further teaches wherein the at least one cam protrudes towards a center line of the shaker top (towards center vertical axis of the can, Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 9, Bennett further teaches wherein the fingers are hingedly connected to the interface body; that is, Bennett discloses the fingers that are similar to Applicant’s specification in that the fingers are hingedly connected by virtue of comprising an elastic and/or resilient material (Page 13, second paragraph of the specification). In this case, the fingers of Bennett are necessarily elastic such that the flange members must bend to an extent such that the flange 450 and the retaining clips 460 interlock (Col. 6, ln. 40-62).
Regarding Claim 11, Bennett further comprising a resilient sealing ring at least partially surrounded by the interface body (ring gasket 410, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Bennett further teaches wherein the resilient sealing ring comprises a hinging part (the portion of gasket 410 that is below retaining clip 460, Fig. 15) arranged to be hinged relative to another part of the sealing ring (portion of gasket 410 that is above retaining clip 460, Fig. 15) in a direction away from the interface body (around the retaining clip 460). That is, since the gaskets are made of compressible materials that allows sealing between the upper and lower housing such that the retaining clip 460 presses into the gasket 410 (see Fig. 15), the gasket 410 is capable of hinging about the retaining clip 460 in a direction away from the interface part.
Regarding Claim 13, Bennett further teaches wherein an annular space is provided between the resilient sealing ring and the interface part for accommodating part of the beverage can (Fig. 15 where retaining clips 460 is between the sealing ring 410 and interface part 450).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 9,215,954) in view of Arch et al. (GB 2495508A).
Regarding Claim 6, Bennett is silent to wherein the cap part comprises a set of through holes provided adjacent to one another, and wherein the cap part can be rotated relative to the interface part to a third orientation in which the set of through holes is aligned with the fluid outlet passage. Arch is relied on to teach a cap part configured to have inlet and outlet flow of beverage materials (cocktail beverages, page 1, ln. 4-6), wherein the cap part is similarly rotated to control the flow of liquid through the cap part (Page 4, ln. 17-20). The cap part of Arch further comprises a set of through holes adjacent to one another and provides a third orientation in which the set of through holes is aligned with the fluid outlet passage (grille configuration 34, page 9, ln. 8-12) for the purpose of filtering coarse materials (page 5, ln. 15-19).
Since Bennet is also directed to a container for dispensing mixed beverages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a third orientation comprising a set of through holes for the purpose of filtering coarse materials within the beverage container.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 9,215,954) in view of Worms (DE 102014014110A1- see machine translations).
Regarding Claim 10, Bennet is silent to further comprising a locking ring surrounding at least part of the fingers, wherein the locking ring is arranged to be rotated relative to the interface part between a locking state where the locking ring restricts hinging of the fingers and an unlocked state where the locking allows hinging of the fingers. Worms is relied on to teach a cap that engages with a bottled beverage using a radial clamping module (fastening straps 24.1, Fig. 1) comprising a cam that is hingedly attached and protruding radially towards the center of the beverage container (bulge 30.2, Fig. 1), and the bottled beverage further comprises a locking ring (securing device 14) that is rotated relative to the interface part between a locking state thereby locking the fastening strap to form a firm connection between the bottle closure and the bottle body (page 10, second and third paragraph of the translations).
Therefore, since Bennett and Worms comprising two components having similar engagement mechanism to form a seal between the two components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further provide a locking ring to secure the upper housing to the lower housing of Bennet for the purpose of forming a firm connection between the upper housing and the lower housing.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 9,215,954) in view of McClean (GB 2214444A).
Regarding Claim 14, Bennett is silent to further comprising an axle protruding through the interface body, wherein a first end of the axle is arranged to be rotated by an external motor, and wherein a second end of the axle is arranged to be connected to a tool for agitating a beverage. McClean is relied on to teach a beverage mixer for making cocktail wherein the container comprises an axle (processing assembly receiver means, page 2, last paragraph) protruding through the upper portion 11 wherein a first end is arranged to be rotated by an external motor (driving motor 15) and a second end of the axle connected to a tool for agitating a beverage (processing blade 22a, 22b). This allows processing of ice cubes, fruits, and other solid or semi-solid matter (page 1, ln. 14-19).
Since both Bennett and McClean are directed to beverage mixers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an axle to be rotated by a motor for the purpose of processing ice cubes, fruits, and solids or semi-solid materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0346. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792