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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Thus, toward the end of the abstract, “said holes” should be corrected to –the holes--.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, 14, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “the filter with holes” should be corrected to –the filter—to maintain consistent wording throughout the claims.
In claim 5, “the filter provided with holes” should be corrected to –the filter—to maintain consistent wording throughout the claims.
In claim 14, “the filter provided with holes” should be corrected to –the filter—to maintain consistent wording throughout the claims.
In claim 18, one successive instance of “in that” should be deleted.
In claim 18, “base (6) is made” should be corrected to –base (6) made--.
In claim 19, one successive instance of “in that” should be deleted.
In claim 19, “base (6) is made” should be corrected to –base (6) made--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
No claim limitations are interpreted under 112(f).
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.
Claim 11 is 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. The claim recites “the holes (4a) in the filter (4) are of such a diameter that they prevent the fluid deposited thereon from moving through said holes towards the lower portion of the container but allow the passage of the gas.” The specification gives no example of such a diameter. According to MPEP §2163.03 §§ V, “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result, but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved.”
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 1-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrases “in particular,” "such as," and “for example” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites “an easily removable manner.” The term “easily” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easily” 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. Thus, it is not clear how easy it must e to remove the filter.
Claim 4 recites “a plurality of holes.” Claim 4 depends from claim 1, which recites “holes.” It is not clear whether the holes from claim 4 are the same ones from claim 1, or whether additional holes are required. For the purpose of examination, the claim 4 limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –the holes--.
Claim 6 recites “the inner wall.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “the arrangement of the holes.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the end of claim 10 has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –the holes provided in the filter are arranged in a hexagonal shape.—
Claim 11 recites “the holes (4a) in the filter (4) are of such a diameter that they prevent the fluid deposited thereon from moving through said holes.” Since the fluid is not specified, the limitation is not clear. Different fluids would likely require different diameters to meet the limitation. The metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
Claim 13 recites “a plurality of holes.” Claim 13 depends from claim 1, which recites “holes.” It is not clear whether the holes from claim 13 are the same ones from claim 1, or whether additional holes are required. For the purpose of examination, the claim 13 limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to –the holes--.
Claim 17 recites “the lower support base.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. This limitation is introduced in claim 8, but claim 17 depends from claim 1.
The remaining rejected claims are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funk (DE 10340024).
PNG
media_image1.png
682
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
612
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Funk discloses:
A device for generating flying edible foams or clouds, in particular for generating bonding of bubbles of a gas that is lighter than air, such as helium, such that they are integrated inside a fluid including a preparation, a compound or an edible and/or drinkable raw material, for example a cream or a drink, converting said fluid into a product in the form of a floating cloud (this is an intended use, but Funk does relate to beverages, see ¶1), characterised in that it comprises
a container (2) suitable for holding liquids that has a lower housing (2 below 2a), provided with a lateral perforation (4), suitable for inserting a tube (4 is disclosed as an outlet, but is capable of having a tube inserted because it is a hole) through which the gas is introduced (still pat of the intended use), and an upper housing (2 above 2a) that is separated from the lower housing by means of a filter (3) provided with holes (7).
Regarding claim 2, Funk discloses:
the container (2) is a tubular body (see Fig 2) that has a perimeter recess (at 2a, ¶51) between the lower housing (2 below 2a) and the upper housing (2 below 2a) that defines an inner rim (shoulder 2a) that acts as a stop to secure the position of the filter (3) with holes between both portions, lower and upper, in an easily removable manner (¶50 “detachably and/or replaceably attached”).
Regarding claim 3, Funk discloses:
the container (2) is cylindrical (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Funk discloses:
the filter (7) is a metal plate (¶24) with a plurality of holes (7) distributed on its surface.
Regarding claim 10, Funk discloses:
the arrangement of the holes (7) in the filter (3) generates a hexagonal shape (see Fig 3).
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christiansen (GB 460217).
[AltContent: textbox (support base)][AltContent: textbox (junction)]
PNG
media_image3.png
1112
527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Christiansen discloses:
A device for generating flying edible foams or clouds, in particular for generating bonding of bubbles of a gas that is lighter than air, such as helium, such that they are integrated inside a fluid including a preparation, a compound or an edible and/or drinkable raw material, for example a cream or a drink, converting said fluid into a product in the form of a floating cloud (this is an intended use, but Christiansen does relate to edible whipped cream, see p.1 lines 8-15), characterised in that it comprises
a container (lower portion tubular portion of metal bowl 1, which is shown as being a separate piece than the upper bowl-shaped portion, see “junction” in annotated Fig 1 above) suitable for holding liquids that has a lower housing (bowl 1 between 2 and 3), provided with a lateral perforation (at 13), suitable for inserting a tube through which the gas is introduced (p.3 lines 42-55), and an upper housing (bowl 1 above 3) that is separated from the lower housing by means of a filter provided with holes (gauze discs 6 together with plate 9, p.3 lines 1-35).
Regarding claim 2, Christiansen discloses:
the container (bowl 1 below “junction”) is a tubular body (see Fig 1) that has a perimeter recess (p.2 lines 102-104: “An annular recessed shoulder 3 is provided in the chamber 2 for receiving a false bottom.”) between the lower housing (bowl 1 below 3) and the upper housing (bowl 1 above 3) that defines an inner rim (surface of 3) that acts as a stop to secure the position of the filter with holes (6, 9) between both portions, lower and upper, in an easily removable manner (p.3 lines 71-72).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Christiansen discloses:
the container (bowl 1 below “junction”) is cylindrical (see Figs 1, 3, 5, and 7).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Christiansen discloses:
the filter (4) is a metal plate (p.3 lines 13-16 “aluminum steel”), with a plurality of holes (slits 10, p.3 lines 16-28) distributed on its surface.
Regarding claim 6, Christiansen discloses:
the filter (4) has a perimeter seal (rubber or other packing ring 5, p.1 line 105-p.2 line 1), which fits on the inner wall (at 3) of the container.
Regarding claim 8, Christiansen discloses:
the container has a lower support base (“support base” in annotated Fig 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Christiansen discloses:
the holes (gauze and slits) in the filter (6, 9) are of such a diameter that they prevent the fluid deposited thereon from moving through said holes towards the lower portion of the container but allow the passage of the gas from the lower portion of the container towards the upper portion thereof through the fluid deposited on the filter (p.3 lines 23-34 and 61-72).
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roush (US 1852267).
PNG
media_image4.png
865
874
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Roush discloses:
A device for generating flying edible foams or clouds, in particular for generating bonding of bubbles of a gas that is lighter than air, such as helium, such that they are integrated inside a fluid including a preparation, a compound or an edible and/or drinkable raw material, for example a cream or a drink, converting said fluid into a product in the form of a floating cloud (this is an intended use, but Roush does relate to edible whipped cream, see col 1 lines 1-3), characterised in that it comprises
a container (container 1) suitable for holding liquids that has a lower housing (cylindrical base 3), provided with a lateral perforation (Fig 1 shows a ring of holes in base 3), suitable for inserting a tube through which the gas is introduced (The gas is supplied by a compressor 14, which is inside base 3, and then directed into a pressure chamber by a hose in the bottom, rather than the lateral side of the pressure chamber. However, any of the ring of holes that provide air to the compressor could perform the function of allowing the insertion of a tube.), and an upper housing (container 1 above screen 25) that is separated from the lower housing by means of a filter provided with holes (porous stone 2, p.2 lines 6-10 and screen 25, p.2 lines 109-114).
Regarding claim 2, Roush discloses:
the container (1, 3) is a tubular body (see Figs 1 and 2) that has a perimeter recess (internal space between flange 7 and wall of 1, p.2 lines 20-29) between the lower housing (1) and the upper housing (3) that defines an inner rim (surface of 7) that acts as a stop to secure the position of the filter with holes (2, 25) between both portions, lower and upper, in an easily removable manner.
Regarding claim 3, Roush discloses:
the container (2) is cylindrical (see Figs 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 6, Roush discloses:
the filter (4) has a perimeter seal (5) (gasket 6, p.2 lines 21-46), which fits on the inner wall of the container (2) (on the wall of 1 which faces 3).
Regarding claim 8, Roush discloses:
the container (2) has a lower support base (6) (15, p.2 lines 54-70).
Regarding claim 9, Roush discloses:
the lower support base (15) is an independent and removable part of the container (p.2 lines 61-70).
Regarding claim 11, Roush discloses:
the holes (4a) in the filter (4) are of such a diameter that they prevent the fluid deposited thereon from moving through said holes towards the lower portion of the container but allow the passage of the gas from the lower portion of the container towards the upper portion thereof through the fluid deposited on the filter (4) (as would be inferred from p.1 lines 98-107).
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.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen (GB 460217) in view of Boily (US 20140010936 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Christiansen does not disclose:
the filter provided with holes (4) is made of stainless steel.
Cristiansen teaches that the plate 10 is made of aluminum steel or other material (p.3 lines 13-16). Christiansen does not disclose the specific material for the “wire gauze” (p.3 line 54).
Boily teaches:
a stainless steel screen (¶42) for foaming a beverage (¶2). Stainless steel is a suitable for forming a screen and safe for food contact, as evidenced by its use in this reference for aerating a beverage.
COMBINATION
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Christiansen teaches a plate that differs from the claimed plate because it is made of aluminum steel instead of stainless steel. The aluminum steel plate of Christiansen and the stainless steel plate of Boily both perform the function of distributing gas bubbles in an edible liquid. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the aluminum steel material of Christiansen with the stainless steel material of Boily to achieve predictable results because both references deal with aerating edible materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Christiansen by replacing the aluminum steel material with stainless steel material because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen (GB 460217) in view of Berritt (US 2,056,932).
Regarding claims 7 and 16-19, Christiansen does not disclose:
the container [and/or] lower support base is made of glass.
Christiansen discloses that the container and lower support base are made in a single piece, so the material would be the same for both. Christiansen discloses that the bowl 1 is metal but is silent on the particular material of the base portion (below the junction in annotated Fig 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
690
634
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Berritt teaches:
a kitchen machine for handling cream (p.1, col 2, lines 23-44). Each part of the two-piece bowl (A, B) can be made of metal or glass (p.2, col 1, lines 34-41).
COMBINATION
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Christiansen teaches a container and base that differs from the claimed container and base because it is made of metal instead of glass. The metal bowl (container) of Christiansen and the glass bowl of Berritt both perform the function of distributing handling cream in a kitchen machine. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the metal material of Christiansen with the glass material of Berritt to achieve predictable results because both references deal with a two-part bowl that handles cream in a kitchen environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Christiansen by replacing the aluminum steel material with stainless steel material because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. In the combination, since the container portion and the support base portion of Christiansen are formed together in the same piece, the modification causes both of these claim elements to be made of glass.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen (GB 460217) in view of Khalifa (US 20170280926).
Regarding claim 15, Christiansen does not disclose:
the perimeter seal (5) is made of silicone.
Christiansen discloses that the seal 5 may be made of “rubber” or other material (p.2 line 107 – p.3 line 1).
Khalifa teaches a filter sealed in a cylindrical drinking cup by a seal made of silicone rubber.
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Christiansen by making the rubber seal of silicone rubber because Khalifa teaches that silicone rubber is an appropriate material for a seal in a food container.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image6.png
673
865
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Guerra (US 20050257317 A1) discloses:
A device for generating flying edible foams or clouds, in particular for generating bonding of bubbles of a gas that is lighter than air, such as helium (¶28), such that they are integrated inside a fluid including a preparation, a compound or an edible and/or drinkable raw material, for example a cream or a drink, converting said fluid into a product in the form of a floating cloud, characterised in that it comprises
a container (solution chamber 10 together with foam formation chamber 40) suitable for holding liquids that has a lower housing (solution chamber 10), provided with a lateral perforation (gas inlet 20, ¶31), suitable for inserting a tube through which the gas is introduced, and an upper housing (foam formation chamber 40) that is separated from the lower housing by means of a filter provided with holes (perforated membrane 30).
PNG
media_image7.png
639
417
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Knoblauch (GB 511871)
Regarding claim 1, Knoblauch discloses:
A device for generating flying edible foams or clouds, in particular for generating bonding of bubbles of a gas that is lighter than air, such as helium, such that they are integrated inside a fluid including a preparation, a compound or an edible and/or drinkable raw material, for example a cream or a drink, converting said fluid into a product in the form of a floating cloud (this is an intended use, but Knoblauch does relate to edible whipped cream, see p.2 lines 7-17), characterised in that it comprises
a container (7) suitable for holding liquids that has a lower housing (7a), provided with a lateral perforation (19), suitable for inserting a tube (21, see Fig 1 inserted at 19a) through which the gas is introduced (see compressor 20 in Fig 1), and an upper housing (7 above 13) that is separated from the lower housing by means of a filter (9) provided with holes (9a or 9b, see Figs 3-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Topaz Elliott whose telephone number is 571-270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. – 4 p.m.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights