CTNF 18/334,525 CTNF 88114 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/27/2023 and 6/14/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to because: Figure 1 includes multiple views in the same figure. Neither view in Figure 1 is a partial view and therefore they require separate figures, See 37CFR1.84(u) Items shown in cross-sectional figures in Figures 2 and 3 should not be shaded and instead should utilize hatch markings, See 37CFR1.84(m) and (h)(3). 06-22-03 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “ 14 ” has been used to designate both beads in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and larger beads in Fig. 3 . 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. 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: clamping member and weighting member in claims 1,8 and 11. 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. The specification defines the clamping member as a spring-actuated clamp ( paragraph 0021, lines 3-4 ,Fig. 1 ). The specification defines the weighting member as a bead ( Fig. 1-3 ). 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-11 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation " the fold lip " in line 10 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 11 recites the limitation " the fold lip " in line 10 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1,2,4,7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Leber (US20080152773) . With regards to claim 1 , Leber discloses an apparatus for steeping tea in a vessel ( an apparatus for steeping, Title) , comprising a clamping member that is configured to releasably grasp an edge of a tea filter bag ( connecting clip 13 for grasping tea bag 15, Fig. 5 ); a weighting member weighing more than the clamping member ( tray 11 which can be made of stone and connecting clip 13 can be made of a plastic wherein the stone of the tray 11 would weigh more than the plastic, paragraph 0013, lines 4-5, paragraph 0014, lines 0014, lines 9-11 ); and a strand of beads having a first end coupled to the clamping member and a second end, opposite the first end, coupled to the weighting member ( tether 12 is a simple beaded chain with a first end coupled to the clip 13 and a second end coupled to tray 11, Fig. 5 ), the strand of beads having a plurality of beads joined to each other by a metal linkage ( preferably, tether 12 is made of one or more materials that will not rust, corrode, or otherwise adversely react when exposed to hot water, tea, or detergents, paragraph 0015, lines 7-8 ), wherein the strand of beads is configured to fold over a lip of the vessel to provide at least a first detent position for supporting the tea filter bag at a first immersion distance from the fold lip ( beads of tether 12 are folded over a lip of cup 17 to provide the tea bag 15 into cup 17 at a distance, Fig. 5 ), and a second detent position for supporting the tea filter bag at a second immersion distance from the fold lip ( another position wherein the beads of tether 12 are folded over a lip of cup 17 to provide the tea bag 15 into cup 17 at a distance, Fig. 5 ). With regards to claim 2 , Leber discloses wherein the clamping member is an alligator clip ( suitable forms of clips include, but are limited to, alligator clips, paragraph 0013, lines 4-5 ). With regards to claim 4 , Leber discloses wherein the clamping member is coupled to the strand of beads with a metal linkage ( clip 13 can be made of stainless steel and couple to the tether 12, paragraph 0013, lines 4-7 ). With regards to claim 7 , Leber discloses wherein the first detent position is defined between two adjacent beads ( position is defined in Fig. 5 wherein the tea bag 15 is inside the cup 17 wherein the tether 12 is positioned with beads on the rim of cup 17, Fig. 5 ). With regards to claim 8 , Leber discloses an apparatus for steeping tea in a vessel ( apparatus for steeping, Title ), comprising: at least one clamping member that is configured to releasably grasp an edge of one or more tea filter bags ( clip 13 configured to releasably grasp an edge of tea bag 15, Fig. 5 ); a strand of beads having a first end that is coupled to the clamping member ( tether 12 is a more complex chain including beads attached at a first end to clip 13, paragraph 0015, lines 4-6 ); and a weighting member that is coupled to a second end of the strand of beads ( tray 11 that is coupled to a second end of the tether 12, Fig. 5 ), wherein the weight of the weighting member exceeds twice the averaged size and weight of beads in the strand of beads ( tray 11 can be made of stone which would exceed the weight of the tether 12 which is a simple beaded chain, paragraph 0015, lines 9-11 ); wherein the strand of beads is configured to fold over a lip of the vessel ( tether 12 is configured to fold over a lip of cup 17, Fig. 5 ) to provide at least: (i) a first detent position between a first pair of beads for supporting the tea filter bag at a first immersion distance from the fold ( beads of tether 12 are folded over a lip of cup 17 to provide the tea bag 15 into cup 17 at a distance, Fig. 5 ), and (ii) a second detent position between a second pair of beads for supporting the tea filter bag at a second immersion distance from the fold ( another position wherein the beads of tether 12 are folded over a lip of cup 17 to provide the tea bag 15 into cup 17 at a distance, Fig. 5 ). With regards to claim 9 , Leber discloses wherein the at least one clamping member is formed of metal ( clip 13 is made of a suitable grade of stainless steel, paragraph 0013, lines 6-8 ). With regards to claim 10 , Leber discloses where wherein beads in the strand are coupled to each other using wire ( tether 12 is a more complex chain including beads wherein chain conveys some type of metal wire, paragraph 0015, lines 4-5 ). With regards to claim 11 , Leber discloses a method comprising: providing a releasable metal clamping member ( provide a clip 13 that is made of stainless steel, paragraph 0013, lines 6-8 ) configured for grasping a tea filter bag ( clip 13 can be any form of clip capable of grasping a tea bag, for example, tea bag 15,paragraph 0013, lines 2-3 );coupling the releasable metal clamping member to a first end of a strand of beads ( coupling clip 13 to a first end of tether 12 which is a bead chain, Fig. 5 ), wherein the strand of beads has a plurality of beads joined to each other by a metal linkage ( tether 12 is a simple beaded chain wherein chain conveys a metal linkage, paragraph 0015, lines 5-6 ), wherein the strand of beads is configured to fold over a lip of a drinking vessel to suspend the releasable metal clamping member within the drinking vessel at least a first detent position for supporting the tea filter bag at a first immersion distance from the fold lip ( tether 12 is folded over the lip of cup 17 to suspend the clip 13 holding tea bag 15 within cup 17 at a first position for supporting tea bag 15, Fig. 5 ), and a second detent position for supporting the tea filter bag at a second immersion distance from the fold lip ( tea bag 15 can be moved to a different position , Fig. 5 ); and coupling a weighting member, weighing more than the clamping member ( tray 11 which can be made of stone and connecting clip 13 can be made of a plastic wherein the stone of the tray 11 would weigh more than the plastic, paragraph 0013, lines 4-5, paragraph 0014, lines 0014, lines 9-11 ), to a second end of the strand of beads, opposite the first end, wherein the weighting member is configured for suspension outside the drinking vessel ( second end of tether 12 is attached to tray 11 outside of cup 17,Fig. 5 ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 3,5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leber . With regards to claim 3 , Leber discloses tether 12 is a more complex chain including beads, jewels, or other charms ( paragraph 0015, lines 4-6 ). Leber does not disclose wherein the beads are formed from glass. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have beads of Leber, since the applicant has not disclosed that the beads being formed from glass solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the beads of Leber. With regards to claim 5 , Leber discloses a tether 12 is a more complex chain including beads, jewels, or other charms ( paragraph 0015, lines 4-6 ). Leber does not disclose wherein the strand has seed beads of a first width dimension and positioned between larger beads having a second width dimension that is at least 1.5 times the first width dimension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the strand has seed beads of a first width dimension and positioned between larger beads having a second width dimension that is at least 1.5 times the first width dimension, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device . In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. , 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). The beads of Leber clearly work in a way to hang over the cup in order to provide some weight to the tea bag ( Fig. 5 ). With regards to claim 6 , Leber discloses wherein the first detent position is defined at a seed bead position ( position is defined in Fig. 5 wherein the tea bag 15 is inside the cup 17, Fig. 5 ). As an alternative, claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LaMacchia et al (US5709327). With regards to claim 5, Leber does not disclose wherein the strand has seed beads of a first width dimension and positioned between larger beads having a second width dimension that is at least 1.5 times the first width dimension, however Leber does teach the beads can be jewels and charms ( paragraph 0015, lines 4-6 ). LaMacchia et al teaches it is known for a strand of beads/jewels/charms to be of a first width dimension and positioned between larger beads/jewels/charms having a second width dimension that is at least 1.5 times the first width dimension ( fastening device 10 having a bead 22 that is bigger than bead 26 which is tied to a clamping means 30, Fig. 1-3 ). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Leber and LaMacchia et al before him or her, to modify the beads of Leber to include the beads of different sizes as taught by LaMacchia et al because the combination doing so would lead to the predictable result of increasing the visual presence of the strand. With regards to claim 6 , Leber discloses wherein the first detent position is defined at a seed bead position ( position is defined in Fig. 5 wherein the tea bag 15 is inside the cup 17, Fig. 5 ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm. 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 5712705095. 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. /THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/334,525 Page 2 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/334,525 Page 3 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/334,525 Page 4 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/334,525 Page 5 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/334,525 Page 6 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/334,525 Page 7 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/334,525 Page 8 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/334,525 Page 9 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/334,525 Page 10 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/334,525 Page 11 Art Unit: 3761