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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig. 6B allegedly depicts a vertical channel 138, but the lead line from 138 only seems to point to the sliding hole 128, with no distinct vertical channel structure in the figure.
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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: CONTAINER AND FRENCH PRESS
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 71 of the as-filed specification, “valve hole 182” should be “valve hole 184.”
In ¶ 94 of the as-filed specification, “filter base 460A” should be “filter base 460.”
In ¶ 100 of the as-filed specification, “filter base 560A” should be “filter base 560.”
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 15–20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 7 and 15 on line 5, “valve hold” should be “valve hole.”
In claim 16 on line 12, “a container” clearly refers to the “insulated container” provided earlier in the claim, and so this should recite “the container.”
Claims 17–20 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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.
Claims 3 and 9–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 provides that “a lid . . . comprises a rim, a recessed surface adjacent to the rim, a base surface adjacent to the recessed surface, wherein the rim and the base surface of the lid are on a same plane and are parallel to each other.” Claim 3 recites similar language. The language renders each claim indefinite because its meaning is unclear, since the disclosure in no way suggests that the rim 122 and the base surface 126 would be on a same plane. None of figs. 1C–6L show such an arrangement. This would be treated as a drawing issue, but as far as the Office can understand, the presence of the recessed surface makes it unlikely that the rim and base surface would truly share a same plane, particularly since “recessed” suggests a vertical difference between the rim and the base surface. It seems, therefore, that in light of the specification, the claim misdescribes the invention in a way that makes its structure difficult to understand. Appropriate amendment and/or clarification is required.
Claims 10–15 are rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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.
The limitations of claim 10 are already provided in claim 9 on lines 13–15.
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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chimezie (US Pub. 2020/0015619) in view of Albanese (US Pub. 2019/0290048).
Claim 1: Chimezie discloses a French press assembly configured to be secured to a container, the French press assembly comprising:
a lid assembly (10) configured to mate with a top portion of a container (10 is shown in fig. 1, see it positioned as claimed in fig. 24), the lid assembly comprising:
a lid (10) slidably connected to a connect rod (100), wherein the lid includes a hole (20) on a radial center of the lid (see fig. 1); and
a handle (110) connected to a first end of the connect rod (via 101); and
a base assembly (222) connected to the lid assembly with the connect rod (via 102), the base assembly comprising:
a plunger (222, 160) that includes a plunger body (ibid.), a filter (170, 180) extending from an outer rim of the plunger body to an inner rim of the plunger body (see fig. 21), and a threaded portion (102) located within a cavity (clearly appreciable with 131 and the related openings shown in fig. 21) within the inner rim of the plunger body, the threaded portion connected to a second end (102) of the connect rod;
a valve (130) symmetrically engaged with a top portion of the plunger (see 130 in fig. 21); and
a gasket (160, 153) located around a periphery and circumference of the plunger.
Chimezie does not disclose its lid including a vent portion extending around its hole, wherein the vent portion prevents glugging when pouring a beverage from the container.
However, using a central lid hole as a vent portion to prevent glugging is already known in the art, as shown in Albanese, which discloses a vent/hole 144 configured in this way (see the gap at the hole visible in fig. 19), particularly when used in conjunction with the reduced gross section near the end 150 of its own connect rod.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hole (and maybe the connect rod) of Chimezie to act as a vent to prevent a partial vacuum and glugging, as suggested by Albanese.
Claim 5: Chimezie discloses that the first end of the connect rod includes a first threaded portion (101) to threadedly connect to and attach to the handle and the second end of the connect rod includes a lower flange (see at 102 in figs. 16–18) and a second threaded portion (102) to threadedly connect to and attach to the base assembly and the plunger.
Claim 6: Chimezie discloses that the plunger body includes one or more spokes (see 190 in fig. 21) that extend from the inner rim to the outer rim and the one or more spokes hold the filter (see 170, 180, and 190 in fig. 21).
Claim 7: Chimezie discloses that the valve includes a valve body (150) with a valve hole (see the counterpart of 131 on 150 in fig. 21) located in a radial center of the valve body, wherein the valve hole receives and passes through the connect rod (see fig. 20), wherein the valve body includes an upper valve rim (see the top of the valve hole in fig. 20) located around the valve hole on a top side of the valve body and a lower valve rim (see the bottom of the valve hole in fig. 20) located around the valve hole on a bottom side of the valve body, wherein the upper valve rim engages with a lower flange located on the connect rod (i.e. at 102) and the lower valve rim engages with a spacer located on the plunger (the center of 190 forms a spacer, and is shown contacting the lower valve rim in fig. 20).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chimezie in view of Albanese as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US Pub. 2006/0021524).
Claim 2: Chimezie does not disclose that the lid includes a rim, a recessed surface adjacent to the rim, and a base surface adjacent to the recessed surface and the recessed surface extends at an angle from the rim to the base surface.
However, Liu discloses a similar apparatus with a lid (50) with a rim (56), a recessed surface (58) adjacent to the rim, and a base surface (57) adjacent to the recessed surface and the recessed surface extends at an angle from the rim to the base surface (clearly appreciable from at least figs. 1 and 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lid of Chimezie to have the recessed surface and base surface of Liu to give the apparatus a cleaner appearance with the plunger protruding less noticeably when fully depressed.
Comment: A recessed surface and base surface are also shown in Yakos (US Pub. 2018/0303269).
Claim 3: Modified as per claim 2 above, Liu discloses that the rim and the base surface of the lid are on a same plane (see the § 112(b) rejection above) and are parallel to each other (clearly appreciable from at least figs. 1 and 5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chimezie in view of Albanese as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yakos (US Pub. 2018/0303269).
Chimezie does not disclose that an outer circumference of the valve deforms upward during a plunging of the plunger.
However, such a French press plunger valve design is already known in the art, as shown in Yakos (see flap valve 86 deforming between figs. 4 and 5, as well as figs. 7 and 8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the valve design of Chimezie was solid and durable but not automatic, whereas the valve design of Yakos was automatic but less strong, and would have found it obvious to replace the valve design of Chimezie with that of Yakos with those reasons in mind.
Claims 16 and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chimezie in view of McLean et al. (US Pub. 2011/0056385) and Albanese.
Claim 16: Chimezie discloses a French press container assembly comprising:
an insulated container (see fig. 24) comprising:
an outer shell comprising an external sidewall and an outer bottom wall (ibid.), and
an inner shell comprising an inner sidewall and an inner bottom wall (ibid.),
the insulated container having a top opening at a top of the inner sidewall that leads into a storage cavity formed by the inner sidewall and the inner bottom wall (ibid.), the top opening comprising a container pour spout (ibid.; see also ¶ 8 discussing the pour spout); and
a French press assembly configured to be secured to the insulated container, the French press assembly comprising:
a lid assembly (10) configured to mate with a top portion of a container (10 is shown in fig. 1, see it positioned as claimed in fig. 24), the lid assembly comprising:
a lid (10) slidably connected to a connect rod (100), wherein the lid includes a hole (20) on a radial center of the lid (see fig. 1); and
a handle (110) connected to a first end of the connect rod (via 101); and
a base assembly (222) connected to the lid assembly with the connect rod (via 102), the base assembly comprising:
a plunger (222, 160) that includes a plunger body (ibid.), a filter (170, 180) extending from an outer rim of the plunger body to an inner rim of the plunger body (see fig. 21), and a threaded portion (102) located within a cavity within the inner rim of the plunger body (clearly appreciable with 131 and the related openings shown in fig. 21), the threaded portion connected to a second end (102) of the connect rod;
a valve (130) symmetrically engaged with a top portion of the plunger (see 130 in fig. 21); and
a gasket (160, 153) located around a periphery and circumference of the plunger.
Chimezie is less than explicit that its outer shell is connected to the inner shell forming an insulated double wall structure with a sealed vacuum cavity between the outer shell and the inner shell.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this sort of structure was clearly suggested by Chimezie’s fig. 24. Furthermore, McLean is one of many pieces of highly analogous prior art explicitly discussing this arrangement (¶ 51, “the infusing container 2 may optionally include a double-layered wall, such as a double metal wall, with a vacuum or other suitable and preferably insulative substance between the two walls of the infusing container 2, such as to reduce variations in temperature inside the container 2 during the extraction process”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct Chimezie’s double-walled structure as a sealed vacuum cavity, as suggested by McLean, to reduce variations in temperature inside the container during the extraction process.
Chimezie does not disclose a vent portion extending around its hole, wherein the vent portion is a slot-shaped vent that prevents glugging when pouring a beverage from the container.
However, using a central lid hole as a vent portion to prevent glugging is already known in the art, as shown in Albanese, which discloses a vent/hole 144 configured in this way (see the gap at the hole visible in fig. 19), particularly when used in conjunction with the reduced gross section near the end 150 of its own connect rod.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hole (and maybe the connect rod) of Chimezie to act as a vent to prevent a partial vacuum and glugging, as suggested by Albanese.
Claim 18: Chimezie discloses that the first end of the connect rod includes a first threaded portion (101) to threadedly connect to and attach to the handle and the second end of the connect rod includes a lower flange (see at 102 in figs. 16–18) and a second threaded portion (102) to threadedly connect to and attach to the base assembly and the plunger.
Claim 19: Chimezie discloses that the plunger body includes one or more spokes (see 190 in fig. 21) that extend from the inner rim to the outer rim and the one or more spokes hold the filter (see 170, 180, and 190 in fig. 21).
Claim 20: Chimezie discloses that the valve includes a valve body (150) with a valve hole (see the counterpart of 131 on 150 in fig. 21) located in a radial center of the valve body, wherein the valve hole receives and passes through the connect rod (see fig. 20), wherein the valve body includes an upper valve rim (see the top of the valve hole in fig. 20) located around the valve hole on a top side of the valve body and a lower valve rim (see the bottom of the valve hole in fig. 20) located around the valve hole on a bottom side of the valve body, wherein the upper valve rim engages with a lower flange located on the connect rod (i.e. at 102) and the lower valve rim engages with a spacer located on the plunger (the center of 190 forms a spacer, and is shown contacting the lower valve rim in fig. 20).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chimezie in view of McLean and Albanese as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Liu.
Chimezie does not disclose that the lid includes a rim, a recessed surface adjacent to the rim, and a base surface adjacent to the recessed surface and the recessed surface extends at an angle from the rim to the base surface.
However, Liu discloses a similar apparatus with a lid (50) with a rim (56), a recessed surface (58) adjacent to the rim, and a base surface (57) adjacent to the recessed surface and the recessed surface extends at an angle from the rim to the base surface (clearly appreciable from at least figs. 1 and 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lid of Chimezie to have the recessed surface and base surface of Liu to give the apparatus a cleaner appearance with the plunger protruding less noticeably when fully depressed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 19/443,742 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims provide, or clearly suggest, every element of the pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Pending Claims
Reference Claims
Claim 1: A French press assembly configured to be secured to a container, the French press assembly comprising:
a lid assembly configured to mate with a top portion of a container, the lid assembly comprising:
a lid slidably connected to a connect rod, wherein the lid includes a vent portion extending around a hole on a radial center of the lid, wherein the vent portion prevents glugging when pouring a beverage from the container; and
a handle connected to a first end of the connect rod; and
a base assembly connected to the lid assembly with the connect rod, the base assembly comprising:
a plunger that includes a plunger body, a filter extending from an outer rim of the plunger body to an inner rim of the plunger body, and a threaded portion located within a cavity within the inner rim of the plunger body, the threaded portion connected to a second end of the connect rod;
a valve symmetrically engaged with a top portion of the plunger; and
a gasket located around a periphery and circumference of the plunger.
Claim 6: The French press assembly of claim 1, wherein the plunger body includes one or more spokes that extend from the inner rim to the outer rim and the one or more spokes hold the filter.
Claim 12: A French press assembly configured to be secured to a container, the French press assembly comprising:
a lid assembly configured to mate with a top portion of the container, the lid assembly comprising:
a lid and a connect rod configured to slide within the lid, wherein the lid further comprises:
a lid rim comprising ridge portions, a recessed surface adjacent to the lid rim,
a base surface adjacent to the recessed surface, the base surface includes a hole located at a radial center of the base surface, wherein the hole is configured to receive the connect rod, and the connect rod is configured to pass through the hole, wherein the hole also forms a vent, and
a handle connected to a first end of the connect rod; and
a base assembly configured to connect to the lid assembly through the connect rod, the base assembly comprising:
a plunger that includes a plunger body, a filter, and a threaded portion located on an inner rim of the plunger body, the threaded portion configured to connect to a second end of the connect rod, wherein the plunger body includes one or more spokes that extend from the inner rim to an outer rim, wherein the filter is supported by the one or more spokes within the plunger body;
a circular valve configured to cover the filter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
All of claims 9–15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection, as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d), set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Albanese is the most relevant prior art of record, and it does not seem to disclose its vent portion including one or more horizontal channels and one or more vertical channels as claimed.
Albanese’s disclosure is confusing since ¶ 106 provides the critical disclosure of the vacuum prevention, as well as “one or more stops 158 configured to prevent the handle 152 from blocking the through-hole 144 when the handle 152 is in the full-down position,” which in a broad sense could suggest something like the claimed horizontal channels; but the only figure with stop 158 labeled is fig. 20, which is very two-dimensional, where 158 simply seems to point to a structure surrounding through-hole 144. Overall, the Office cannot find that Albanese discloses or suggests the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 9, although Albanese discloses a somewhat slot-like vent structure with how the end 150 of its connect rod have a reduced cross-section to facilitate air passing through through-hole 144, the Office does not find that this discloses or renders obvious the claimed feature of a vent portion extending around the hole of the base surface and being slot-shaped. See also MPEP § 2141.02.II.
Claims 10–15 all depend from claim 9.
Rhodes et al. (US Pub. 2008/0259723) discloses a lid central hole with slot-shaped vents, but Rhodes is not directed to a French press, and these “vents” are present in Rhodes for a different purpose not relevant to a French press.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights