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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 83 - 92 under 102 and 103 rejections, based on the newly amended claims filed on 5/20/26, have been addressed in the revised rejection, below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 83 - 87, 89, 90, 92, 94 – 98 and 106 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitchell (2009/0120815).
Regarding claim 83, the Mitchell reference discloses a portable beverage container (Figure 1) comprising: a container (12) configured to contain a consumable beverage; and a compressible additive vessel (16) configured to contain additive (44) and be received in the container, wherein the compressible additive vessel is configured to dispense a first amount of the additive into the consumable liquid in response to compression of the additive vessel during a first dispensing event (i.e., by compressing one of the reservoirs 42), and wherein the additive vessel is configured to dispense a second amount of the additive into the consumable liquid in response to the compression of the additive vessel during a second dispensing event after the first dispensing event (i.e., by compressing another reservoir 42).
Regarding claim 84, the Mitchell reference is further configured to reduce a width of the additive vessel (16) in response to compression of the additive vessel, the width being in a lateral direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the additive vessel. See Figures 3A and 3B.
Regarding claim 85, the Mitchell reference further discloses the additive vessel (16) is configured to elastically deform from an original geometry to a deformed geometry in response to compression of the additive vessel. See Figures 3A and 3B.
Regarding claim 86, the Mitchell reference further discloses the additive vessel (16) is constrained in all but one direction of movement relative to the container, and wherein the one direction of movement is a direction in which the compressible additive vessel moves in response to being compressed. See Figures 3A and 3B.
Regarding claim 87, the Mitchell reference further discloses wherein the additive vessel is formed of a flexible polymer. See paragraph [0050].
Regarding claim 89, the Mitchell reference further discloses wherein the compressible additive vessel (16) is configured to compress in response to a pressure applied to the compressible additive vessel. See Figures 3A and 3B.
Regarding claim 90, the Mitchell reference further discloses wherein the compressible additive vessel (16) includes a single opening (27) through which additive is dispensed. See Figures 3A and 3B.
Regarding claim 92, inasmuch structure that is defined by a "dispensing module", Mitchell further discloses the base portion (14; Fig. 2B), which accepts the additive vessel (16; i.e., the additives), meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 94, wherein the additive vessel (16) is one of a plurality of additive vessels (reservoirs 42).
Regarding claim 95, wherein the dispensing module (14) is configured to selectively control (via actuators 46) dispensing of additive from each of the plurality of additive vessels (42). See para. [0053].
Regarding claim 96, wherein the dispensing module comprises a plurality of apertures (27) configured to removably receive the plurality of additive vessels (42), and wherein the plurality of apertures are arranged in a circular configuration (see Figures 2A – 2C).
Regarding claim 97, wherein the dispensing module is rotatable within the container. The dispensing module (14) is capable of being rotated.
Regarding claim 98, wherein the dispensing module (14) includes one or more pressure applicators configured to compress the additive vessel.
Regarding claim 106, further comprising one or more pressure applicators (actuators 46 are pressure applicators) configured to compress the additive vessel, wherein the one or more pressure applicators are configured to release a force that causes the compression of the additive vessel after the first dispensing event. See para. [0055].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 88 and 91 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Levin.
Regarding claim 88, the Mitchell reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but doesn't disclose wherein side walls and a top surface of the additive vessel include corrugated ridges which enable the additive vessel to be compressed. The Levin reference discloses another portable container (30; Figure 1) having an additive vessel (38a, 38b) having accordion-like protuberances to aid in compressing the additive vessel to dispense additive into the container (see col. 6, lines 18 - 45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Mitchell device to have an additive vessel that includes corrugated ridges as, for example, taught by the Levin reference since additive vessels with corrugated ridges to aid is dispensing additive are well-known in the art, conventional and would be obvious to try without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 91, the Mitchell reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but doesn't disclose wherein the additive is a liquid. The Levin reference discloses another portable container (30; Figure 1) having an additive vessel (38a, 38b) that contains liquid additive concentrate (see col. 6, lines 3 - 17) to mix with the liquid within the container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Mitchell device to have liquid additive (if not already) as, for example, taught by the Levin reference since powder and liquid additives are well known in the art, conventional and obvious to try without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 102 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell.
Regarding claim 102, the Mitchell reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but doesn't disclose the additive vessel includes a nozzle coupled to a base of the additive vessel. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to employ a nozzle on the Mitchell device, since applicant has not disclosed that a nozzle solves any stated problem and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with or without a nozzle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 99 – 101, 103 – 105 and 107 are 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights