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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group III, claims 83 – 92, in the reply filed on 1/8/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 58 – 82 and 93 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups I, II and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 83 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4 and 5, “the consumable liquid” should be “the consumable beverage”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 86 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4 and 5, “the consumable liquid” should be “the consumable beverage”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 92 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 (42) configured to contain additive and be received in the container, wherein the compressible additive vessel is configured to dispense the additive into the consumable liquid in response to compression of the additive vessel.
Regarding claim 84, the Mitchell reference is further configured to reduce a width of the additive vessel (42) 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 vessel (42) 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 (42) 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 (42) 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 (42) 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 reservoir portion (16; i.e., the additives), meets the claim limitation.
Claim(s) 83 – 86 and 88 – 91 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levin (7552673).
Regarding claim 83, the Levin reference discloses a portable beverage container (128; Figure 8) comprising: a container (128) configured to contain a consumable beverage; and a compressible additive vessel (160) configured to contain additive (40) and be received in the container, wherein the compressible additive vessel is configured to dispense the additive into the consumable liquid in response to compression of the additive vessel. See column 2, lines 57 – 67.
Regarding claim 84, the Levin reference is further configured to reduce a width of the additive vessel (160) in response to compression of the additive vessel, the width being in a lateral direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the additive vessel. The additive vessel (40) in Figure 8 is compressed in a lateral direction as defined.
Regarding claim 85, the Levin reference further discloses the additive vessel (160) is configured to elastically deform from an original geometry to a deformed geometry in response to compression of the additive vessel. This would be inherent when finger pressure is applied to the additive vessel (40).
Regarding claim 86, the Levin reference further discloses the additive vessel (160) 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. The direction is lateral to the longitudinal axis of the additive vessel (160).
Regarding claim 88, the Levin reference discloses wherein side walls and a top surface of the additive vessel include corrugated ridges which enable the additive vessel to be compressed. The additive vessel (160) is corrugated similar to additive vessels (38a, 38b in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 89, the Levin reference further discloses wherein the compressible additive vessel (160) is configured to compress in response to a pressure applied to the compressible additive vessel. The compressible additive container (160) is activated by finger pressure. See col. 2, lines 62 – 66.
Regarding claim 90, the Levin reference further discloses wherein the compressible additive vessel (160) includes a single opening (defined by the opening made when the foil is broken by pressure) through which additive is dispensed.
Regarding claim 91, the Levin reference further discloses dispensing of liquid additive. See column 6, lines 3 – 17.
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) 87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin in view of Mitchell.
Regarding claim 87, the Levin reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but doesn’t disclose wherein the additive vessel is formed of a flexible polymer. The Mitchell reference discloses the invention (discussed) including the additive vessel being made of a flexible polymer (para. [0050]). 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 Levin device to have the additive vessels made of flexible polymer as, for example, taught by the Mitchell reference since polymer is well-known in the art, conventional and would be obvious to try without unexpected results.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Woolf et al. (2009/0206084) reference discloses another portable container (A) having an additive vessel (2 and 101 – 104, etc…; See Figures) that contains liquid additive concentrate (see para. [0558]) to mix with the liquid within the container.
The Harris (2014/0305952) reference discloses a collapsible folding container (100) in order to dispense the contents by compression.
The Manson (GB 2430352) reference discloses a receptacle (2) having additive vessels (10) and liquid and powder additives (20).
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