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 .
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.
Priority
This application has PRO 63/479,899 01/13/2023
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 and species (i) glass container, (ii) metal whisk, (iii) motor rotation mechanism, (iv) plastic mixing member, (v) loop shape, and (vi) the length of the shaft of the whisk positions the mixing member near a bottom of the container in the reply filed on 08/10/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 2, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, 19-20 have been withdrawn as amendment filed on 08/10/26. It has been noted that claim 3 depends from withdrawn claim 2, claim 8 depends from withdrawn claim 7, claim 14 depends from withdrawn claim 13, claim 16 depends from withdrawn claim 15. Accordingly, claims 3, 8, 14, 16 are withdrawn from consideration as depends from withdrawn claims. Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 18 are examined in this Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent (WO 2020/131682) in view of Wasserman (US 2007/0251956).
Regarding claim 1, Kent discloses an apparatus comprising a bottle/container having a cavity suitable for containing liquid, wherein the bottle includes a lid configured to close the bottle, wherein a shaft extends through the lid into the interior and into the interior of the bottle, and a mixer is disposed within the bottle, wherein the shaft is coupled to a rotation mechanism, such as crank, for rotating the mixer, wherein the mixer comprise a whisk, wherein the whisk/mixer therefore has a proximal portion coupled to shaft/rotation mechanism and a distal portion comprising a mixing structure disposed withing the container (all figures, especially, 31B-32B, para [0006]-[0020]). Kent therefore teaches the claimed container, first lid, whisk extending through the first lid and into the container, proximal end of the whisk engaging a rotation mechanism, and distal mixing member. Kent also discloses the bottle further includes a removable filter connected to the mouthpiece (para [0009]). Thus, Kent teaches substantially all of the claimed first-lid/rotating-whisk/container arrangement.
Wasserman discloses a liquid containing container having a removable closure/top incorporating a strainer and a pouring spout, wherein the strainer is positioned in association with the pouring spout such that liquid pass through the strainer and is discharged from container while larger solid material is retained within the container, wherein the strainer and pouring structure may be integrally formed (para [0004]-[0007], figures, claims). Thus, Wasserman teaches the claimed second lid having an integrated filtering structure and a spout configured to permit liquid to be poured through the filter and out of the container.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kent by providing the filtered pouring closure of Wasserman. Kent already contemplates filtering material at the discharge portion of the container, while Wasserman provides a known structural arrangement for accomplishing such filtering during dispensing, namely a closure incorporating a strainer and pouring spout. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ the strainer and spout arrangement of Wasserman with a rotary mixing container of Kent to permit the mixed liquid to be dispensed while retaining undesired particulate matter within the container.
The proposed modification would merely combine known elements according to their established functions. The rotary whisk of Kent would continue to perform the known function of mechanically mixing the contents of the container, while the strainer and pouring spout of Wasserman would continue to perform their known function of filtering liquid during dispensing. The combination would therefore have provided a predictable result and would have been within the ordinary skill of the art, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Kent discloses rotation mechanism is a motor (para [0018]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Wasserman as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sorensen (US 2018/0237191).
Kent includes the feature of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 4-5, Kent does not disclose the container size between about 12 ounces and about 128 ounces (regarding claim 4) or about 64 ounces (regarding claim 5).
However, Sorensen discloses a liquid containing containers having sizes from 12 ounces to 128 ounces, e.g. 12, 22, 24, 26, 28, 32, 45, 64, or 128 oz (para [0050]) for its portability, storing, and dispensing liquids (para [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Kent by selecting the capacity of container having sizes from 12 ounces to 128 ounces, e.g. 12, 22, 24, 26, 28, 32, 45, 64, or 128 oz in the apparatus, as taught by Sorensen. The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Sorensen that to do so would provide ease of portability, storing, and dispensing liquids.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Wasserman as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lawson (WO 03/057355).
Kent includes the feature of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Kent does not disclose the first lid comprises a locking mechanism for locking the whisk in place.
However, Lawson discloses a lid mounted whisk/mixing arrangement in which the whisk is coupled to the lid or associated coupling structure so as to retain and support the whisk during operation (para [0032]-[0037]). Lawson therefore teaches the use of a retaining or locking mechanism associated with a lid mounted whisk.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to incorporate the whisk retaining/locking mechanism into Kent’s rotary whisk apparatus, as taught by Lawson. The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Lawson that to do so would provide such a locking mechanism to maintain the whisk in a fixed position relative to the first lid during rotation, thereby reducing unwanted movement of the whisk and improving stability of the mixing member during operation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Wasserman as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hoeflich (US 2017/0325463).
Kent includes the feature of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, Kent does not disclose the mesh filter has pores of 400 micron.
Hoeflich discloses passing plant related powder ingredient through a 400 micron filter. It further states that a double mesh or 400 micron filter is used to remove debris and prevent clogging of a spray bottle (para [0061]-[0062], figures). Kent already teaches a mixing bottle having a mixer and filter associated with the bottle mouthpiece, and Wasserman teaches a container lid having an integrated strainer and pour spout through which liquid passes while solids are retained, wherein the strainer is integrated into the pour guide.
A skilled artisan seeking to filter materials from a liquid after mixing would have found it obvious to use known filtered pouring arrangement of modified Kent and select a known approximately 400 micron filtration size as taught by Hoeflich. The selection would have been predictable optimization of filtration performance based upon the size of particulate material intended to be retained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 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, RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/KUMAR R BHUSHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights