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 Para [0074] identifies the lid in Figures 18 and 19 as both 204 and 113. 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.
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) and 37 CFR 1.84(p) because Figures 1a, 1b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 fail to give satisfactory reproduction characteristics because the characters are not sufficiently dense or dark enough to permit adequate reproduction. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines, however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. See 37 CFR 1.84(l). Regarding Numbers, Letters, and reference characters, 37 CFR 1.84(p) requires that (1) Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted; (2) The English alphabet must be used for letters, except where another alphabet is customarily used, such as the Greek alphabet to indicate angles, wavelengths, and mathematical formulas; and (3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. See 37 CFR 1.84(l)
Specification
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 Interpretation
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.
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.
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: attachment features in Claim 3, 6, and 17.
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.
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.
The attachment feature in lines 1 and 2 of claim 3, line 1 of claim 6, and line 1 of claim 17 is deemed to invoke analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Under Prong A, the language of the claims does not explicitly use the term “mean” or “step” as explicit invocation of 112(f) analysis, but the claim provides the nonce term “feature” that triggers analysis under 112(f).
Moving to Prong B, the feature is linked by the functional language “configured to detachably connect to either of attachment features on a vessel coupling end of the blade holder or attachment features on the first open end of the lid”.
Under Prong (C), the corresponding structure provided in the disclosure for performing the claimed attachment feature comprises “threading” and other connection methods/features including “clip type connection, bayonet type connection, friction type connections, and other connections commonly used in the industry” ([0049]). The additional structure provided to the attachment feature by the Specification provides sufficient structure such that 112(f) would no longer be invoked for the attachment features.
Claim 4 is not being interpreted under 112(f) because it introduces the threading.
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.
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.
Claims 4, 11, and 13 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein the attachment features" in line 1 of Claim 4. Claim 3 introduces “attachment features” where Claim 4 is dependent on Claim 1 instead of Claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will examine Claim 4 as if dependent of Claim 3.
Claim 11 is objected to for stating that the lid and cap have “aesthetic” covers. “Aesthetic” is a subjective term where the specification fails to supply the claim language with any guidance or definitive definition as to what design choices would result in a cover being considered “aesthetic”. See MPEP 2173.05(b)-IV. Examiner will consider any cap/cover to be aesthetic.
The term “substantially” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The outer diameters of the lid cover and cap cover being substantially the same fails to give a clear-cut indication to an ordinary skilled artisan what the scope of the subject matter defines as an acceptable measure for determining if the diameters are “substantially” the same. Examiner will consider any lid and cap that lock together to be “substantially” the same.
The term “substantially” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The vessel being substantially cylindrical is indefinite as the claim does not provide for an ordinary skilled artisan to understand what provides a clear-cut indication to the scope of what the subject matter defines as cylindrical. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Examiner will consider any vessel or container that has a wall that forms a circle to be “substantially” cylindrical.
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.
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, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangser (WO-2021045802-A1) in view of Kiefel (US-5381924-A).
With regards to Claims 1 and 14, Bangser teaches (Figs 1-24) a blender apparatus with safety interlock system. Bangser teaches the blending device that comprises a blender vessel (102, 210), a blender base assembly (104), and a blade assembly/housing (106), where the blender base assembly is fully detachable to the blade assembly and blender vessel ([0038]). The blender vessel includes a circumferential wall extending from the base to a atop threaded end (107) that engages the vessel to the blade assembly ([0054], [0095]). The blender vessel also includes a lid (204) and a cap (202) that are threadedly connected to the vessel, where the diameter of the opening from the vessel to the lid is larger than the opening from the cap to the lid, as well as gasket (216) as part of the infusion vessel (210) (Fig 14) ([0055]-[0056]). However, Bangser does not teach a through hole in the cap surrounded by an annular interior wall, with a straw extending through the hole of the cap, and where the annular interior wall of the cap surrounds an outer surface of the straw to seal the annual interior wall against the outer surface of the straw.
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Kiefel teaches (Figs 1-6) a non-spill drinking vessel. The non-spill drinking vessel of Kiefel includes a removeable lid (13) configured to contain liquid within the container, where a gasket (16) is positioned around the inside periphery of the lid to engage the container’s top ends to ensure against any leakage ([Col 2, lines 49-64]). The lid (13) also includes a flat-circular shaped body (14) and an annular flange (15) that extends downward, where the annular flange is internally threaded on the interior surface (12) to engage the narrower and externally threaded container neck ([Col 2, lines 49-64]). The removeable lid also includes a centrally disposed orifice (17) in the flat circular shaped body (14) that receives a straw (18, 32), and an internal annular wall (19) that has a sealing means to sealingly encompass the straw in a liquid-tight manner ([Col 2, line 65 – Col 3 lines 21]). The internal annular wall also includes a groove (20) and o-ring (21) that is set into the groove to allow a conventional straw to readily pass through the lid into the container while providing a liquid-tight seal ([Col 3, lines 7-21]). Additionally, Kiefel teaches an offset orifice (31) in the removable lid (28) with a gasket (33) that is set in the recessed annular area (34) to better ensure against dislodgment by the straw’s movement ([Col 3, lines 38-49]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield pre3dictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a) method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Bangser teaches the vessel assembly with a vessel having a closed end and an open end, where the vessel has an interior between the closed end and open end. Additionally, Bangser teaches that the vessel can be securely fixed to a motorized blender base that comprises a blending blade connected to a motor to operate the blender. The vessel includes a lid that can be screwed onto the vessel when the vessel is detached from the blender base, where the lid has tow ends, one that connects to the vessel and has a larger diameter than the opposing end that the cap attaches to via threads. Kiefel teaches the non-spill drinking vessel where a removable lid has an orifice in the lid with an internal annular wall for attaching a straw. The annular interior wall serves as the straw passageway with gaskets used to ensure liquid does not spill out of the container. An ordinary skilled artisan could have combined the elements because the use of a straw mounted onto a cap or lid of a container is well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the functions of the cap, lid, and container do not change by the addition of a straw. Predictable results would be achieved because both references deal with retaining a liquid in a container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blender assembly of Bangser by using a cap with a straw extending through a hole in the cap as taught by Kiefel, to retain liquid inside a vessel because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to Claims 2 and 15, Bangser teaches the inclusion of ribs (164) along the circumferential wall (163) of the blender vessel to provide continuous agitation between materials being blended by blender blade (114) and the internal sidewall of the blender vessel (Fig 11, [0054]).
With regards to Claims 3, and 4, Bangser teaches that the blender vessel and blade assembly may be joined by threading located on the respective ends of the blender vessel and the blade assembly ([0040]) Bangser also teaches that other connection methods are contemplated between the vessel and blade assembly, including clip type connection, bayonet, friction fit, and other common connection used in the industry ([0040]).
With regards to Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 Bangser teaches an infusion system (200) for the blender vessel (Figs, 12-17, Figs 23-24, [0055]). The infusion system includes collar (213), perforated wall (214), end cap (215) that together form an infusion chamber; and a chamber mount (212) ([0056]). The chamber mount attaches to the bottom of a lid system (500) through an attachment ring (502) ([0064], [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified vessel device of Bangser as applied to claim 1, where the vessel is securely attachable to either the motorized blender base or a lid and cap, also teaches Claim 10, as Kiefel teaches the added feature of a removable lid that includes an interior annular wall (19) that fits within the orifice (17) opening of the container, and a annular flange with internal threading that extends around the outside of the container, and engages with the externally threaded interior surface (12) of the drinking vessel (Fig 2, [Col 2, line 49 – Col 3 line 21]).
With regards to Claim 13, Bangser teaches that the vessel (blender vessel (102)) is cylindrical (Figs 1 & 2).
Claims 5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangser and Kiefel in view of Sullivan (US-10669081-B2) and Yeti.com (https://web.archive.org/web/20220830015614/https:/www.yeti.com/drinkware/drinkware-accessories/21070100005.html#closeCSModal).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Bangser and Kiefel teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fail to specifically claim that the lid is rigid and comprises a gasket secured to the interior of the first open end of the lid, where the gasket seals the first open end of the lid onto the open end of the vessel.
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, Bangser and Kiefel teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fail to specifically claim that the cap is rigid.
Regarding Claims 9 and 20, Bangser and Kiefel teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fail to specifically claim that the cap comprises a gasket to be sealed onto the second open end of the lid.
With regards to Claim 5, 8, and 9, Sullivan teaches (Figs 1-18) a lid for a container. Sullivan teaches that the lid (400) is a two-part lid having a lower cap portion (403) and an upper cap portion (401) that may be removably coupled to the lower cap through similar threads ([Col 12, lines 31-40]). The upper cap (401) may also include a raised circular portion (422) which forms an annular channel (423) that may be configured to accept a gasket to create a seal between the upper cap and lower cap ([Col 13, lines 24-35]), and the lower cap (403) also includes channels (467) & (468) that are configured to retain a gasket, where the lower gasket is configured to seal the opening (118) by compressing the lip structure (184) to the container (102) ([Col 14 line 37 – Col 15, line 26]). Sullivan also teaches that the upper and lower caps can formed by a molding process, using single or multiple shot molding processes of different polymers such as including, among others, Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene, polypropylene, polyethylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, nylon, polycarbonate or acrylic, or combinations thereof; and can be transparent, semi-transparent, or opaque ([Col 14, lines 18-36], [Col 15, lines 27-44]).
Regarding Claim 11, Bangser and Kiefel teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fail to specifically claim that the lid has a cover with an outer surface on at least a portion of the lid, and the cap has an aesthetic cap cover that defines at least part of the outer surface of the cap, where the outer diameter between the lid cover and the cap cover are substantially the same when the cap is secured to the lid.
With regards to Claim 11, Sullivan teaches that the lower cap (403) may have a central portion (480), with an upper surface (481), a lower surface (482), and an outer diameter (484), where the outer diameter of the lower cap (403) “may be substantially similar to the outer diameter (432) of the outer cap (401) ([Col 15, lines 1-26]). The lower cap, or portions of the lower cap may be formed of transparent, semi-transparent material, or opaque material ([Col 14, lines 18-36], [Col 16, lines 1-22]). Sullivan also teaches that the upper cap includes a cylindrical surface (438) and circular top surface (436), where a hollow area (424) exists for insulating material to be inserted, and a lower wall (425) and tapered portions (426) that can be integrally formed with other portions of the upper cap or formed separate and coupled using gluing, welding, threaded coupling, or other combinations ([Col 15, lines 26-44]).
Yeti.com teaches (Figs 1-3) the production version of the lid for container device found in Sullivan, where the outer surface (483) of the lower cap (403) includes an aesthetic and branded logo defining a central portion (480) of the outer surface of the lower cap, as well as a branded logo on the outer surface of the top handle of the upper cap (446).
Additionally, “aesthetic” refers to the artistic qualities or “ornamentation” of an object. Matters relating only to the ornamentation or aesthetic design of a claim “which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art”. See In re Seid, MPEP 2144.04-I.
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield pre3dictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a) method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Bangser and Kiefel teach the vessel assembly with a vessel that mounts to the blender base and has a lid and cap that are detachably secured to the vessel, where the cap has a hole for a straw. Sullivan teaches the container lid that has an upper and lower cap that connects to a container, where the lower cap has a gasket that prevents leakage between the lower cap and the vessel, and where the upper cap has a gasket that prevents leakage between the upper and lower caps. Additionally, Sullivan teaches an injection molding process that uses various types of polymers, such as Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), where ABS is known to be a rigid and tough thermoplastic polymer to form a rigid and durable upper and lower cap. Furthermore, Sullivan further teaches that the lower cover comprises a cover on an outer surface and an upper cover with a cover that lines up with and is substantially similar in diameter to the lower cover when the two are combined. Yeti.com shows the lower and upper cap shown in Sullivan, having aesthetic branded designs on the black band outlining the lower cover and the outer shell handle of the upper cover.
An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements because the use of gaskets to prevent leakage and the use of ABS as a rigid durable plastic is well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and the function of the gaskets and ABS plastic is not changed. Additionally, an artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements because the use of branding on the outer surfaces of the bottle provides an aesthetic design to consumers. Predictable results would be achieved because all the references deal with a way of keeping a liquid retained inside of vessel or container using a lid and cap design.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blender vessel taught by Bangser and Kiefel by using gaskets between the vessel body, the lower cap, and upper cap; making the lower and upper cap out of durable and rigid materials such as ABS as taught by Sullivan; as well as providing aesthetic designs on the on the outer surface of the lid and cap cover that are similar in width when mounted together as also taught by Sullivan; with aesthetic branding being taught by Yeti.com; because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bangser and Kiefel in view of Bullock (US-20220218132-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Bangser and Kiefel teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the straw is rigid.
Bullock teaches (Figs 1-14) a lid assembly for a beverage container. Bullock teaches that the lid includes a straw (250) that is received through an opening (216) in the lid assembly (200) ([0037]). Bullock also teaches that the lid, base (310) and straw may be formed by injection molding processes, where clear or transparent materials such as Tritan or other food safe polymers are used to manufacture the straw [0046]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield pre3dictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a) method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Bangser and Kiefel teach the vessel assembly with a vessel that mounts to the blender base and has a lid and cap that are detachably secured to the vessel, where the cap has a hole for a straw. Bullock teaches using a material such as Tritan, a material known to be rigid and durable, in the manufacturing of food safe straws. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements because the use of food safe rigid materials such as Tritan for straws is well-understood in the art, and the function of the straw does not change. Predictable results would be achieved because the refences teach lid devices and straws to drink out of the vessel while the lid is attached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the straw of the blender vessel of Bangser and Kiefel with a known material such as Tritan, which is known to be rigid, as taught by Bullock, because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined eh elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
