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 .
Claim Objections
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 16, these claims are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1 and 10 recite “… the vessel comprises a handle on an exterior surface of the wall; and an exterior surface of the wall has a second diameter …” in lines 7 – 8 of the claims and claim 16 recites “… an exterior surface of the wall comprises a first frustoconical surface … comprises a handle on an exterior surface of the wall …” in lines 6 and 14 of the claim and it appears the phrases “an exterior surface of the wall” is recited twice without precedence. The second recitation should be “the exterior surface of the wall” to provide precedence to the first term. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2 – 9, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 inherit this objection. by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Interpretation
The word “substantially” is recited throughout the claims. For example, “substantially vertical”, “substantially linear”, “substantially the first height” and “substantially at an upper extent of the wall” in claims, 1, 5, 10, 12 and 16 and the specification is not explicit in providing a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. In this instance, given the context provided by the disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is being claimed. "Claim language employing terms of degree has long been found definite where it provided enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention", MPEP§ 2173.05(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 3 – 6 and 10 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Higham John et al. (EP 1267684 B1 recited in the IDS) and hereinafter “John”.
Regarding claim 1, John discloses a system for creating an infused liquid (apparatus for making an infused beverage 10, see annotated FIG.1), comprising:
a vessel (container 20, see annotated FIG.1) having a base and a wall extending upwardly from the base to a first height (having a base and a wall (21, 22) extending from the base to a first height H1, (0022 and see annotated FIG.1)), wherein:
an interior surface of the wall is substantially vertical and defines a cylindrical
internal volume having a first diameter and substantially the first height (an interior surface of the container defines a cylindrical beaker 21 having a first diameter D1 and substantially the first height H1, (0022 and see annotated FIG.1));
the vessel comprises a spout at an upper portion of the wall (the container 20 has a spout disposed at an upper portion of the wall (21, 22), see annotated FIG.1); the vessel comprises a handle on an exterior surface of the wall (the container 20 has a handle on the outer shell 22, see annotated FIG.1); and
an exterior surface of the wall (an outer shell 22, see annotated FIG.1) has a second diameter substantially at an upper extent of the wall and a third diameter proximate to the base (the outer shell 22 has a second diameter D2 substantially at an upper extent of the wall and a third diameter D3 proximate to the base, see annotated FIG.1) wherein:
the third diameter is greater than the second diameter (D3 is greater than D2, see annotated FIG.1); and
the exterior surface of the wall gradually increases in diameter from the second diameter to the third diameter (the outer shell 22 gradually increases in diameter from D2 to D3, see annotated FIG.1);
a strainer assembly (a plunger assembly 40, (0022 – 0023 and see FIG.2)) comprising a mesh filter (mesh filter 51, (0023 and see FIG.2)) wherein the strainer assembly is configured to be inserted within the internal volume and wherein a diameter of the mesh filter is configured to be received by the internal volume (the plunger assembly 40 fitting within the cylindrical beaker 21, (0022 and see annotated FIG.1));
a plunger rod having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is coupled with the strainer assembly (a stem 42 connected at one end to a handle 41 and at the other end to a filtering and sealing unit 50 of the plunger assembly 40; (0022, see annotated FIG.1 and FIG.2)) and
a lid (a lid 30, see annotated FIG.1) configured to removably couple with the wall near the upper extent of the wall, wherein the lid comprises an opening slidably coupled with the plunger rod (the lid 30 removably fits into the open end of the beaker 21, wherein the lid 30 comprises an aperture 31 slidably couple with the stem 42, (0022 and see annotated FIG.1)).
PNG
media_image1.png
651
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, John discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the wall is a double wall structure comprising an inner wall (inner beaker 21 defining inner wall, (0022 and see annotated FIG.1)) and an outer wall (an outer shell 22, (0022 and see annotated FIG.1)), wherein: the exterior surface of the wall is an exterior surface of the outer wall and the interior surface of the wall is an interior surface of the inner wall (the exterior surface of an outer shell 22 is an exterior surface of the outer wall of the container 20 and the interior of inner beaker 21 is defining an interior surface of the inner wall of the container 20 (0022 and see annotated FIG.1)).
Regarding claim 4, John discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the base has a first depth (the base has depth H2, see annotated FIG.1) and an exterior surface of the base has the third diameter proximate to the wall (the exterior surface of the base has a third diameter D3 proximate to the outer shell 22, see annotated FIG.1) and a fourth diameter at a lower extent of the base (diameter D4 at a lower extent of the base, see annotated FIG.1), wherein the fourth diameter is smaller than the third diameter and wherein the exterior surface of the base gradually decreases in diameter from the third diameter to the fourth diameter (D4 is smaller than D3 and the exterior surface of the base gradually decreases in diameter from the third diameter to the fourth diameter (slating downward lines of the base D3 to D4), see annotated FIG1).
Regarding claim 5, John discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the gradual increase in diameter of the exterior surface of the wall comprises a linear increase from substantially the second diameter to substantially the third diameter (the gradual increase in diameter of the outer shell 22 is substantially linear from D2 to D3, see annotated FIG.1) and wherein the gradual decrease in the diameter of the exterior surface of the base comprises a substantially linear decrease (the gradual decrease in diameter of the outer shell 22 of the base is substantially linear, see annotated FIG.1).
Regarding claim 6, John discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the fourth diameter is less than the second diameter (D4 is less than D2, see annotated FIG.1).
Regarding claim 10, John discloses a device for creating an infused liquid (apparatus for making an infused beverage 10, see annotated FIG.1), comprising:
a vessel (container 20, see annotated FIG.1) having a base and a wall extending upwardly from the base to a first height (having a base and a wall (21, 22) extending from the base to a first height H1, (0022 and see annotated FIG.1)), wherein:
an interior surface of the wall is substantially vertical and defines a cylindrical
internal volume having a first diameter and substantially the first height (an interior surface of the container defines a cylindrical beaker 21 having a first diameter D1 and substantially the first height H1, (0022 and see annotated FIG.1));
the vessel comprises a spout at an upper portion of the wall (the container 20 has a spout disposed at an upper portion of the wall (21, 22), see annotated FIG.1); the vessel comprises a handle on an exterior surface of the wall (the container 20 has a handle on the outer shell 22, see annotated FIG.1); and
an exterior surface of the wall (an outer shell 22, see annotated FIG.1) has a second diameter substantially at an upper extent of the wall and a third diameter proximate to the base (the outer shell 22 has a second diameter D2 substantially at an upper extent of the wall and a third diameter D3 proximate to the base, see annotated FIG.1) wherein:
the third diameter is greater than the second diameter (D3 is greater than D2, see annotated FIG.1); and
the exterior surface of the wall gradually increases in diameter from the second diameter to the third diameter (the outer shell 22 gradually increases in diameter from D2 to D3, see annotated FIG.1);
Regarding claim 11, John discloses the device of claim 10, wherein the wall is a double wall structure comprising an inner wall (inner beaker 21 defining inner wall, (0022 and see annotated FIG.1)) and an outer wall (an outer shell 22, (0022 and see annotated FIG.1)), wherein:
the exterior surface of the wall is an exterior surface of the outer wall and the interior surface of the wall is an interior surface of the inner wall (the exterior surface of an outer shell 22 is an exterior surface of the outer wall of the container 20 and the interior of inner beaker 21 is defining an interior surface of the inner wall of the container 20 (0022 and see annotated FIG.1)).
Regarding claim 12, John discloses the device of claim 10, wherein the base has a first depth (the base has depth H2, see annotated FIG.1) and an exterior surface of the base has the third diameter proximate to the wall (the exterior surface of the base has a third diameter D3 proximate to the outer shell 22, see annotated FIG.1) and a fourth diameter at a lower extent of the base (diameter D4 at a lower extent of the base, see annotated FIG.1), wherein the fourth diameter is smaller than the third diameter and wherein the exterior surface of the base gradually decreases in diameter from the third diameter to the fourth diameter (D4 is smaller than D3 and the exterior surface of the base gradually decreases in diameter from the third diameter to the fourth diameter (slating downward lines of the base D3 to D4), see annotated FIG1), and wherein:
the gradual increase in diameter of the exterior surface of the wall comprises a
linear increase from substantially the second diameter to substantially the third diameter (the gradual increase in diameter of the outer shell 22 is substantially linear from D2 to D3, see annotated FIG.1) and the exterior surface of the wall comprises a frustoconical surface (the outer shell 22 includes a frustoconical shape surface, see the highlighted portion of the annotated FIG.1 herein)); and
the gradual decrease in the diameter of the exterior surface of the base comprises a substantially linear decrease (the gradual decrease in diameter of the outer shell 22 of the base is substantially linear, see annotated FIG.1) and the exterior surface of the base comprises a frustoconical surface (see annotated FIG.1 herein).
PNG
media_image2.png
494
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2, 7 – 9, 13 – 15 and 16 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John in view of Boniello et al. (US 2016/0135635 A1) and hereinafter “Boniello”.
Regarding claims 2, 7 – 9 and 13 – 15, John discloses the system of claims 1, 6 and 12 wherein: the handle extends substantially vertical along the outer shell 22 and couples, at a lower extent of the handle, to the wall proximate to the base, see annotated FIG.1, (claim 2), D1 is less than D2, D3 and D4, D2 is less than D3, and D4 is less than D2 and D3, see annotated FIG.1. Thus, all the proportions of the diameters D1 – D4 is taught by John, (claims 7 and 13).
John does not explicitly teach that the handle extends along at least 80 percent of the exterior surface of the wall (claim 2), the first diameter is about 115 millimeters, the second diameter is about 130 millimeters, the third diameter is about 150 millimeters, and the fourth diameter about 120 millimeters (claims 7 and 13), the first height is less than the first diameter (claims 8 and 14), the first height is about 100 millimeters and the first diameter is about 115 millimeters (claims 9 and 15).
However, Boniello teaches the height, width and diameters of the inner bowl and the outer heating wall may vary without limitation and maintaining similar functional elements to accommodate wide range of small to large inner sizes, (0036 – 0037) and the extent of the handle along the exterior surface (claim 2), the dimensions of the diameters D1 – D4 in mm (claims 7 and 13), the proportion of H1 to D1 (claims 8 and 14), and the dimension of H1 and D1 in mm (claims 9 and 15) amounts to routine change of sizes and proportions within ordinary skill in the art that are not patentably distinguishing, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”, MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify John’s infused liquid machining device to have the handle to extends along at least 80 percent of the exterior surface of the wall (claim 2), the first diameter is about 115 millimeters, the second diameter is about 130 millimeters, the third diameter is about 150 millimeters, and the fourth diameter about 120 millimeters (claims 7 and 13), the first height is less than the first diameter (claims 8 and 14) and the first height is about 100 millimeters and the first diameter is about 115 millimeters (claims 9 and 15) as varying dimensions and proportions of height, width and diameters without limitation and maintaining similar functional elements is known in the art as taught in Boniello. Further, such modifications amount to routine change of sizes and proportions within ordinary skill in the art that are not patentably distinguishing.
Regarding claim 16, John discloses a device for creating an infused liquid (apparatus for making an infused beverage 10, see annotated FIG.1), comprising:
a vessel (container 20, see annotated FIG.1) having a base and a wall extending upwardly from the base to a first height (having a base and a wall (21, 22) extending from the base to a first height H1, (0022 and see annotated FIG.1)), wherein:
an interior surface of the wall is substantially vertical and defines a cylindrical
internal volume having a first diameter and substantially the first height (an interior surface of the container defines a cylindrical beaker 21 having a first diameter D1 and substantially the first height H1, (0022 and see annotated FIG.1));
an exterior surface of the wall comprises a first frustoconical surface (the outer shell 22 includes a frustoconical surface, see the highlighted portions of the annotated FIG.1 in claim 12)) and comprises a second diameter at a top of the wall and a third diameter at a bottom of the wall (the outer shell 22 has a second diameter D2 substantially at the top of the wall and a third diameter D3 at a bottom of the wall proximate to the base, see annotated FIG.1), wherein the second diameter is smaller than the third diameter (D3 is greater than D2, see annotated FIG.1);
an exterior surface of the base comprises a second frustoconical surface (an exterior surface of the base of container 20 has a second frustoconical surface, see the highlighted portions of the annotated FIG.1 in claim 12) and comprises the third diameter at a top of the base and a fourth diameter at a bottom of the base (D3 is at the top of the base and D4 is at the bottom of the base, see annotated FIG.1)), wherein the fourth diameter is small than the third diameter (D4 is smaller than D3, see annotated FIG.1)) and wherein the first frustoconical surface transitions to the second frustoconical surface at the third diameter (the outer shell 22 frustoconical surface transitions to the base frustoconical surface at D3, see annotated FIG.1 and FIG.1 in claim 12);
the vessel comprises a spout at an upper portion of the wall (the container 20 has a spout disposed at an upper portion of the wall (21, 22), see annotated FIG.1);
the vessel comprises a handle on an exterior surface of the wall (the container 20 comprises a handle on the exterior surface of outer shell 22, see annotated FIG.1).
John does not explicitly teach the first height is less than the first diameter.
However, Boniello that relates to an infusing apparatus (0031 and see claim1), also teaches an inner bowl 105 may have its height (first height) and inner diameter (first diameter) vary according to the ounce capacity required of the infusing apparatus and the height, width, and diameter may vary without limitation and maintaining similar functional elements to accommodate wide range of small to large inner bowl sizes, (0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to make infusion device of John to have the first height less than the first diameter (the height of the inner cylindrical beaker 21 less than its diameter) as height, width, and diameter may vary without limitation maintaining similar functional elements to accommodate wide range of small to large inner bowl sizes as taught in Boniello. POSITA apprised of Bonello’s teaching that dimensions of the inner bowl can be changed without limitations maintaining the same functional element, would be motivated to easily and routinely make the dimensions of the inner beaker of John to be such that the height is less than the diameter, as such modification amounts to a routine change of size and proportion that is not patentably distinguishing, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”, MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Regarding claim 17, John in view of Boniello teaches the device of claim 16, wherein: the base has a first depth (the base has depth H2, see John’s annotated FIG.1); the vessel has a total height equal to the first height plus the first depth (the container 20 has a total height equal to H1 plus H2, see John’s annotated FIG.1); and the total height is equal to the first diameter (one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate making the total height (H1 + H2, John’s FIG.1) equal to the first diameter (D1, John’s FIG.1) as such dimensional modification amounts to a mere change of size and proportion that is not patentably distinguishing).
Regarding claim 18, John in view of Boniello teaches the device of claim 16, wherein the wall is a double wall structure comprising an inner wall (inner beaker 21 defining inner wall, (0022 and see John’s annotated FIG.1)) and an outer wall (an outer shell 22, (0022 and see John’s annotated FIG.1)), wherein: the exterior surface of the wall is an exterior surface of the outer wall and the interior surface of the wall is an interior surface of the inner wall (the exterior surface of an outer shell 22 is an exterior surface of the outer wall of the container 20 and the interior of inner beaker 21 is defining an interior surface of the inner wall of the container 20 (0022 and see annotated FIG.1)).
Regarding claim 19, John in view of Boniello teaches the device of claim 16, wherein the first diameter is about 115 millimeters, the second diameter is about 130 millimeters, the third diameter is about 150 millimeters, and the fourth diameter about 120 millimeters (D1 is less than D2, D3 and D4, D2 is less than D3, and D4 is less than D2 and D3, see John’s annotated FIG.1. Thus, all the proportions of the diameters D1 – D4 are taught by John and varying the height, width, and diameter (dimensions) of the infusion device without limitation while maintaining similar functional elements to accommodate wide range of small to large bowl sizes, Boniello (0036 - 0037).
Regarding claim 20, John in view of Boniello teaches the device of claim 19, wherein the first height is about 100 millimeters (varying the height, width, and diameter (dimensions) of the infusion device without limitation while maintaining similar functional elements to accommodate wide range of small to large bowl sizes, Boniello (0036 – 0037 ) and one of ordinary skill in the art would make the height of the inner beaker 21 of John to be about 100 millimeters to accommodate a required size) .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights