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 Status
Claims 1-12 are currently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2025 have been fully considered.
In response to the “Conclusion on NDSP”, the Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection is sustained because a terminal disclaimer has not been filed and the amendment fails to overcome the rejection. The patent US 11,912,479 teaches a sealing mechanism, an electronic means (analogous to the scale according to the specification) that measures the weight of the liquid without direct contact, and a bypass flow in the last clause of claim 1. Therefore, in this case, a terminal disclaimer is needed to overcome the rejection.
In response to the first argument under claim 1, the newly introduced amendment “the cup being positioned entirely within the container assembly and configured to remain hermetically sealed from the hydrating liquid until specific user actuation of a mechanical release mechanism causes selective release of the adjuvant into the hydrating liquid; when hermetically sealed the hydrating liquid bypasses the cup without mixing with the adjuvant;” appears to have new matters not supported by the original disclosure. See new matter rejection below for details.
Also, Tonn in the combination teaches the reservoir 12 stores the additive 91 is positioned entirely within the container / tumbler 7 (See Fig. 7 – Fig. 9). The reservoir 12 seals the additive 91 with a spring 53 and a seal piston 43. If the user wants to add the additive into the liquid in the tumbler, then the user actuates the button 51 to release the additive 91 from the reservoir into the container 72. Fig. 7 to Fig. 9 clearly show a series of steps of introducing additive to the liquid in the tumbler. Also, see paragraph [0112] of Tonn.
Tonn further teaches a drinking channel 31 that bypasses the reservoir without mixing with the additive in Fig. 5.
Applicant’s argument with regards to the details of a nested inner cup and an outer cup assembly is outside the scope of claim 1 because claim 1 does not appear to include such limitation.
However, claims 2-3 and 9-12 overcome the prior art rejection because the claims include detailed recitation of the structure of the cup assembly.
In response to the second argument under claim 1, the newly introduced
amendment “the scale being permanently integrated as a fixed component within the base assembly and configured to operate without direct contact with the hydrating liquid” appears to have new matter not supported by the original disclosure. See new matter rejection below for details.
Also, Jovanov teaches the processing module is an integral part of the container without direct contact with the liquid inside of the container. The measurement of the volume of the liquid is performed by a non-contact method. Please see Fig. 1C, Fig. 8, col. 5 line 26-30, “For example, processing module 24 may be located integrally with container 11 of smart container 10, on an exterior surface of container 11, on an interior surface of container 11, or in any other suitable location.”.
Therefore, the rejection for claim 1 is sustained based on the reasons provided.
In response to “B. Claim 4”, Jovanov teaches the container includes an antenna to transmit the measured liquid consumption rate to the user’s mobile device. See Col. 15 line 3-19.
The rejection is sustained because the claim fails to overcome the cited prior arts.
In response to “C. Claim 7”, Ost teaches the base lid component 110 is screwed onto the bottom of the container 210. The scale or sensors 120 are permanently located within the base lid component. See Fig. 5 – Fig. 8. The rejection is sustained because the claim fails to overcome the cited prior arts.
In response to “D. Claim 3”, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection has been withdrawn but the new matter and double patenting rejections still remain.
In response to “E. Claim 5”, the rejection is sustained because the claim fails to overcome the cited prior arts.
In response to “F. Claim 6”, the rejection is sustained because the claim fails to overcome the cited prior arts.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,479 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims and the pending claims are very similar scope and the pending claims are obvious modification of the patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding clam 1, recites the limitation “hermetically sealed” in lines 14 and 16, and “permanently integrated” in line 18. These limitations appear to be new matters because the specification does not appear to include these limitations. Please consider to provide support for these limitations from the specification.
The limitation “the cup being positioned entirely within the container assembly” in line 13 with emphasis underlined. The limitation appears to be a new matter because according to Fig. 2, the inner cup 34 holds the adjuvant has a notch 60 that fits over the tab 62 of the lid assembly 66 (See para [0051] of the publication US 2024/0118121 A1). The tab 62 is positioned about mid-height of the lid assembly 66 according the drawing and it is anticipated that the inner cup is positioned about mid-height of the lid assembly when the inner cup is attached to the lid assembly. In Fig. 1, clearly shows the lid assembly 66 is entirely positioned above the container assembly 14. In other words, if the tab 62 of the lid assembly 66 is located above the container assembly 17 then the notch 60 and the upper portion of the inner cup are also positioned above the lid assembly 66 when attached to the lid assembly. Therefore, the inner cup cannot be entirely positioned within the container assembly 14 when the inner cup is attached to the tab 62 of the lid assembly 66. Please consider to provide support from the specification or amend accordingly.
Regarding claims 2-8, are also rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Regarding clam 4, recites the limitation “permanently integrated” in line 5. This limitation appears to be a new matter because the specification does not appear to include this limitation. Please consider to provide support for this limitation from the specification.
Regarding clam 9, recites the limitation “permanently integrated” in line 4. This limitation appears to be a new matter because the specification does not appear to include this limitation. Please consider to provide support for this limitation from the specification.
Regarding claims 10-12, are also rejected because they depend on claim 9.
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 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, 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanov (Pat. No.: US 10,433,666 B1) in view of Tonn (Pub. No.: US 2018/0186528 A1) and Ost (Pat. No.: US 9,981,790 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Jovanov teaches a dual-component hydration container system comprised of a container assembly (Fig. 1C, liquid contianer10);
the container assembly has an open interior volume that contains a hydrating liquid (Fig. 1C, Col. 2, line 64-66 “In one exemplary embodiment, a smart beverage container has an interior volume that is capable of holding a volume of a liquid.”);
within a base of the container assembly is a processing module configured to determine a volume of hydrating liquid inside the container assembly based on measurement for a sensor (Fig. 1C, Col. 6 line 55-58, “the processing module 24 is configured to convert a capacitance measurement into a volume of liquid estimate based on the minimum and maximum capacitances determined during calibration.”);
the scale determines the volume of liquid inside the container assembly at a first point in time and compares the volume of liquid inside the container at a second point in time and produces a notification if a rate of depletion of the liquid is less than a predetermined rate (Fig. 27 and Col. 14, line 32 – Col 15. line 3, “In FIG. 27, the graph shows that at time t.sub.1, the actual consumption is below the targeted consumption. If the difference is greater than a predefined threshold, the system may generate a warning indicating that the user should consume more liquid. Such warning may indicate the difference in the targeted liquid consumption and the actual liquid consumption. … For example, indications may provide an indication to consume more liquid, stop consuming a liquid, increase or decrease a consumption rate, change a type of liquid being consumed, and other similar information as described herein.”. The container outputs an indication if the processor determines the actual rate of consumption at t1 is less than the target liquid consumption);
the scale being permanently integrated as a fixed component within the base assembly and configured to operate without direct contact with the hydrating liquid (Fig. 1C, Fig. 8, col. 5 line 26-30, “For example, processing module 24 may be located integrally with container 11 of smart container 10, on an exterior surface of container 11, on an interior surface of container 11, or in any other suitable location.”. The processing module is an integral part of the container without direct contact with the liquid inside of the container.).
Jovanov fails to teach the container comprises of a capsule assembly;
the capsule assembly is comprised of a cup and a cap;
the cup contains an adjuvant that is selectively introduced into the hydrating liquid prior to consumption by a user;
the cup being positioned entirely within the container assembly and configured to remain hermetically sealed from the hydrating liquid until specific user actuation of a mechanical release mechanism causes selective release of the adjuvant into the hydrating liquid;
when hermetically sealed the hydrating liquid bypasses the cup without mixing with the adjuvant; and
within a base of the container assembly is a scale to determine a weight of hydrating liquid inside the container assembly by extrapolating the volume from the weight.
However, in the same field of liquid container, Tonn teaches a capsule assembly (Fig. 1, container lid 1);
the capsule assembly is comprised of a cup (Fig. 2, reservoir 12 or Fig. 5, lid member 3) and a cap (Fig. 2, lid 64);
the cup contains an adjuvant that is selectively introduced into the hydrating liquid prior to consumption by a user (Fig. 7 – Fig. 9, and abstract “This container lid fits onto existing insulated cups. It has a refillable and sealable reservoir and in the preferred embodiment includes a top opening to receive substances a bottom opening to release substances into a container. The release of substances into the beverage container is controlled and is measured before release.”. The reservoir 12 contains additive 91 that the user can selectively actuate the button 51 to introduce the additive into the liquid below);
the cup being positioned entirely within the container assembly (Fig. 7, the reservoir 12 is entirely within the container) and configured to remain hermetically sealed from the hydrating liquid until specific user actuation of a mechanical release mechanism causes selective release of the adjuvant into the hydrating liquid (Fig. 7 – Fig. 9, para [0112], “Finally, when the button 51 is fully depressed as shown in FIG. 9, the lower piston 43 of the double piston 4 is forced to exit an open bottom 11 of the measuring tube 32. When the bottom of the bottom lid member 3 is opened, the metered additive 92 shown trapped in FIG. 8 is released or spilled into the tumbler 7 as illustrated by the lines 93 in FIG. 9. The upper piston 41 remains in the measuring tube 32 and prevents additional stored additive 91 from being released from the reservoir 12. This final stage of an additive (the metered additive 92) being transferred from one storage reservoir (the space between the upper and lower pistons 41 and 43) to another reservoir (the tumbler cavity 72) is visible in FIG. 9.”. The actuation of the button 51 releases the additive 91 from the reservoir into the container 72 and mixes with the liquid in the container.);
when hermetically sealed the hydrating liquid bypasses the cup without mixing with the adjuvant (Fig. 5, Fig. 7 – Fig. 9, the container has a drinking channel 31 that bypasses the reservoir 12 without mixing with the additive 91. The additive inside of the reservoir is sealed from the liquid in the container);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jovanov’s container with a container lid that stores additive substances as taught by Tonn to enhance the flavor of the liquid.
Also, in the same field of liquid container, Ost teaches a container with a scale attachable to the bottom of the container to measure the weight and volume of the liquid inside of the container. See Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Col. 4 line 28-38, “The present invention features a lid system (100) comprising: a lid component (110) comprising a top surface (112), a side (114), and a bottom surface (118) opposite the top surface, wherein threading (160) is disposed on either an inside surface of the side (114) or an outside surface of the side (114); a first sensor (120) disposed on or near the top surface of the lid component (110), the first sensor (120) comprises a load sensor adapted to detect a weight of an object placed on either the top surface (112) of the lid component (110) or the bottom surface (118) of the lid component (110);” and Col. 11 line 57-62, “The present invention features a container lid system with a lid component (and optionally a container), wherein the lid component (Smart Lid) of the system comprises sensors adapted to measure the amount or weight or quantity of the contents therein. The present invention is not limited to quantity, weight, amount; the lid component may be adapted to measure other parameters such as quality, state, and/or interactions of the contents.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jovanov’s container with a load sensor or any well-known equivalent device to measure the volume of the liquid to improve accuracy.
Regarding claim 4, Jovanov in the combination teaches the dual-component hydration container system of claim 1 further characterized in that the notification comprises at least one of: (a) an on-device visual or audio indicator integrated within the base assembly, and (b) a wireless broadcast transmitted via an antenna permanently housed within the base to a remote mobile device application (Col. 15 line 3-19, “In one embodiment, the monitoring program may receive data from a hydration sensor (not shown) that provides a measurement of the user's hydration. In this regard, a hydration sensor may be coupled to a device, such as a watch, worn by the user and be in contact with the user's skin in order to provide a hydration measurement indicative of the user's hydration level (e.g., indicating whether the user is dehydrated or overhydrated and/or an extent to which the user is hydrated). The hydration sensor may communicate the hydration measurement to the electronic device 70 via a wireless or wired connection, and the monitoring program may use the data from the hydration sensor as a factor in monitoring the user's hydration. As an example, the monitoring program may determine when to indicate to the user that he or she should consume liquid based on the hydration measurement.”. The container includes an antenna to communicate with a remote user device.).
Regarding claim 7, Ost in the combination teaches the dual-component hydration container system of claim 1 further characterized in that the base of the container assembly is separable from a bottom rim of the container assembly providing access to the interior of the container assembly while maintaining the permanent integration of the scale within the detachable base assembly. (Fig. 5 – Fig. 8. The base lid component 110 is screwed onto the bottom of the container 210. The scale or sensors 120 are located within the base lid component).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jovanov’s container with a removable base to conveniently exchange parts.
Regarding claim 8, Jovanov in the combination teaches the dual-component hydration container system of claim 4, wherein the wireless broadcast is transmitted by an antenna in the base to a mobile application executing on a smartphone or smartwatch for presenting hydration reminders and rate-of-consumption feedback (Fig. 27 and Col. 14, line 32 – Col 15. line 3, “In FIG. 27, the graph shows that at time t.sub.1, the actual consumption is below the targeted consumption. If the difference is greater than a predefined threshold, the system may generate a warning indicating that the user should consume more liquid. Such warning may indicate the difference in the targeted liquid consumption and the actual liquid consumption. … For example, indications may provide an indication to consume more liquid, stop consuming a liquid, increase or decrease a consumption rate, change a type of liquid being consumed, and other similar information as described herein.”. The container outputs an indication if the processor determines the actual rate of consumption at t1 is less than the target liquid consumption and to consume more liquid).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanov (Pat. No.: US 10,433,666 B1) in view of Tonn (Pub. No.: US 2018/0186528 A1) and Ost (Pat. No.: US 9,981,790 B1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yurkovetskaya (Pub. No.: US 2016/0236819 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the dual-component hydration container system of claim 1 but fails to teach further characterized in that a magnet is affixed to an exterior surface of the container assembly with sufficient magnetic strength to support a preselected metallic object.
However, in the same field of liquid container, Yurkovetskaya teaches a liquid container has a magnetic exterior surface to allow metallic objects to adhere to the liquid container. See Abstract “A protein shaker bottle or similar beverage container that has one or more magnets on its outer surface. The magnets allow for the shaker bottle to magnetically adhere to a metallic or ferrous surface.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jovanov’s container with a magnetic surface to allow metallic objects to adhere to the liquid container.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jovanov (Pat. No.: US 10,433,666 B1) in view of Tonn (Pub. No.: US 2018/0186528 A1) and Ost (Pat. No.: US 9,981,790 B1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bacher (Pub. No.: US 2019/0008105 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the dual-component hydration container system of claim 1 but fails to teach further characterized in that the cup contains an operative filter adapted to filter liquid passing through the cup.
However, in the same field of liquid container, Bacher teaches a lid strainer used to filter particles in the liquid going into the water container. See Fig. 2 and para [0021].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jovanov in view of Tonn’s lid with a strainer to filter out larger particles that accidentally poured into the additive substances.
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 ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685