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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 121/02/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: (e.g., a drinking spout 39, as shown, for example, in FIG 1A)”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The original disclosure does not provide a scope of how or where the drinking spout would be incorporated and is only given as an example of an additional sealable opening. The only sealable opening originally supported is shown as 138, incorporating an additional sealable opening onto the vessel 110 side wall is not specifically supported as amended.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the drinking spout in claims 23 and 26, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12-13 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiocchi (US 5,322,227) in view of Bock (US 5,660,342).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1: Fiocchi discloses a bottle 10 comprising: a vessel comprising an opening a grate-like protrusion surface positioned at the opening; a lid configured to seal the opening, wherein the lid comprises a shaft and a first threaded portion; and a second threaded portion, wherein the first threaded portion and second threaded portion are configured such that threadedly advancing the first threaded portion into the second threaded portion moves the shaft toward the grate-like protrusion surface (see figures 1 and 4 above of Fiocchi).
Fiocchi discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Bock.
Bock teaches the provision of a vessel 1 for holding a liquid that can receive crushed tablets when in use, which includes grinding shafts 16 and grate 9 which extends across an opening in order to crush a tablet 11 and allow for the broken remains to fall through the grate 9 (through 14) and into a storage area (cavity holding 2) (see figures 1 and 2 of Bock). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the bottle and grate-like protrusion of Fiocchi with the grate with openings as taught by Bock for crushing tablets into a liquid that can be stored in the vessel in addition holding the tablet for storage before use.
Fiocchi in view of Bock further teach:
In re claim 2 the vessel comprises the second threaded portion (see figure 1 above of Fiocchi).
In re claim 3: the lid seals the opening when the first threaded portion is advanced into the second threaded portion such that the lid reaches a first position relative to the vessel (see figure 4 above of Fiocchi).
In re claim 4: the first threaded portion can be advanced into the second threaded portion to move the lid past the first position (when the threads first meet) to a second position (when the lid is fully rotated down), wherein the shaft nests against the grate 9 when the lid is in the second position (see figure 4 above of Fiocchi or figure 2 of Bock).
In re claim 5: the grate 9 extends across the opening (see figure 4 above of Fiocchi or figure 2 of Bock).
In re claim 6: the vessel comprises the second threaded portion and an open end, wherein the opening is defined in the open end, and the second threaded portion is located between the grate and the open end (see figure 1 above of Fiocchi).
In re claim 7: the vessel comprises a shoulder on an opposite side of the grate from the opening (see figures 1 and 4 above of Fiocchi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Fiocchi in view of Bock for the same reason as discussed above in claim 1.
In re claim 12: A bottle, capable of mixing a beverage, the bottle comprising: a vessel comprising an opening and an interior space; a grate-like protrusion surface; and a lid configured to cover the grate-like protrusion surface, wherein the lid comprises a shaft, and a distance of the shaft from the grate is adjustable while the lid is connected to the vessel and covers the opening (see figures 1 and 4 above of Fiocchi).
Fiocchi discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Bock.
Bock teaches the provision of a vessel 1 which includes grinding shafts 16 and grate 9 which extends across an opening in order to crush a tablet 11 and allow for the opening is a passage through which substances from outside of the vessel 1 can reach the interior space and wherein the grate 9 is positioned so that substances on an opposite side of the grate 9 from the shafts 16 can reach the interior space (cavity holding 2) (see figures 1 and 2 of Bock). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the grate-like protrusion of Fiocchi with the grate with openings as taught by for the reason discussed above.
Fiocchi in view of Bock further teach:
In re claim 13: the shaft is movable to nest against the grate while the lid is connected to the vessel and covers the opening (see figure 4 above of Fiocchi or figure 2 of Bock).
In re claim 15: A method of using the bottle of claim 12, comprising: placing liquid in the vessel; placing an item between the shaft and the grate (9 of Bock); and crushing the item by advancing the shaft toward the grate (9 of Bock) while the item is between the shaft and the grate (9 of Bock) (see figure 4 above of Fiocchi or figures 1 and 2 of Bock).
In re claim 16: placing the item between the shaft and the grate (9 of Bock) comprises placing the item on the grate(9 of Bock) then connecting the shaft to the vessel (see figure 4 above of Fiocchi or figures 1 and 2 of Bock).
In re claim 17: after crushing the item: withdrawing the shaft from the grate (9 of Bock) to a position wherein a cavity exists between the grate (9 of Bock) and the shaft while the lid seals the opening; and agitating the liquid (2 of Bock) into the cavity by moving the bottle (see figure 4 above of Fiocchi or figures 1 and 2 of Bock).
In re claim 18: after withdrawing the shaft, orienting the bottle so that the opening points downward; and agitating liquid 2 out of the cavity by moving the bottle (see figure 4 above of Fiocchi or figures 1 and 2 of Bock).
In re claim 19: advancing the shaft toward the grate comprises threadedly advancing a first threaded portion of the bottle along a second threaded portion of the bottle (see figure 4 above of Fiocchi or figures 1 and 2 of Bock).
In re claim 20: the item is a consumable tablet (see figures 1 and 4 above of Fiocchi or figures 1 and 2 of Bock).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Fiocchi in view of Bock for the same reason as discussed above in claim 12.
In re claim 21: the grate is removable from the vessel (see figures 1 and 4 above of Fiocchi or figures 1 and 2 of Bock).
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiocchi (US 5,322,227) in view of Bock (US 5,660,342) and in further view of Tombetti (US 4,366,930). Fiocchi in view of Bock teaches the claimed invention as discussed above except for the following claimed limitation that is taught by Tombetti:
In re claims 8 and 14: Trombetti teaches the provision of an item crushing apparatus including a crushing area of a grate 18 has a first cone shape, an end 48 of a shaft 44 has a second cone shape, and the shaft 44 is movable to a position wherein the end 48 of the shaft 44 nests against the crushing area while a lid 60 is connected to a vessel 12 and covers an opening (see figures 3-4 of Trombetti) in order to allow the crushed tablet to easily pass through the openings in the grate. With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the flat shape grate and the flat end of the shaft of Fiocchi in view of Bock with a cone shape as taught by Trombetti for the same reason as discussed above.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiocchi (US 5,322,227) in view of Bock (US 5,660,342) and in further view of Ming (US D362791). Fiocchi in view of Bock teaches the claimed invention as discussed above except for the following claimed limitation that is taught by Ming:
PNG
media_image2.png
568
385
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 9: Ming teaches the provision of a lid comprises the second threaded portion (inner thread portion connected to the shaft’s threads), and the shaft comprises the first threaded portion (see figure 4 above of Ming).
In re claim 10: Ming teaches the provision of a lid further comprises a ring (ring with the treads that mate with the shaft’s threads) that encircles the shaft and comprises the second threaded portion (see figure 4 above of Ming).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the lid and shaft of Fiocchi in view of Bock with a separately attached threaded shaft and a matting lid opening as taught by Ming in order to allow for the parts to be separately cleaned and prevent reminisces of the crushed table to remain in the lid cavities.
Fiocchi in view of Bock and Mind as combined further teach:
In re claim 11: the vessel comprises a third threaded portion (second thread portion in fig.1 above) and the lid comprises a fourth threaded portion (first thread portion in fig.1 above), wherein the lid is configured to seal the opening when the fourth threaded portion is threadedly engaged with the third threaded portion. When combined as discussed in claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Fiocchi in view of Bock and Ming for the same reason as discussed above in claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22-26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2025have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the proposed combination of Fiocchi in view of Bock would render Fiocchi unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. The Examiner disagrees, Fiocchi discloses a container with a removable lid assembly for crushing pills. The container can store pills that can be removed by removing the lid assembly to access the pills. One of ordinary skill in the art can remove the lid assembly and take the pill to be crushed out of the container and put those removed pill into the lid assembly and crush it, the lid assembly will work if attached to the container or if not attached to the container. The lid assembly works regardless of what is being stored within the container, the structure of the lid assembly will perform the same function no matter where the pill come from and no matter what is being held within the container. Bock teaches a lid assembly attached to a container that holds a liquid and the lid assembly crushes tablets that fall throw openings into liquid preventing any loss of crushed tablets within the lid assembly and container. With this in mind, the claimed structure is taught and the intended use is obviously taught by Bock. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In, this case, the combination teaches applying holes to a lid assembly for crushing pills and allowing the remains to fall through openings.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that Bock is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art who works with lid assemblies for crushing pills would clearly look to lid assemblies for crushing tablets.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735