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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/29/2028, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bookout (US Patent No. 3,385,569) under 35 USC 103, Bookout teaching the claim amendment of the secondary outlet being parallel with the funnel outlet as evidenced in the rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/29/2028, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Aslam et al. (US 2019/0039873 A1) under 35 USC 103, Aslam teaching the claimed amendment of ribs in a spiral formation and a plurality of radially extending protrusions as evidenced in the rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockola (US Patent No. 3,300,094), and further in view of Bookout (US Patent No. 3,385,569).
Re: Claim 1, Rockola discloses the claimed invention including a beverage system, comprising:
a beverage dispenser (10) (Fig. 1);
a funnel (52) removably coupled to the beverage dispenser and configured to receive a primary fluid and an additive, the funnel having a mixing chamber (50) configured to combine the primary fluid and the additive into a combined fluid, the mixing chamber having a plurality of ribs (55) configured to direct the combined fluid toward a funnel outlet (53) thereof (Fig. 2, Col. 6, lines 51-55, ribs assisting with flow toward outlet)
wherein the funnel is configured to receive the primary fluid (W) through a primary outlet (66) of the beverage dispenser positioned substantially tangential to a curve of the funnel such that a fluid vortex is formed in the mixing chamber (Depicted in Fig. 2), and wherein the funnel is configured to receive the additive from at least one secondary outlet (46) of the beverage dispenser (Fig. 2); and
Rockola discloses the additive moving parallel to the funnel outlet into the funnel except for the secondary outlet being configured so. However, Bookout discloses an additive secondary outlet (146) of the beverage dispenser, positioned substantially parallel to a funnel outlet (72, 112) (Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to include a parallal secondary outlet to the funnel out as taught by Bookout, since Bookout states that such a modification downwardly directs the additive, locating it over the discharge end of the auger means and directing a measured dry ingredients right into underdisposed mixing means, thus ensure the desired amount finds it way into the funnel.
Re: Claim 2, Rockola discloses the claimed invention including each rib of the plurality of ribs extends radially outward from the funnel outlet toward the curve of the funnel (Depicted in Fig. 2).
Re: Claim 3, Rockola discloses the claimed invention including each rib of the plurality of ribs is positioned tangentially to the funnel outlet (Fig. 2).
Re: Claim 4, Rockola discloses the claimed invention including the plurality of ribs includes three ribs evenly spaced apart from each other (Fig. 3, at least 3 ribs spaced evenly).
Re: Claim 6, Rockola discloses the claimed invention including the at least one secondary outlet is positioned vertically above the funnel (Depicted in Fig. 3).
Re: Claim 7, Rockola discloses the claimed invention including the funnel is bowl-shaped (Depicted in Fi. 2).
Re: Claim 8, Rockola discloses the claimed invention including the funnel includes a protrusion (67), and wherein the protrusion is configured to actuate an input (26) disposed on the beverage dispenser (Fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 23-32, associating the protrusion with inlet provides for actuation of the device, as inlet stretches around the protrusion).
Re: Claim 9, Rockola discloses the claimed invention including the beverage dispenser is operable only when the input is actuated by the protrusion (Fig. 3, Col. 5, lines 23-32, disassociating the protrusion with inlet provides for maintenance thus rendered inoperable).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockola (US Patent No. 3,300,094) and Bookout (US Patent No. 3,385,569) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Copping (US Patent No. 2,620,108).
Re: Claim 5, Rockola discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of outlets. However, Copping teaches a funnel outlet includes three openings (Fig. 3), and wherein each rib (32, 33, 34) is configured to direct the combined fluid to a respective one of the three openings (Depicted in Fig. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a plurality of outlets arranged and sized as claimed as taught by Copping, since Copping states column 3, lines 35-45 that such a modification accomplishes the desired result of breaking up an additive stream, and thereby enabling adjacent water to mix thoroughly with the additive before reaching its final destination, further it has been held that the configuration of the claimed feature was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockola (US Patent No. 3,300,094), and further in view of Aslam et al. (US 2019/0039873 A1).
Re: Claim 20, Rockola discloses the claimed invention including a beverage system, comprising: a beverage dispenser (10) (Fig. 1); and a funnel (50) removably coupled to the beverage dispenser, the funnel comprising: a base (52) pitched toward at least one outlet (53) disposed in the base, a plurality of ribs (55) disposed on the base and arranged around the at least one outlet (Fig. 3), each of the ribs being curved in form (Fig. 2 depicts the rib curving), and a plurality of protrusions (60, 61) extending, one (60) of which extends radially outward annularly from the base (Figs. 2-3), wherein the funnel is configured to removable couple to the beverage dispenser via the plurality of protrusions (Col. 5, lines 1-7, plurality of protrusions for removable connecting) except for a plurality of protrusions extending radially. However, Aslam depicts two separate radially extending protrusion (Depicted in Fig. 3, two radially extending protrusions separated by indents for feature 84 to move into).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a plurality of radially extending protrusions as taught by Aslam, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Further, Rockola teaches ribs except for ribs having a spiral configuration. However, Aslam teaches a plurality of ribs (62) disposed on a funnel base (59) and arranged in a spiral formation (Figs. 3-4), while also including ribs (64) (Fig. 4) configured like the ribs taught by Rockola above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a plurality of ribs configured in a spiral formation as taught by Aslam, since Aslam states in para. 49 that such a modification helps redirect the annular flow of the mixed beverage toward the outlet and thereby further mixing the mixed beverage before directed down the outlet by ribs like those taught in Rockola, further it has been held that the configuration of the claimed feature was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re: Claim 21, Rockola discloses the claimed invention including the base has a generally bowl-like and round shape (Depicted in Figs. 2-3).
Re: Claim 22, Rockola discloses the claimed invention including the plurality of ribs are evenly arranged around the at least one outlet (Depicted in Fig. 3).
Re: Claim 23, Rockola discloses the claimed invention including the plurality of ribs comprises at least three curved ribs (Depicted in Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockola (US Patent No. 3,300,094) and Aslam et al. (US 2019/0039873 A1) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Reese et al. (US Patent No. 5,192,002).
Re: Claim 24, Rockola discloses the claimed invention except expressly filleting the edges of the ribs. However, Reese discloses filleting the edges of the rib (67) (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a filleted rib as taught by Reese, since Reese states that such a modification disrupt the otherwise spiral flow of liquid around the inner surfaces of funnel to channel it toward the outlet, and further, it has been held that the configuration of the claimed feature was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockola (US Patent No. 3,300,094) and Aslam et al. (US 2019/0039873 A1) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Copping (US Patent No. 2,620,108).
Re: Claim 25-27, Rockola discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of outlets. However, Copping teaches the at least one outlet comprises a plurality of outlets (Fig. 3) arranged to form a circular pattern (Fig. 3), are uniform in size and shape (Fig. 2-3), and a plurality of ribs (32, 33, 34) and the plurality of outlets are equal in number (Depicted in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include a plurality of outlets arranged and sized as claimed as taught by Copping, since Copping states column 3, lines 35-45 that such a modification accomplishes the desired result of breaking up an additive stream, and thereby enabling adjacent water to mix thoroughly with the additive before reaching its final destination, further it has been held that the configuration of the claimed feature was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754