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 .
StatusClaims(s) 1, 16-29, is/are filed on 2/18/2026 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1, 16-29 is/are rejected.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 16-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 8313644 B2) in view of Parekh (US 9045353 B2).
[AltContent: textbox (Hopper support surface)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
597
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
523
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Harris teaches a beverage container comprising: an outer enclosure (22/57) made of glass or metal; a hopper part (59) made of glass or metal that is arranged within the outer enclosure (22/57), wherein the hopper part (59) defines an upstream volume for untreated beverage and is adapted for holding a capsule (55) for liquid treatment media downstream the upstream volume; and a hopper holder (52) that is configured to hold the hopper part (59) in a fixed position in the outer enclosure (22/57), the hopper holder (52) comprising a hopper holder gasket (54) that is configured to provide a friction fit between the outer enclosure (22/57) and the hopper part (59) (C3/25-C10/30).
Harris does not teach the hopper part (i.e. filter) is made of metal. However, this is well-known. Parekh teaches (C3/5-15) describes using stainless steel or even silica as known filter materials. It would have been obvious to use this due for the hopper part (i.e. filter) of Parekh due to its durability, hygiene, and functional properties. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Alternatively, assuming arguendo that Harris’s plunger mechanism renders the position non-“fixed” under applicant’s narrower interpretation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Harris’s friction-fit gasket arrangement to hold the hopper part in a stationary (fixed) position, as taught by the analogous gravity-fed filtering bottle of Parekh. Both references address the same technical field—domestic liquid treatment via portable beverage containers/pitchers with an internal filtration element—and share the common goal of hygienic, user-friendly water purification. Parekh expressly teaches a gravity-flow design in which the filter is held stationary at the top of the bottle (see Parekh, Abstract; Fig. 1), enabling efficient gravity flow without a plunger.
A person of ordinary skill, faced with Harris’s pressure-driven device and seeking to adapt it to a gravity-fed configuration (as in the present application and Parekh), would have been motivated to increase the frictional engagement of the gasket (or otherwise configure the holder) to maintain the hopper part in a fixed position, thereby simplifying assembly/disassembly and enabling passive filtration. Such a modification is a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions and would have yielded no more than predictable results (secure holding with large manufacturing tolerances, easy cleaning, and hygienic operation). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, Harris teaches hopper holder gasket (54) is elastically deformable in a transverse direction of the outer enclosure (22/57). Harris teaches Seals are often constructed from rubber, silicone rubber... and other polymers." Gaskets are elastically deformable for sealing in transverse (radial) direction. It would have been obvious to have formed the gasket made of silicone rubber of this material fit snugly and prevent leakage (C6/5-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have selected silicone rubber due to its non-toxicity, chemical resistance and flexibility and compression properties. An appreciated feature in sealing a beverage container. One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use food grade due high elasticity and heat resistance. See at least CN 114987934 B, p. 2-5, WO 2023029270 A1 p. 2-5, US 20240341512 A1 [0063] for food grade silicone rubber.
Regarding claim 17, Harris inherently teaches the elastic deformability amounts to at least 5 percent of the transverse dimension of the outer enclosure (22/57) (as modified it teaches food grade silicone rubber). As it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have selected silicone rubber due to its non-toxicity, chemical resistance and flexibility and compression properties. An appreciated feature in sealing a beverage container. As such, it would inherently have the properties as claimed (see MPEP 2112). One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use food grade due high elasticity and heat resistance. See at least CN 114987934 B, p. 2-5, WO 2023029270 A1 p. 2-5, US 20240341512 A1 [0063] for food grade silicone rubber.
Regarding claim 18, Harris teaches the beverage container is configured such that the hopper part (59) is arranged within the outer enclosure (22/57) by pushing the hopper part (59) in a longitudinal direction of the outer enclosure (22/57) into the outer enclosure (22/57), and wherein the hopper holder gasket (54) is elastically deformable (inherent) in the longitudinal direction of the outer enclosure (22/57), such that a greater force is required for pulling the hopper part (59) out of the outer enclosure (22/57) than for pushing the hopper part (59) into the outer enclosure (22/57) (fig. 5a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have selected silicone rubber due to its non-toxicity, chemical resistance and flexibility and compression properties. An appreciated feature in sealing a beverage container. As such, it would inherently have the properties as claimed (see MPEP 2112). One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use food grade due high elasticity and heat resistance. See at least CN 114987934 B, p. 2-5, WO 2023029270 A1 p. 2-5, US 20240341512 A1 [0063] for food grade silicone rubber.
Regarding claim 19, Harris teaches the hopper holder gasket (54) comprises a flange portion (540) that is elastically deformable in the longitudinal direction of the outer enclosure (22/57) such that the flange portion is bent away from the direction in which the hopper part (59) is pushed, whereby a greater force is required for pulling the hopper part (59) out of the outer enclosure (22/57) than for pushing the hopper part (59) into the outer enclosure (22/57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have selected silicone rubber due to its non-toxicity, chemical resistance and flexibility and compression properties. An appreciated feature in sealing a beverage container. As such, it would inherently have the properties as claimed (see MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 20, Harris teaches the hopper holder gasket (54) comprises an enclosure vent opening (slots of 54 – fig. 5b) connecting the outer enclosure (22/57) to ambient air.
Regarding claim 21, Harris teaches the hopper holder (52) comprises a hopper support part (51) comprising a projection (510) that is configured to rest on a brim (outer edge of 22/57) of the outer enclosure (22/57), and wherein the hopper support part and the hopper holder gasket (54) are attachable to one another to form the hopper holder (52).
Regarding claim 22, Harris teaches the hopper support part comprises a hopper support surface (see fig. 5a above) for supporting the hopper part (59) in a longitudinal direction of the outer enclosure (22/57).
Regarding claim 23, Harris teaches a capsule holder gasket (outer gasket of 56) that is configured to provide a friction fit between the hopper part (59) and the capsule (55) for liquid treatment media (fig. 5b).
Regarding claim 24, Harris teaches the capsule holder gasket (54) is made from silicone rubber. It unclear if it’s food grade silicone rubber. However, this is well-known. One of ordinary skill would look to different sealing as the reference infers using silicone rubber and use food grade at is good elastic properties and higher temperature resistance. See at least CN 114987934 B, p. 2-5, WO 2023029270 A1 p. 2-5, US 20240341512 A1 [0063].
Regarding claim 25, Harris teaches gasket (54) is elastically deformable in a transverse direction of the hopper part (59). It would have been obvious to have formed the gasket made of silicone rubber of this material fit snugly and prevent leakage (C6/5-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have selected silicone rubber due to its non-toxicity, chemical resistance and flexibility and compression properties. An appreciated feature in sealing a beverage container. One of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use food grade due high elasticity and heat resistance. See at least CN 114987934 B, p. 2-5, WO 2023029270 A1 p. 2-5, US 20240341512 A1 [0063] for food grade silicone rubber.
Regarding claim 26, Harris teaches a lid (51) at least partly covering the outer enclosure (22/57), wherein the lid (51) comprises a lid gasket (510) that is adapted to hold the lid (51) on the beverage container, the lid gasket (510) being configured to provide a friction fit with the hopper part (59) (fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 27, Harris teaches the lid gasket (510) is configured to provide a liquid-tight seal between the hopper part (59) and the lid (51), and wherein the lid (51) comprises a hopper vent conduit (top narrowing cavity of 51) connecting the upstream volume to ambient air. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).“The manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” Id.at 580.
Regarding claim 28, Harris teaches the hopper vent conduit (top narrowing cavity of 51) is located closer to the center of the lid (50) than to an outer edge of the lid (51) (it is centrally of the outer diameter 51 – fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 29, Harris teaches the lid (51) comprises a lid gripping part (50) through which the hopper vent conduit (top narrowing cavity of 51) extends (fig. 5A).
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite, “a hopper holder that is configured to hold the hopper part in a fixed position in the outer enclosure, the hopper holder comprising a hopper holder gasket that is configured to provide a friction fit between the outer enclosure and the hopper part.”
Applicant argues that Harris fails to teach or suggest a hopper holder configured to hold the hopper part “in a fixed position,” because Harris’ filter assembly (59) moves during operation when the plunger (52) is pressed; and there is no motivation to combine Harris (a pressure-driven device) with Parekh (a gravity-fed device). These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, the term “fixed position” is interpreted broadly in light of the specification and does not require that the hopper part be permanently immovable or incapable of any movement under applied force. Harris discloses a hopper holder (plunger stem 52 attached to the filtration assembly 59) and a hopper holder gasket (54) that is explicitly “configured to provide a friction fit between the outer enclosure (vessel 57) and the hopper part (59).” See Harris, Fig. 5A; C6/1-15, C6/29-50 (“It will be appreciated that the gasket 54 and other seals, where used, are provided to force fluid flowing from beneath the bottom element 56 to beyond the top element 53 through the filter element 55 without leakage.”); C6/25-35 (gasket fins 540 create a seal when the assembly is inserted); and C10/30-45 (gasket selected to withstand hydrostatic forces while maintaining seal and orientation).
The gasket (54) with its fins and optional annular seals (e.g., O-ring, chevron) engages the inner surface of the vessel (57) with sufficient frictional force to hold the filtration assembly (59) in position within the enclosure until the user deliberately applies downward pressure via the plunger. This frictional engagement maintains the assembly “in a fixed position” relative to the vessel during normal handling, storage, and initial insertion—precisely the function recited in the claim. The specification does not define “fixed position” narrowly to exclude devices in which controlled axial movement is possible under deliberate user force, nor does it require that the hopper remain stationary during the filtration process itself. Harris therefore teaches the amended limitation.
Second, even assuming arguendo that Harris’s plunger mechanism renders the position non-“fixed” under applicant’s narrower interpretation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Harris’s friction-fit gasket arrangement to hold the hopper part in a stationary (fixed) position, as taught by the analogous gravity-fed filtering bottle of Parekh. Both references address the same technical field—domestic liquid treatment via portable beverage containers/pitchers with an internal filtration element—and share the common goal of hygienic, user-friendly water purification. Parekh expressly teaches a gravity-flow design in which the filter is held stationary at the top of the bottle (see Parekh, Abstract; Fig. 1), enabling efficient gravity flow without a plunger.
A person of ordinary skill, faced with Harris’s pressure-driven device and seeking to adapt it to a gravity-fed configuration (as in the present application and Parekh), would have been motivated to increase the frictional engagement of the gasket (or otherwise configure the holder) to maintain the hopper part in a fixed position, thereby simplifying assembly/disassembly and enabling passive filtration. Such a modification is a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions and would have yielded no more than predictable results (secure holding with large manufacturing tolerances, easy cleaning, and hygienic operation). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Applicant’s assertion that there is no motivation to combine a “pressure-based device” with a “gravity-based device” is unpersuasive because Parekh is relied upon solely for its teaching of known, advantageous materials (stainless steel, glass, silica) for the hopper part/filter—materials chosen for their superior durability, non-leachability, hygiene, and dishwasher compatibility (see Parekh; Abstract). This teaching is independent of the driving force (pressure or gravity) and applies equally to Harris’s filtration assembly. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute these materials into Harris’s device to achieve the recognized benefits of improved hygiene, longevity, and user-friendliness (C4/35-65). See MPEP § 2144.07 (selection of known materials). The fact that the references may employ different filtration mechanisms does not negate the obviousness of using Parekh’s materials in Harris’s otherwise analogous structure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 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, Vickie Kim can be reached on 571-271-0579. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777