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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/27/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi (U.S. Patent No. 10,556,209) in view of Mizuno (U.S. Patent No. 3,094,245) and Fromm (U.S. Patent No. 6,283,627).
Regarding claim 1, Gandhi discloses a liquid container for liquid mixing (abstract; figure 1) comprising:
a liquid bottle configured to package a liquid with a specified height (reference #1; column 3, lines 65-67);
a liquid mixing rod having a specified depth immersed in the liquid and configured to increase liquid mixing space by reducing the immersion depth of the liquid mixing rod (reference #2);
an inner cap arranged at a bottle mouth of the liquid bottle (reference #3),
wherein the inner cap is provided with a mounting hole, the liquid mixing rod is vertically fixed in the mounting hole, an upper end of the liquid mixing rod extends out of the inner cap, a lower end of the liquid mixing rod passes through the inner cap and is inserted and immersed in the liquid (figures 1 and 3, reference #2 and 165);
the inner cap is further provided with a liquid entrance-exit configured to add liquid mixing liquid or pour the liquid (reference #153);
a first outer cap arranged at the liquid entrance-exit (reference #9 and 155); and
a second outer cap arranged above the inner cap and connected with either the first outer cap or the bottle mouth (reference #7).
However, Ghandi does not explicitly disclose the liquor mixing rod depth immersed in the liquor being regulatable; and wherein the liquid mixing rod is provided with a first liquid mixing graduation.
Fromm teaches another drink mixer (title) comprising a liquid mixing rod having a specified depth immersed in the liquid and the depth immersed in the liquid being regulatable (rod 80 with mixing disk 18 regulatable in up position shown in figure 1 and 4a and down position in figure 4B; column 6, lines 10-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the mixing rod of Ghandi to be connectable in such a way that the depth immersed in the liquid is regulatable, as taught by Fromm. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach drink mixers. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing so that the ingredients in the container can be mixed, crushed and circulated above and below the mixing disk for more mixing as the disk moves up and down (Fromm column 7, lines 11-18).
Mizuno teaches another liquid dispenser with a rod through the container (title; figure 2). The reference teaches wherein the liquid mixing rod is provided with a first liquid mixing graduation (figure 2, reference #3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the first liquid mixing graduation of Mizuno on the mixing rod of Gandhi. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach liquid dispensers with rods through container. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a liquid mixing graduation on the rod because provides an accurate measurement of the amount of liquid.
Regarding the limitations recited in claim 1 which are directed to the container and other structures being for liquid, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Gandhi discloses all the structural limitations as recited in claim 1, and the structures being used for a drinking liquid (abstract) means the structural limitations are also capable of being for a liquid.
Regarding claim 2, Gandhi in view of Mizuno and Fromm discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the mounting hole is connected by thread or snap-fit with the liquid mixing rod (column 3, lines 56-59; columns 3-4, lines 67-1).
Regarding claim 3, Gandhi in view of Mizuno and Fromm discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Gandhi as modified further discloses wherein an outer side wall of the liquid bottle is provided with a second liquid mixing graduation (figures 2 and 4, reference #1 with graduations shown on outside wall, not labeled, “600 ML” or “20 oz”).
Regarding claim 4, Gandhi in view of Mizuno and Fromm discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Gandhi as modified further discloses wherein an outer side wall of the liquid bottle is provided with a liquid level packaging graduation (figures 2 and 4, reference #1 with graduations shown on outside wall, not labeled, “500 ML” or “15 oz”).
Regarding claim 5, Gandhi in view of Mizuno and Fromm discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Gandhi as modified further discloses wherein an outer side wall of the liquid bottle is provided with a liquid mixing rod depth graduation (figures 2 and 4, reference #1 with graduations shown on outside wall, not labeled, “100 ML” or “4 oz”).
Regarding claim 6, Gandhi in view of Mizuno and Fromm discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Gandhi as modified further discloses a detachable rotation wheel arranged at a top of the liquid mixing rod (reference #5). While the reference discloses wherein the rotation wheel is detachably connected to the liquid mixing rod through an inner square connection pin (column 3, lines 35-46), rather than hexagonal, it is well known in the art that the connection can have a variety of shapes of configurations. The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the time of filing to modify connection of Gandhi to include a variety of connection shapes, including hexagonal. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order for a secure connection as well as simplify the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 7, Gandhi in view of Mizuno and Fromm discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Gandhi as modified further discloses wherein the liquid mixing rod is further provided therein with a hollow cavity (Mizuno reference #13), and the liquid container for liquid mixing further comprises an information article or a decoration article sealed in the hollow cavity (Mizuno reference #1-10 and 16).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
