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 April 30, 2026. These drawings are unacceptable.
The drawings amendment filed April 30, 2026 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
There are no reference signs for FIGS. 3-4 to indicate which structure(s) correspond to the liquor mixing device recited in Claims 9-10 and/or to the mixing balls or blocks recited in Claim 9 and/or to the tea bag with thread recited in Claim 10.
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 first partition plate provided with a first through hole and the second partition plate provided with a second through hole recited in Claims 1, 3, and 19-20 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.
Specification
The disclosure specification amendment filed April 30, 2026 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Newly presented FIGS. 3-4 do not provide any reference numerals indicating what structure(s) are depicted in FIGS. 3-4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the raw liquor package” in line 4. It appears the claim should recite “the at least one raw liquor package” in order to maintain consistency with “at least one raw liquid package” recited in Claim 3, line 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the liquor mixing liquid” in lines 1-2. It appears the claim should recite “the first liquor mixing liquid” in order to maintain consistency with “a first liquor mixing liquid” recited in Claim 4, line 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “such that the identification piece is invisible prior to the removal of the covering piece thereby concealing the identity or characteristic of the liquor until the covering piece is deliberately removed by a user” in lines 4-6. There was not adequate written description support at the time of filing for this limitation in the disclosure. The disclosure at the time of filing never mentions or suggests concealing the identity or characteristic of the liquor until the covering piece is deliberately removed by a user. It appears that applicant is attempting to attribute a definition to the phrase “blind box drinking style” which was not originally disclosed in the specification at the time of filing. Therefore, this limitation introduces new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an upper cup body having the liquor mixing cavity” in line 9. It is unclear “an upper cup body” refers to “an upper portion of an inner cavity of the liquor bottle is a liquor mixing cavity” recited in Claim 1, line 2, i.e. it is unclear if “an upper cup body” refers to “an upper portion of an inner cavity” or if “an upper cup body” refers to an entirely different structure from “an upper portion of an inner cavity.” For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the upper cup body to refer to the same thing as the upper portion of the inner cavity.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a lower cup body having the raw liquor body” in lines 9-10. It is unclear if “a lower cup body” refers to “a lower portion of the inner cavity of the liquor bottle” recited in Claim 1, lines 4-5, i.e. it is unclear if “a lower cup body” refers to an entirely different structure from “a lower portion of the inner cavity.” For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the lower cup body to refer to the same thing as the lower portion of the inner cavity.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the raw liquor body” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first partition” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only antecedent basis for “a first partition plate” as recited in Claim 1, line 10.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an upper cup body having the liquor mixing cavity” in line 9. It is unclear “an upper cup body” refers to “an upper portion of an inner cavity of the liquor bottle is a liquor mixing cavity” recited in Claim 3, lines 4-5, i.e. it is unclear if “an upper cup body” refers to “an upper portion of an inner cavity” or if “an upper cup body” refers to an entirely different structure from “an upper portion of an inner cavity.” For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the upper cup body to refer to the same thing as the upper portion of the inner cavity.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a liquor bottle” in line 4. It is unclear if this refers to “at least one liquid mixing liquid bottle” recited in Claim 3, line 2 or to an entirely different bottle.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a lower cup body having the raw liquor body” in lines 9-10. It is unclear if “a lower cup body” refers to “a lower portion of the inner cavity of the liquor bottle” recited in Claim 3, line 6, i.e. it is unclear if “a lower cup body” refers to an entirely different structure from “a lower portion of the inner cavity.” For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the lower cup body to refer to the same thing as the lower portion of the inner cavity.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the raw liquor body” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first partition” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only antecedent basis for “a first partition plate” as recited in Claim 1, line 10.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the liquor mixing liquid bottle” in lines 15-16. It is unclear if this refers to “at least one liquor mixing liquid bottle” recited in Claim 3, line 2, “a liquor bottle” recited in Claim 3, line 4, or to an entirely different bottle.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the liquor mixing liquid” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if this refers to “a first liquor mixing liquid” recited in Claim 3, line 6, “a second liquor mixing liquid” recited in Claim 3, line 16, or to an entirely different liquor mixing liquid.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “liquor liquid” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to “a raw liquor liquid” recited in Claim 3, line 7 or to an entirely different liquor liquid.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the liquor liquid” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if this refers to “a first liquid mixing liquid” recited in Claim 3, line 6, “a raw liquor liquid” recited in Claim 3, line 7, a second liquor mixing liquid” recited in Claim 3, lines 16, or to an entirely different liquor liquid.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “national standards for distilled spirits and alcoholic beverages” in lines 2-3. It is unknown what “national standards for distilled spirits and alcoholic beverages” are being referred to. It is also unclear which nation(s) standards are being applied. For purposes of examination any raw liquor package assembly having distilled spirits and alcoholic beverages that is sold in any store reads on the claimed compliance with national standards since any consumable product that does not meet national standards cannot be legally sold in stores.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the liquor mixing liquid” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if this refers to “a first liquor mixing liquid” recited in Claim 3, line 6, “a second liquor mixing liquid” recited in Claim 3, line 16, or to an entirely different liquor mixing liquid.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the outer sidewall of the liquor bottle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the outer sidewall.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the outer sidewall of the liquor bottle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the outer sidewall.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a blind box drinking style” in line 6. It is unclear what is meant by a “blind box drinking style.”
Clarification is required.
Claims 2, 7-10, 14, and 19-21 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 of this title, 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 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 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 1-2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlstrom US 2013/0037506 in view of Willis et al. US 2020/0391928, Garcia US 2019/0099022, and Erica “infuse your booze! a complete guide to diy flavored liquors” <https://nwedible.com/infuse-your-booze-a-complete-guide-to-diy-flavored-liquors/> (published October 9, 2013) (herein referred to as “Erica”) as further evidenced by “Moonshine (aka Unaged Whiskey Cocktail)” <https://ohsobeautifulpaper.com/2014/07/friday-happy-hour-unaged-whiskey-cocktail-recipe/> (published July 11, 2014) (herein referred to as “Moonshine”).
Regarding Claim 1, Wahlstrom discloses a beverage package comprising a beverage bottle (bottle 10) wherein an upper portion of an inner cavity of the beverage bottle (bottle 10) is a first beverage mixing cavity (upper chamber 16), a lower portion of the inner cavity of the beverage bottle (bottle 10) being a second beverage mixing cavity (lower chamber 18) wherein the beverage bottle (bottle 10) comprises an upper cup body having the first beverage mixing cavity (upper chamber 16) and a lower cup body having the second beverage cavity (lower chamber 18), the upper cup body comprises a first partition plate (upper seal 20) provided with a first through hole (upper seal apertures 24), the lower cup body comprising a second partition plate (lower seal 22) provided with a second through hole (lower seal apertures 24) (‘506, Paragraph [0096]). The upper cup body is rotatably connected with the lower cup body and the first partition plate (upper seal 20) is rotatable along with the upper cup body (‘506, FIGS. 2B-2C) (‘506, Paragraph [0095]).
PNG
media_image1.png
965
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wahlstrom discloses the beverage bottle invention being applied to any bottle or container having plural chambers and is configured for any use with any substance wherein each chamber is configured to store or hold any substance or task requiring the storage of substances in separate chamber and subsequent mixing or combining of the substances (‘506, Paragraphs [0003] and [0140]). Wahlstrom also discloses it was known in the food and beverage art to make a drink container having two chambers separated by a membrane and holding different liquids wherein one of the liquids is alcohol and the other liquid is a drink preparation (‘506, Paragraph [0020]). However, Wahlstrom is silent regarding the beverage package and beverage bottle being a liquor package comprising a liquor bottle.
Willis et al. discloses a liquor package (bottle system 100) (‘928, Paragraph [0127]) comprising a liquor bottle (‘928, Paragraph [0175]). The liquor bottle comprises an inner cavity having an upper portion (second housing element 106) that is a liquor mixing cavity (second fluid compartment 118) capable of accommodating a first liquor mixing sugar liquid (juice) and a lower portion (first housing element 104) that is a liquor liquid cavity (first fluid compartment 116) capable of accommodating liquor liquid (‘928, FIGS. 4-5) (‘928, Paragraphs [0128] and [0175]) wherein the upper cup body is rotatably connected with the lower cup body to allow the first liquor mixing sugar liquid in the liquor mixing cavity to mix with the liquor liquid in the liquor cavity (‘928, Paragraph [0129]).
PNG
media_image2.png
905
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Similarly, Garcia discloses a beverage system comprising a liquor bottle (miniature liquor bottle 200) wherein an upper portion of the system is a liquor mixing cavity and a lower portion of the system is a second beverage cavity (bowl 106) wherein the system comprises an upper cup body having the liquor mixing cavity (miniature liquor bottle 200) and a lower cup body (glass 100) having the second beverage cavity (bowl 106) (‘022, FIG. 1B) (‘022, Paragraph [0106]) wherein the first beverage contents of the liquor mixing cavity (at miniature liquor bottle 200) is capable of mixing with the second beverage contents of the second beverage cavity (bowl 106) (‘022, Paragraph [0049]).
Wahlstrom, Willis et al., and Garcia are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage package systems for mixing at least two beverage ingredients together wherein the at least two beverage ingredients are initially separated from one another and then mixed together when desired to make a mixed beverage. Wahlstrom discloses the beverage bottle invention being applied to any bottle or container having plural chambers and is configured for any use with any substance wherein each chamber is configured to store or hold any substance or task requiring the storage of substances in separate chamber and subsequent mixing or combining of the substances (‘506, Paragraphs [0003] and [0140]). Wahlstrom and Willis et al. both disclose the beverage package systems for mixing at least two beverage ingredients which are initially separated from one another to be mixed together by rotatably connecting the upper cup body to the lower cup body to allow the at least two beverage ingredients to mix together (‘506, Paragraph [0095]) (‘928, Paragraphs [0128]-[0129]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage package using a beverage bottle applied to any bottle or container configured for use with any substance requiring the storage and separation of substances of beverages that are subsequently mixed together of Wahlstrom and apply the invention to a liquor bottle wherein the beverage bottle is a liquor package comprising a liquor bottle as taught by Willis et al. or Garcia based upon the desired type of beverage desired to be made by a particular consumer.
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “the liquor mixing cavity is configured to provide an expansion space for self service liquor mixing for drinkers and accommodate a first liquor mixing liquid,” “for accommodating raw liquor liquid which is capable of mixing with the first liquor mixing liquid to realize self service liquor mixing,” and “such that the first through hole is capable of in communication with the second through hole to allow the first liquor mixing liquid in the liquor mixing cavity mixing with the raw liquor liquid in the raw liquor cavity” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “raw liquor package.” In this regard, applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP § 2114.I. and MPEP § 2114.II. which states features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does in view of Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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 claimed in view of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Nevertheless, Wahlstrom discloses the intended use limitations of the first through hole is capable of in communication with the second through hole to allow the first beverage mixing ingredient (food 52) in the first beverage mixing cavity (upper chamber 16) mixing with the second beverage liquid (fluid 54) in the second beverage cavity (lower chamber 18) (‘506, FIGS. 2C and 2G) (‘506, Paragraphs [0100] and [0105]). Wahlstrom also discloses the invention being applied to any bottle or container having plural chambers wherein the bottle or container is configured for any use and each chamber is configured to store or hold any substance which bottle or container is configured for any use or task requiring the storage of substances in separates chambers and subsequent mixing or combining of the substances (‘506, Paragraph [0140]). Wahlstrom also discloses the beverage bottle invention being applied to any bottle or container having plural chambers and is configured for any use with any substance wherein each chamber is configured to store or hold any substance or task requiring the storage of substances in separate chamber and subsequent mixing or combining of the substances (‘506, Paragraphs [0003] and [0140]). Willis et al. discloses a liquor package (bottle system 100) (‘928, Paragraph [0127]) comprising a liquor bottle (‘928, Paragraph [0175]). The liquor bottle comprises an inner cavity having an upper portion (second housing element 106) that is a liquor mixing cavity (second fluid compartment 118) capable of accommodating a first liquor mixing sugar liquid (juice) and a lower portion (first housing element 104) that is a liquor liquid cavity (first fluid compartment 116) capable of accommodating liquor liquid (‘928, FIGS. 4-5) (‘928, Paragraphs [0128] and [0175]) wherein the liquor package of the bottle system is also capable of storing any suitable liquid (‘928, Paragraph [0175]). Garcia discloses a beverage system comprising a liquor bottle (miniature liquor bottle 200) wherein an upper portion of the system is a liquor mixing cavity and a lower portion of the system is a second beverage cavity (bowl 106) wherein the system comprises an upper cup body having the liquor mixing cavity (miniature liquor bottle 200) and a lower cup body (glass 100) having the second beverage cavity (bowl 106) (‘022, FIG. 1B) (‘022, Paragraph [0106]) wherein the upper portion (bottle 200) of the system is a liquor mixing cavity containing tequila and the lower portion (glass 100) of the system is an alcoholic mixing cavity containing an alcoholic mixed drink such as a margarita (‘022, Paragraph [0049]). The disclosure of the upper portion (liquor bottle 200) of the system capable of accommodating a first liquor mixing liquid (tequila) (‘022, Paragraph [0049]). Both Wahlstrom and Garcia are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage package systems for mixing at least two beverage ingredients together wherein the at least two beverage ingredients are initially separated from one another and then mixed together when desired to make a mixed beverage. Although Garcia discloses a particular embodiment of the lower portion of the system containing an alcoholic mixed drink of margarita (‘022, Paragraph [0049]) and does not explicitly disclose the lower portion of the system accommodating raw liquor liquid, claims to a multicompartment container system for mixing multiple beverage ingredients together in which different beverage ingredients are initially stored in separate compartments that are eventually mixed together which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of a first liquor mixing liquid relative to a raw liquor liquid is held unpatentable because shifting the position of the first liquor mixing liquid relative to the raw liquor liquid would not have modified the operation of the device in view of In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C.). Furthermore, the particular placement of the first liquor mixing liquid relative to the liquor liquid is held to be an obvious matter of design choice in view of In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C.). Wahlstrom discloses the bottle being applied to any container having plural chambers configured for any use with any substance wherein the products are mixed for consumption (‘506, Paragraph [0003]). Willis et al. discloses the bottle holding any suitable liquid (‘928, Paragraph [0128]) that is to be mixed (‘928, Paragraph [0129]). The particular position of the first liquor mixing liquid relative to the liquor liquid in a multicompartmented beverage bottle is prima facie obvious since the first liquor mixing liquid eventually mixes with the liquor liquid to form a mixed drink, which mixed drink would be made irrespective of the position of the first liquor mixing liquid relative to the liquor liquid.
Further regarding Claim 1, Willis et al. discloses one of the compartments of the package containing liquor (‘928, Paragraph [0175]). Garcia also discloses one of the compartments of the package containing liquor liquid of tequila (‘022, Paragraphs [0011] and [0049]). However, Wahlstrom modified with Willis et al. and Garcia is silent regarding the liquor liquid of tequila that is to be mixed to be raw liquor liquid.
Erica discloses blanco tequila is unaged with a typically straight flavor and is a good choice for infusing with bold and assertive flavors that might overwhelm more subtle, aged tequilas wherein the lighter the tequila the more adaptable it will be to a diversity of flavor infusions (Erica, Page 4). Moonshine provides evidence that it was known in the food and beverage art that unaged liquor is considered raw liquor (Moonshine, Pages 2 and 5).
Wahlstrom discloses the beverage bottle invention being applied to any bottle or container having plural chambers and is configured for any use with any substance wherein each chamber is configured to store or hold any substance or task requiring the storage of substances in separate chamber and subsequent mixing or combining of the substances (‘506, Paragraphs [0003] and [0140]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the type of substance stored in one of the compartments of Wahlstrom that is to be mixed with other beverage ingredients to be a substance of a raw liquor liquid in the form of unaged tequila as taught by Erica based upon the desired type of beverages used to form a mixed drink desired by a particular consumer. Erica teaches that unaged blanco tequila has a straight flavor and is a good choice for infusing with bold and assertive flavors that might overwhelm more subtle, aged tequilas wherein the lighter the tequila the more adaptable it will be to a diversity of flavor infusions (Erica, Page 4).
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “wherein the raw liquor liquid is made by fermenting and distilling brewing raw materials in a specific cellar without undergoing blending or mixing process, the specific cellar is one of multiple brewing fermentation cellars with different taste or flavor levels” are product by process limitations. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process in view of In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP § 2113.I.).
Regarding Claim 20, Wahlstrom discloses the first partition plate (upper seal 20) being provided at a bottom of the upper cup body and the second partition plate (lower seal 22) being provided at a top of the lower cup body (‘506, FIGS. 2B-2C).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlstrom US 2013/0037506 in view of Willis et al. US 2020/0391928, Garcia US 2019/0099022, and Erica “infuse your booze! a complete guide to diy flavored liquors” <https://nwedible.com/infuse-your-booze-a-complete-guide-to-diy-flavored-liquors/> (published October 9, 2013) (herein referred to as “Erica”) as further evidenced by “Moonshine (aka Unaged Whiskey Cocktail)” <https://ohsobeautifulpaper.com/2014/07/friday-happy-hour-unaged-whiskey-cocktail-recipe/> (published July 11, 2014) (herein referred to as “Moonshine”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Sculler et al. US 2022/0175173.
Regarding Claim 19, Wahlstrom modified with Willis, Garcia, and Erica as further evidenced by Moonshine is silent regarding an outer sidewall of the liquor bottle being provided with at least one set of liquor mixing scales.
Sculler et al. discloses an alcohol package (bloody mary bottle (“173, FIG. 9) comprising a bottle (closable vessel 200) comprising a cup body having an outer sidewall provided with at least one set of liquor mixing scales (indicia 220) (‘173, FIG. 2) (‘173, Paragraph [0039]). The package comprises the at least one set of liquor mixing scales in the form of a plurality of indicia positioned and spaced so as to define a plurality of equally sized parts to indicate the level of contents of the mixing vessel following addition of a plurality of ingredients added to the vessel bottle (‘173, Paragraph [0018]).
PNG
media_image3.png
957
764
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Both modified Wahlstrom and Sculler et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage bottles containing beverage ingredients to be mixed together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the outer sidewall of the beverage bottle of modified Wahlstrom and provide the outer sidewall of the beverage bottle with at least one set of mixing scales as taught by Sculler et al. in order to allow the user to fill the beverage bottle to the desired level of the liquid to be mixed.
Claims 3, 7-8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlstrom US 2013/0037506 in view of Willis et al. US 2020/0391928, Garcia US 2019/0099022, and Erica “infuse your booze! a complete guide to diy flavored liquors” <https://nwedible.com/infuse-your-booze-a-complete-guide-to-diy-flavored-liquors/> (published October 9, 2013) (herein referred to as “Erica”) as further evidenced by “Moonshine (aka Unaged Whiskey Cocktail)” <https://ohsobeautifulpaper.com/2014/07/friday-happy-hour-unaged-whiskey-cocktail-recipe/> (published July 11, 2014) (herein referred to as “Moonshine”) in further view of Tago US 6,598,419 and Lindenmayer US 2010/0176188.
Regarding Claim 3, Wahlstrom discloses a beverage package comprising a beverage bottle (bottle 10) wherein an upper portion of an inner cavity of the beverage bottle (bottle 10) is a first beverage mixing cavity (upper chamber 16), a lower portion of the inner cavity of the beverage bottle (bottle 10) being a second beverage mixing cavity (lower chamber 18) wherein the beverage bottle (bottle 10) comprises an upper cup body having the first beverage mixing cavity (upper chamber 16) and a lower cup body having the second beverage cavity (lower chamber 18), the upper cup body comprises a first partition plate (upper seal 20) provided with a first through hole (upper seal apertures 24), the lower cup body comprising a second partition plate (lower seal 22) provided with a second through hole (lower seal apertures 24) (‘506, Paragraph [0096]). The upper cup body is rotatably connected with the lower cup body and the first partition plate (upper seal 20) is rotatable along with the upper cup body (‘506, FIGS. 2B-2C) (‘506, Paragraph [0095]).
PNG
media_image1.png
965
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wahlstrom discloses the beverage bottle invention being applied to any bottle or container having plural chambers and is configured for any use with any substance wherein each chamber is configured to store or hold any substance or task requiring the storage of substances in separate chamber and subsequent mixing or combining of the substances (‘506, Paragraphs [0003] and [0140]). Wahlstrom also discloses it was known in the food and beverage art to make a drink container having two chambers separated by a membrane and holding different liquids wherein one of the liquids is alcohol and the other liquid is a drink preparation (‘506, Paragraph [0020]). However, Wahlstrom is silent regarding the beverage package and beverage bottle being a liquor package comprising a liquor bottle.
Willis et al. discloses a liquor package (bottle system 100) (‘928, Paragraph [0127]) comprising a liquor bottle (‘928, Paragraph [0175]). The liquor bottle comprises an inner cavity having an upper portion (second housing element 106) that is a liquor mixing cavity (second fluid compartment 118) capable of accommodating a first liquor mixing sugar liquid (juice) and a lower portion (first housing element 104) that is a liquor liquid cavity (first fluid compartment 116) capable of accommodating liquor liquid (‘928, FIGS. 4-5) (‘928, Paragraphs [0128] and [0175]) wherein the upper cup body is rotatably connected with the lower cup body to allow the first liquor mixing sugar liquid in the liquor mixing cavity to mix with the liquor liquid in the liquor cavity (‘928, Paragraph [0129]).
PNG
media_image2.png
905
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Similarly, Garcia discloses a beverage system comprising a liquor bottle (miniature liquor bottle 200) wherein an upper portion of the system is a liquor mixing cavity and a lower portion of the system is a second beverage cavity (bowl 106) wherein the system comprises an upper cup body having the liquor mixing cavity (miniature liquor bottle 200) and a lower cup body (glass 100) having the second beverage cavity (bowl 106) (‘022, FIG. 1B) (‘022, Paragraph [0106]) wherein the first beverage contents of the liquor mixing cavity (at miniature liquor bottle 200) is capable of mixing with the second beverage contents of the second beverage cavity (bowl 106) (‘022, Paragraph [0049]).
Wahlstrom, Willis et al., and Garcia are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage package systems for mixing at least two beverage ingredients together wherein the at least two beverage ingredients are initially separated from one another and then mixed together when desired to make a mixed beverage. Wahlstrom discloses the beverage bottle invention being applied to any bottle or container having plural chambers and is configured for any use with any substance wherein each chamber is configured to store or hold any substance or task requiring the storage of substances in separate chamber and subsequent mixing or combining of the substances (‘506, Paragraphs [0003] and [0140]). Wahlstrom and Willis et al. both disclose the beverage package systems for mixing at least two beverage ingredients which are initially separated from one another to be mixed together by rotatably connecting the upper cup body to the lower cup body to allow the at least two beverage ingredients to mix together (‘506, Paragraph [0095]) (‘928, Paragraphs [0128]-[0129]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage package using a beverage bottle applied to any bottle or container configured for use with any substance requiring the storage and separation of substances of beverages that are subsequently mixed together of Wahlstrom and apply the invention to a liquor bottle wherein the beverage bottle is a liquor package comprising a liquor bottle as taught by Willis et al. or Garcia based upon the desired type of beverage desired to be made by a particular consumer.
Further regarding Claim 3, the limitations “the liquor mixing cavity is configured to provide an expansion space for self service liquor mixing for drinkers and accommodate a first liquor mixing liquid,” “for accommodating raw liquor liquid which is capable of mixing with the first liquor mixing liquid to realize self service liquor mixing,” “such that the first through hole is capable of in communication with the second through hole to allow the first liquor mixing liquid in the liquor mixing cavity mixing with the raw liquor liquid in the raw liquor cavity,” and “and is configured to provide the second liquor mixing liquid to drinkers for liquor mixing” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “raw liquor package.” In this regard, applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP § 2114.I. and MPEP § 2114.II. which states features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does in view of Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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 claimed in view of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Nevertheless, Wahlstrom discloses the intended use limitations of the first through hole is capable of in communication with the second through hole to allow the first beverage mixing ingredient (food 52) in the first beverage mixing cavity (upper chamber 16) mixing with the second beverage liquid (fluid 54) in the second beverage cavity (lower chamber 18) (‘506, FIGS. 2C and 2G) (‘506, Paragraphs [0100] and [0105]). Wahlstrom also discloses the invention being applied to any bottle or container having plural chambers wherein the bottle or container is configured for any use and each chamber is configured to store or hold any substance which bottle or container is configured for any use or task requiring the storage of substances in separates chambers and subsequent mixing or combining of the substances (‘506, Paragraph [0140]). Wahlstrom also discloses the beverage bottle invention being applied to any bottle or container having plural chambers and is configured for any use with any substance wherein each chamber is configured to store or hold any substance or task requiring the storage of substances in separate chamber and subsequent mixing or combining of the substances (‘506, Paragraphs [0003] and [0140]). Willis et al. discloses a liquor package (bottle system 100) (‘928, Paragraph [0127]) comprising a liquor bottle (‘928, Paragraph [0175]). The liquor bottle comprises an inner cavity having an upper portion (second housing element 106) that is a liquor mixing cavity (second fluid compartment 118) capable of accommodating a first liquor mixing sugar liquid (juice) and a lower portion (first housing element 104) that is a liquor liquid cavity (first fluid compartment 116) capable of accommodating liquor liquid (‘928, FIGS. 4-5) (‘928, Paragraphs [0128] and [0175]) wherein the liquor package of the bottle system is also capable of storing any suitable liquid (‘928, Paragraph [0175]). Garcia discloses a beverage system comprising a liquor bottle (miniature liquor bottle 200) wherein an upper portion of the system is a liquor mixing cavity and a lower portion of the system is a second beverage cavity (bowl 106) wherein the system comprises an upper cup body having the liquor mixing cavity (miniature liquor bottle 200) and a lower cup body (glass 100) having the second beverage cavity (bowl 106) (‘022, FIG. 1B) (‘022, Paragraph [0106]) wherein the upper portion (bottle 200) of the system is a liquor mixing cavity containing tequila and the lower portion (glass 100) of the system is an alcoholic mixing cavity containing an alcoholic mixed drink such as a margarita (‘022, Paragraph [0049]). The disclosure of the upper portion (liquor bottle 200) of the system capable of accommodating a first liquor mixing liquid (tequila) (‘022, Paragraph [0049]). Both Wahlstrom and Garcia are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage package systems for mixing at least two beverage ingredients together wherein the at least two beverage ingredients are initially separated from one another and then mixed together when desired to make a mixed beverage. Although Garcia discloses a particular embodiment of the lower portion of the system containing an alcoholic mixed drink of margarita (‘022, Paragraph [0049]) and does not explicitly disclose the lower portion of the system accommodating raw liquor liquid, claims to a multicompartment container system for mixing multiple beverage ingredients together in which different beverage ingredients are initially stored in separate compartments that are eventually mixed together which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of a first liquor mixing liquid relative to a raw liquor liquid is held unpatentable because shifting the position of the first liquor mixing liquid relative to the raw liquor liquid would not have modified the operation of the device in view of In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C.). Furthermore, the particular placement of the first liquor mixing liquid relative to the liquor liquid is held to be an obvious matter of design choice in view of In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C.). Wahlstrom discloses the bottle being applied to any container having plural chambers configured for any use with any substance wherein the products are mixed for consumption (‘506, Paragraph [0003]). Willis et al. discloses the bottle holding any suitable liquid (‘928, Paragraph [0128]) that is to be mixed (‘928, Paragraph [0129]). The particular position of the first liquor mixing liquid relative to the liquor liquid in a multicompartmented beverage bottle is prima facie obvious since the first liquor mixing liquid eventually mixes with the liquor liquid to form a mixed drink, which mixed drink would be made irrespective of the position of the first liquor mixing liquid relative to the liquor liquid.
Further regarding Claim 3, Willis et al. discloses one of the compartments of the package containing liquor (‘928, Paragraph [0175]). Garcia also discloses one of the compartments of the package containing liquor liquid of tequila (‘022, Paragraphs [0011] and [0049]). However, Wahlstrom modified with Willis et al. and Garcia is silent regarding the liquor liquid of tequila that is to be mixed to be raw liquor liquid.
Erica discloses blanco tequila is unaged with a typically straight flavor and is a good choice for infusing with bold and assertive flavors that might overwhelm more subtle, aged tequilas wherein the lighter the tequila the more adaptable it will be to a diversity of flavor infusions (Erica, Page 4). Moonshine provides evidence that it was known in the food and beverage art that unaged liquor is considered raw liquor (Moonshine, Pages 2 and 5).
Wahlstrom discloses the beverage bottle invention being applied to any bottle or container having plural chambers and is configured for any use with any substance wherein each chamber is configured to store or hold any substance or task requiring the storage of substances in separate chamber and subsequent mixing or combining of the substances (‘506, Paragraphs [0003] and [0140]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the type of substance stored in one of the compartments of Wahlstrom that is to be mixed with other beverage ingredients to be a substance of a raw liquor liquid in the form of unaged tequila as taught by Erica based upon the desired type of beverages used to form a mixed drink desired by a particular consumer. Erica teaches that unaged blanco tequila has a straight flavor and is a good choice for infusing with bold and assertive flavors that might overwhelm more subtle, aged tequilas wherein the lighter the tequila the more adaptable it will be to a diversity of flavor infusions (Erica, Page 4).
Further regarding Claim 3, Wahlstrom in view of Willis et al., Garcia, and Erica as further evidenced by Moonshine is silent regarding a packaging box provided therein with at least one liquor mixing liquid bottle with the at least one raw liquor package wherein the liquor mixing liquid bottle contains a second liquor mixing liquid and is capable of providing the second liquor mixing liquid to drinkers for liquor mixing.
Tago discloses a packaging box (cold preserving agents accommodation box 10) comprising a plurality of liquor bottles (‘419, Column 1, lines 42-50). Alternatively, Lindenmayer discloses a bottle box for transporting, storing, and displaying beverages (‘188, Paragraph [0001]) comprising two bottles (dual bottle box 100) (‘188, FIG. 10) (‘188, Paragraph [0030]) for storing liquor (‘188, Paragraph [0002]).
PNG
media_image4.png
852
975
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the liquor package of modified Wahlstrom and store the liquor package in a packaging box wherein the liquor mixing liquid bottle contains a second liquor mixing liquid since Tago and Lindenmayer teaches that it was known and conventional in the food and beverage packaging art to package multiple liquor bottles in a box.
Regarding Claims 7-8, Tago discloses the packaging box being provided therein with multiple liquor packages (plurality of bottles) (‘419, Column 6, lines 32-38). Lindenmayer also discloses a packaging box for transporting, storing, and displaying beverages (‘188, Paragraph [0001]) comprising multiple bottles (dual bottle box 100) (‘188, FIG. 10) (‘188, Paragraph [0030]) for storing liquor (‘188, Paragraph [0002]). Erica discloses blanco tequila is unaged with a typically straight flavor and is a good choice for infusing with bold and assertive flavors that might overwhelm more subtle, aged tequilas wherein the lighter the tequila the more adaptable it will be to a diversity of flavor infusions (Erica, Page 4). Moonshine provides evidence that it was known in the food and beverage art that unaged liquor is considered raw liquor (Moonshine, Pages 2 and 5).
Further regarding Claim 7, Wahlstrom in view of Willis et al., Garcia, and Erica as further evidenced by Moonshine in further view of Tago and Lindenmayer is silent regarding the raw liquor liquid in the multiple raw liquors being packaged from the same brewing fermentation cellar. However, the mere duplication of parts has not patentability significant unless a new and unexpected result is produced in view of In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP § 2144.04.VI.B.). One of ordinary skill in the art would package multiple raw liquors from the same brewing fermentation cellar in order to provide in bulk a particular set of the same liquors as desired.
Further regarding Claim 8, Wahlstrom in view of Willis et al., Garcia, and Erica as further evidenced by Moonshine in further view of Tago and Lindenmayer is silent regarding the raw liquor liquid in the multiple raw liquors being packaged from the multiple brewing fermentation cellars with different flavors and tastes. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would package multiple raw liquors from brewing fermentation cellars with different flavors and tastes in order to sell a variety package of various different liquors to a consumer as desired.
Regarding Claim 21, Wahlstrom discloses the first partition plate (upper seal 20) being provided at a bottom of the upper cup body and the second partition plate (lower seal 22) being provided at a top of the lower cup body (‘506, FIGS. 2B-2C).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlstrom US 2013/0037506 in view of Willis et al. US 2020/0391928, Garcia US 2019/0099022, and Erica “infuse your booze! a complete guide to diy flavored liquors” <https://nwedible.com/infuse-your-booze-a-complete-guide-to-diy-flavored-liquors/> (published October 9, 2013) (herein referred to as “Erica”) as further evidenced by “Moonshine (aka Unaged Whiskey Cocktail)” <https://ohsobeautifulpaper.com/2014/07/friday-happy-hour-unaged-whiskey-cocktail-recipe/> (published July 11, 2014) (herein referred to as “Moonshine”) in further view of Tago US 6,598,419 and Lindenmayer US 2010/0176188 as applied to claim 3 above in further view of Cahoon US 2016/0220051.
Regarding Claim 4, Wahlstrom discloses the beverage bottle invention being applied to any bottle or container having plural chambers and is configured for any use with any substance wherein each chamber is configured to store or hold any substance or task requiring the storage of substances in separate chamber and subsequent mixing or combining of the substances (‘506, Paragraphs [0003] and [0140]). Willis et al. discloses a liquor package (bottle system 100) (‘928, Paragraph [0127]) comprising a liquor bottle (‘928, Paragraph [0175]). Garcia discloses an alcoholic mixing cavity containing an alcoholic mixed drink such as a margarita (‘022, Paragraph [0049]). Erica discloses the tequila the more adaptable it will be to a diversity of flavor infusions. However, Wahlstrom in view of Willis et al., Garcia, and Erica as further evidenced by Moonshine is silent regarding the liquor mixing liquid of margarita comprising sugar liquid, seasoning liquid, or edible spice liquid.
Cahoon discloses a liquor mixing liquid of margarita comprising sugar liquid or seasoning liquid (salt for use with margaritas) or edible spice liquid (‘051, Paragraph [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the type of liquor mixing liquid used in the package assembly of modified Wahlstrom to be sugar liquid, seasoning liquid, or edible spice liquid as taught by Cahoon based upon the desired flavor profile of the mixed drink to be made by a particular consumer.
Regarding Claim 5, Willis et al. discloses liquor liquid (‘928, Paragraph [0175]). Garcia also discloses liquor liquid (‘022, Paragraph [0048]).
Further regarding Claim 5, it is noted that the limitations “mixed or blended liquor that complies with national standards for distilled spirits and alcoholic beverages” are rejected as being indefinite under the indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) enumerated above. It is unknown which nation(s) pertain to the claimed national standards. It is also unknown what national standards are being referred to. Any raw liquor package assembly having distilled spirits and alcoholic beverages that is sold in any store reads on the claimed compliance with national standards for distilled spirits and alcoholic beverages since any consumable product that does not meet national standards cannot be legally sold in stores.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlstrom US 2013/0037506 in view of Willis et al. US 2020/0391928, Garcia US 2019/0099022, and Erica “infuse your booze! a complete guide to diy flavored liquors” <https://nwedible.com/infuse-your-booze-a-complete-guide-to-diy-flavored-liquors/> (published October 9, 2013) (herein referred to as “Erica”) as further evidenced by “Moonshine (aka Unaged Whiskey Cocktail)” <https://ohsobeautifulpaper.com/2014/07/friday-happy-hour-unaged-whiskey-cocktail-recipe/> (published July 11, 2014) (herein referred to as “Moonshine”) in further view of Tago US 6,598,419 Lindenmayer US 2010/0176188 and Cahoon US 2016/0220051 as applied to claim 4 above in further view of Evans et al. US 2018/0119076.
Regarding Claim 6, Wahlstrom in view of Willis et al. Garcia, and Erica as further evidenced by Moonshine in further view of Tago, Lindenmayer, and Cahoon is silent regarding the liquor mixing liquid comprising distilled water.
Evans et al. discloses a method of aging spirits such as moonshine comprising distilled water (‘076, Paragraph [0031]).
Both modified Wahlstrom and Evans et al. ‘076 are directed towards the same field of endeavor of liquors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the package of modified Wahlstrom and incorporate distilled water into the liquid mixing liquid as taught by Evans et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Evans et al. teaches that there was known utility in the beverage art to make liquors with distilled water.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlstrom US 2013/0037506 in view of Willis et al. US 2020/0391928, Garcia US 2019/0099022, and Erica “infuse your booze! a complete guide to diy flavored liquors” <https://nwedible.com/infuse-your-booze-a-complete-guide-to-diy-flavored-liquors/> (published October 9, 2013) (herein referred to as “Erica”) as further evidenced by “Moonshine (aka Unaged Whiskey Cocktail)” <https://ohsobeautifulpaper.com/2014/07/friday-happy-hour-unaged-whiskey-cocktail-recipe/> (published July 11, 2014) (herein referred to as “Moonshine”) in further view of Tago US 6,598,419 and Lindenmayer US 2010/0176188 as applied to claim 3 above in further view of Sorensen US 6,379,032.
Regarding Claim 9, Wahlstrom in view of Willis et al., Garcia, and Erica as further evidenced by Moonshine in further view of Tago and Lindenmayer is silent regarding a liquor mixing device comprising multiple liquor mixing balls.
Sorensen discloses a beverage bottle comprising a mixing device comprising multiple mixing balls (plurality of interior agitators 44 that are spherically shaped) (‘032, FIG. 5) (‘032, Column 5, lines 30-42).
PNG
media_image5.png
815
954
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Both modified Wahlstrom and Sorensen are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage containers containing beverages that are to be mixed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the package of modified Wahlstrom and incorporate a liquid mixing device of multiple mixing balls as taught by Sorensen since the mere duplication of parts has not patentability significant unless a new and unexpected result is produced in view of In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP § 2144.04.VI.B.). One of ordinary skill in the art would package multiple mixing balls as taught by Sorensen in order to more effectively mix the beverage contained therein.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlstrom US 2013/0037506 in view of Willis et al. US 2020/0391928, Garcia US 2019/0099022, and Erica “infuse your booze! a complete guide to diy flavored liquors” <https://nwedible.com/infuse-your-booze-a-complete-guide-to-diy-flavored-liquors/> (published October 9, 2013) (herein referred to as “Erica”) as further evidenced by “Moonshine (aka Unaged Whiskey Cocktail)” <https://ohsobeautifulpaper.com/2014/07/friday-happy-hour-unaged-whiskey-cocktail-recipe/> (published July 11, 2014) (herein referred to as “Moonshine”) in further view of Tago US 6,598,419 Lindenmayer US 2010/0176188 and Sorensen US 6,379,032 as applied to claim 9 above in further view of Grossman US 2016/0200502.
Regarding Claim 10, Wahlstrom in view of Willis et al., Garcia, and Erica as further evidenced by Moonshine in further view of Tago and Lindenmayer is silent regarding the liquor mixing device further comprising a tea bag with thread and the tea bag containing the liquor mixing balls.
Grossman discloses a tea bag (porous container 810) (‘502, Paragraph [0051]) containing a liquid mixing device comprising balls (balls comprising mixture with honey 820) (‘502, FIG. 8) (‘502, Paragraph [0033]) wherein the tea bag contains a thread (‘502, Paragraph [0055]) wherein the balls comprising honey encompasses a semi dry flavoring substance and/or a dry flavoring substance (‘502, Paragraph [0027]) which balls are applied in an interior of the tea bag (‘502, Paragraph [0039]) and contains herbs or spices (‘502, Paragraph [0055]) wherein the tea bag is used to mix ingredients together (‘502, Paragraphs [0028]-[0029] and [0047]). The tea bag contains a thread (string) (‘502, Paragraph [0055]).
PNG
media_image6.png
901
983
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Both modified Wahlstrom and Grossman are directed towards the same field of endeavor of infusion beverage packages comprising herbs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the liquor mixing device of modified Wahlstrom and incorporate the liquor mixing balls into a tea bag since Grossman teaches that it was known in the beverage packaging art to incorporate an ingredient mixing ball inside of a tea bag for the purposes of mixing ingredients containing herbs together to make a beverage.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlstrom US 2013/0037506 in view of Willis et al. US 2020/0391928, Garcia US 2019/0099022, and Erica “infuse your booze! a complete guide to diy flavored liquors” <https://nwedible.com/infuse-your-booze-a-complete-guide-to-diy-flavored-liquors/> (published October 9, 2013) (herein referred to as “Erica”) as further evidenced by “Moonshine (aka Unaged Whiskey Cocktail)” <https://ohsobeautifulpaper.com/2014/07/friday-happy-hour-unaged-whiskey-cocktail-recipe/> (published July 11, 2014) (herein referred to as “Moonshine”) in further view of Tago US 6,598,419 and Lindenmayer US 2010/0176188 as applied to claim 3 above in further view of Landry et al. US 2018/0157946 and Burton et al. US 2021/0354975.
Regarding Claim 12, Wahlstrom in view of Willis et al., Garcia, and Erica as further evidenced by Moonshine in further view of Tago and Lindenmayer is silent regarding
Landry et al. discloses a wine and liquor bottle comprising a neck having a 2D barcode label bonded to said neck (‘946, FIG. 3) (‘946, Paragraph [0055]) wherein the use obtains information on the product and accesses promotional material issued by the manufacturer or seller of the product and to verify authenticity of the product (‘946, Paragraph [0056]).
PNG
media_image7.png
996
1020
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Burton et al. discloses a smart device housing comprising a screen for the display of information pertaining to a beverage vessel, its contents or its intended use in the supply chain wherein the display is used for showing a unique identifier, serial number, or QR code for the beverage vessel or smart device, indicating the beverage or batch information of the contents of the beverage vessel such as name, alcoholic content, production date, manufacturer, instructions for appropriate storage and transport of the beverage container, freshness indications of the contents of the beverage vessel including data that has been calculated locally or in the cloud based on time and storage temperature, advertising or promotional instructions (‘975, Paragraph [0164]).
Modified Wahlstrom, Landry et al., and Burton et al. are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage containers containing alcoholic beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the liquor package of modified Wahlstrom and provide the outer sidewall of the liquor bottle with an identification piece in the form of a bar code and/or QR code as taught by Landry et al. and Burton et al. in order to provide information on the product and access promotion material issued by the manufacturer or seller of the product and to verify authenticity of the product (‘946, Paragraph [0056]) as well as to notify the handler of the beverage container of an important pending messages (‘975, Paragraph [0156]) and to indicate the beverage or batch information of the contents of the beverage vessel such as name, alcoholic content, production date, manufacturer, instructions for appropriate storage and transport of the beverage container (‘975, Paragraph [0164]). Although Landry et al. and Burton et al. does not explicitly disclose the identification piece having a cellar number identification or a cellar alcohol content identification or the flavor identification or the cellar grade information specifically, Landry et al. discloses providing information on the product issued by the manufacturer or seller (‘946, Paragraph [0056]) and indicating the alcoholic content of the beverage and the batch information (‘975, Paragraph [0164]). One of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate any desired information pertaining to the contents of the beverage of modified Wahlstrom on an identification piece in the form of the bar code and/or QR code with any information pertaining to the contents of the beverage as taught by Landry et al. and Burton et al.
Regarding Claim 14, Landry et al. discloses the identification piece being provided with a digital identifier (barcode/QR code) capable of being scanned (‘946, Paragraphs [0001]-[0002]). Burton et al. also discloses the identification piece being provided with a digital identifier capable of being scanned (‘975, Paragraphs [0156] and [0164]) wherein the scanning is done through a mobile terminal (mobile phone) (‘975, Paragraph [0151]) capable of connecting to a cloud server based on sending prize information (promotional instructions) (‘975, Paragraph [0164]).
Further regarding Claim 14, the limitations “for scanning and identification by mobile terminals, the digital identifier is configured for a mobile terminal to scan and thereby connect to a cloud server of a distiller or supplier and upload cellar information corresponding to the raw liquor in the liquor bottle to the cloud server of the distillery or supplier such that the cloud server of the distillery or supplier sends electronic gifts, electronic currencies, or prize information corresponding to the cellar information to the mobile terminal” are product by process limitations and as such are rejected for the same reasons regarding product by process limitations enumerated in the rejections of Claim 2 above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahlstrom US 2013/0037506 in view of Willis et al. US 2020/0391928, Garcia US 2019/0099022, and Erica “infuse your booze! a complete guide to diy flavored liquors” <https://nwedible.com/infuse-your-booze-a-complete-guide-to-diy-flavored-liquors/> (published October 9, 2013) (herein referred to as “Erica”) as further evidenced by “Moonshine (aka Unaged Whiskey Cocktail)” <https://ohsobeautifulpaper.com/2014/07/friday-happy-hour-unaged-whiskey-cocktail-recipe/> (published July 11, 2014) (herein referred to as “Moonshine”) in further view of Tago US 6,598,419, Lindenmayer US 2010/0176188, Landry et al. US 2018/0157946, and Burton et al. US 2021/0354975 as applied to claim 12 above in further view of Havard et al. US 2004/0221944.
Regarding Claim 13, Wahlstrom in view of Willis et al., Garcia, and Erica as further evidenced by Moonshine in further view of Tago, Lindenmayer, Landry et al., and Burton et al. is silent regarding the outer sidewall of the liquor bottle being further provided with a removable covering piece that is removable from the outer sidewall of the liquor bottle and the covering piece covering the identification piece such that the identification piece is invisible prior to the removal of the covering piece thereby concealing the identity or characteristic of the liquor until the covering piece is deliberately removed by a user and a blind box drinking style is formed.
Havard et al. discloses a beverage bottle (beer bottle) comprising an outer sidewall provided with an identification piece (third printed area 78) and a covering piece (piggyback panel 64) covering the identification piece (third printed area 78) such that the identification piece (third printed area 78) is invisible prior to the removal of the covering piece (piggyback panel 64) thereby concealing the identity or characteristic of beverage bottle contents until the covering piece (piggyback panel 64) is deliberately removed (peeled away) by a user (‘944, FIG. 3) (‘944, Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]).
PNG
media_image8.png
740
893
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Both modified Wahlstrom and Havard et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverage bottles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the beverage bottle of modified Wahlstrom and incorporate a removable covering piece that covers the identification piece such that the identification piece is invisible prior to the removal of the covering piece thereby concealing the identity or characteristic of the identification piece until the covering is deliberately removed and a blind box drinking style is formed since Havard et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food and beverage packaging art to incorporate a removable covering piece that covers the contents of an identification piece having indicia to conceal the identity or characteristics of the identification piece until the covering is deliberately removed.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that a Drawing Objection to the drawings filed April 30, 2026 has been made herein.
Examiner notes that a Specification Objection to the Specification filed April 30, 2026 has been made.
Examiner notes that most of the previous indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments. The previous indefiniteness rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of Claims 5 and 13 with respect to the phrases “national standards” and “blind box drinking style” have been maintained and updated to reflect the other limitations added to these claims.
Examiner notes that a new new matter rejection under 35 USC 112(a) of Claim 13 has been made in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that new indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been made in view of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that applicant’s comment on Page 11 of the Remarks with respect to the indefiniteness rejection of Claim 5 under 112(b) that the term “national standard” has been deleted are not correct. The term “national standard” recited in Claim 5 has not been deleted as alleged by applicant. Claim 5 has been amended to recite “national standards for distilled spirits and alcoholic beverages.” This particular indefiniteness rejection has been updated to reflect the newly presented limitations. It is still unclear what is meant by “national standards.”
Applicant argues on Pages 11-12 of the Remarks with respect to the indefiniteness rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of Claim 13 regarding the phrase “blind box drinking style” is clear.
Examiner notes that it is still unclear what is meant by “blind box drinking style.” Applicant has not provided any arguments as to what this means. It is noted that the newly presented limitations “such that the identification piece is invisible prior to the removal of the covering piece thereby concealing the identity or characteristic of the liquor until the covering piece is deliberately removed by a user” introduces new matter under 35 USC 112(a).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous obviousness rejections of independent Claims 1 and 3 under 35 USC 103(a) to Duman in view of Shimada, Evans et al., Perisman et al., and Sorensen et al. have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely upon the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Duman is no longer being relied upon in the current rejection. The claims have been amended to incorporate new limitations regarding a first partition plate and a second partition plate, which limitations were not previously presented. Therefore, the new combination of references relied upon in the current rejection was necessitated by amendment.
Examiner notes that applicant’s comments on Pages 14-16 of the Remarks with respect to the previous secondary references cited to and relied upon in the previous obviousness rejection under 35 USC 103(a) merely summarizes the disclosure of each of the secondary references and does not specifically and distinctly point out the supposed errors of the Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hall US 4,779,722 discloses a method of mixing two potable liquids comprising the step of providing a bottle comprising an upper cup body having a first liquid mixing cavity and a lower cup body having a second liquid mixing cavity wherein the upper cup body comprises a first partition plate provided with a first through hole and the lower cup body comprises a second partition plate provided with a second through hole wherein the upper cup body is rotatably connected with the lower cup body and the first partition plate is rotatable along with the upper cup body such that the first through hole is capable of communication with the second through hole to allow the first mixing liquid in the first liquid mixing cavity with the second liquid in the second liquid mixing cavity (‘772, FIG. 2).
Jaramillo et al. US 2022/0388753 discloses a bottle comprising two liquid components of a mixed drink that are intended to be mixed with one another to form the final mixed drink (‘753, Paragraph [0310]) wherein the beverage is an alcoholic beverage (‘753, Paragraph [0322]) wherein the second container is rotated relative to the first container (‘753, Paragraph [0055]).
Staus US 2020/0307893 discloses a liquid mixing apparatus containing any of a wide variety of materials including spirits/alcohol or any liquid to be mixed into any of a wide variety of liquids (‘893, Paragraph [0036]).
Roucou US 2018/0105335 discloses an alcoholic beverage bottle adapted to receive spirits (‘335, FIG. 1) (‘335, Paragraph [0040]) wherein an outer sidewall of the alcoholic beverage bottle is provided with an identification piece (barcode 15e) (‘335, Paragraph [0048]).
Metry US 2009/0026167 discloses a wine bottle comprising an identification piece (wine label cover 400) that is removable (‘167, Paragraph [0027]).
Bartlein US 2022/0319356 discloses a beverage container comprising an annular aromatic label extending circumferentially around the container, the aromatic label including a brand name and a bar code, the aromatic label further including a substrate affixed to a surface of the container, a scent layer disposed on the substrate, the scent layer including a removable cover disposed over the scent layer.
Key US 2013/0036634 discloses a beverage container comprising a code disposed on an interior surface of a closure such that the code is not visible until the closure is removed from the container wherein the code is printed on an interior surface of the closure and then covered with a semitransparent liner (‘634, FIG. 15A) (‘634, Paragraph [0065]).
McClintock US 2004/0108237 discloses a beverage container (‘237, Paragraph [0022]) comprising an identification piece (barcode second portion 160) (‘237, FIG. 1A) (‘237, Paragraph [0025]).
Boulouri US 2009/0315315 discloses a beverage bottle comprising an outer sidewall provided with an identification piece (portion 7) that is removable (‘315, FIG. 2) (‘315, Paragraph [0018]) wherein the beverage bottle (bottle 3) includes silk screen printing thereon including product identification and information wherein the silk screen printing is partially or completely covered by a removable label (‘315, Paragraph [0024]).
Dronzek Jr. et al. US 2003/0008082 discloses a label with a removable section for in mold production of in mold labeled molded containers.
Boucher et al. US 2010/0159194 discloses a beverage bottle (‘194, Paragraph [0060]) comprising an outer sidewall provided with an identification piece and a covering piece covering the identification piece (’194, Paragraph [0020]).
Napierala US 10,056,013 discloses piggyback labels are typically used when the entire label or a section of the label needs to be removed and reapplied to something else after the multilayer carrier liner and label are applied to an original surface.
Uland US 2011/0098026 discloses a piggyback label enabling a consumer to remove a secondary pressure sensitive label containing a package code from a primary pressure sensitive label affixed to a food product package (‘026, FIGS. 4-5) (‘026, Paragraph [0032]).
Goldfarb “How the Infinity Bottle Became a Whiskey Nerd Obsession” <https://punchdrink.com/articles/how-infinity-bottle-blend-became-whiskey-nerd-obsession/> (published January 18, 2017) discloses an infinity bottle of various liquors mixed together (Goldfarb, Pages 2-4).
Williams “Tequila and Mezcal Sour” <https://kitchenswagger.com/tequila-mezcal-egg-white-cocktail-recipe/> (published May 13, 2019) discloses a tequila and mezcal sour comprising blanco tequila and mezcal or extra tequila (Williams, Page 6).
Graham “The Effects of Aging on Liquor” <https://www.thespruceeats.com/effect-of-aging-on-liquor-759921> (published September 17, 2020) discloses aging is the process of storing distilled spirits in barrels for a specific period of time to remove harsh flavors from the raw alcohol (Graham, Page 2).
Zipps Liquor “The Ultimate Guide to the Different Types of Liquor” <https://www.zippsliquor.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-the-different-types-of-liquor/> (published March 26, 2020) discloses tequila bottled immediately after distillation is called blanco, aged for 2-12 months in oak barrels is reposado, aged 1-3 years in oak barrels is anejo (Zipps Liquor, Page 11).
Spinner “Two part container disrupts ready to drink cocktail category” <https://www.packagingdigest.com/packaging-design/two-part-container-disrupts-ready-to-drink-cocktail-category> (published October 3, 2016) discloses an alcohol package comprising an alcohol bottle comprising an upper portion containing a first beverage ingredient and a lower portion containing an alcoholic beverage ingredient wherein the first beverage ingredient and the alcoholic beverage ingredient are mixed together (Spinner, Pages 1-3).
Adams “How to Make Powdered Booze at Home” <https://www.popsci.com/article/technology/how-make-powdered-booze-home/> (published April 21, 2014) discloses an alcoholic beverage in powdered form (Adams, Pages 4-6).
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 ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights