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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-13 are pending.
Claims 2, and 7 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 13 are currently amended.
Claim 13 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US D459156 ) in view of Barducci (US 20070267422) and Wikipedia (hereinafter “Wiki”).
Regarding claim 1, Davidson discloses, An alcoholic drink tasting glass (Fig.1-5; Description) comprising: sidewalls (See annotated fig. below) and a base (See annotated fig. below) which define a volume (See annotated fig. below)for accommodating a liquid , a conical depression (See annotated fig. below) formed in the base and located inside the volume of the alcoholic drink tasting glass and wherein the conical depression is formed by sidewalls which have a constant curvature.
However, Davidson does not explicitly disclose the conical depression comprises a tip.
Barducci discloses a glass wherein the center of the glass comprises a tip (18; fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the depression of Davidson to incorporate a tip at the center as taught Barducci for the purpose of “interrupt the flow of the drink in the cup, facilitating oxygenation and a more intense emission of the aromas and bouquet.” (Para 22).
Incorporating the tip to the center disrupts the flow of the drink and thereby improving oxygenation.
However, Davidson does not explicitly disclose, wherein the alcoholic drink tasting glass is formed from soda-lime glass.
Wiki discloses, beverage container are made of soda-lime glass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidson to make the glass of soda-lime glass as it is known to be “inexpensive, chemically stable, reasonably hard, and extremely workable.”.
PNG
media_image1.png
397
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitation “a mechanically formed conical depression formed by a tool, and […] the mechanically formed conical depression comprises a mechanically formed tip formed by the tool” is considered product by process. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
The limitation “the conical depression is configured to distribute the alcoholic liquid when poured into the alcoholic drink tasting glass,wherein the conical depression is configured to reduce a splash of the alcoholic liquid when poured into the alcoholic drink tasting glass” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Davidson as modified has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Herein the glass of Davidson has all the structure as claimed and is considered to be capable of “distribute the alcoholic liquid when poured […] and reduce a splash of the alcoholic liquid when poured into the alcoholic drink tasting glass”.
The limitation “the soda-lime glass interacts with ethanol in the alcoholic liquid when the alcoholic liquid is poured into the alcoholic drink tasting glass, and wherein the soda-lime glass interaction with the ethanol decreases an amount of ethanol to be vaporized from the alcoholic liquid” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the soda-lime glass of Davidson is just as the instant application as claimed and therefore is expected to perform the same i.e. interact with ethanol when alcoholic liquid is poured and interaction with the ethanol decreases an amount of ethanol to be vaporized from the alcoholic liquid.
Regarding claim 3, Davidson discloses, the conical depression has a symmetry axis which is perpendicular to the base (Fig. 5; depression is shown to be symmetric).
Regarding claim 4, 5, and 6; Davidson discloses a conical depression but does not explicitly disclose, a volume defined by the depression is between 0.5 ml and 3 ml, and a volume defined by the depression is less than 1 ml and a depth of the depression is between 6 mm and 10 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a volume defined by the depression is between 0.5 ml and 3 ml, and a volume defined by the depression is less than 1 ml and a depth of the conical depression is between 6 mm and 10 mm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II A). This is done for the purpose of improving aeration when pouring drink in the glass.
Regarding claim 8, Davidson discloses, the base comprising an ice (See annotated fig. below) but does not disclose, an ice having a thickness of between 20mm and 50mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ice having a thickness of between 20mm and 50mm since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II A). This is done for the purpose of making the glass bottom heavy thus allowing for improved stability while also minimizing thermal exchange in between any surface the glass is kept and the beverage.
PNG
media_image2.png
397
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Davidson discloses the sidewalls form a bulb (Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 10, Davidson discloses, the sidewalls have a convergent portion (as it goes towards the bottom/base) and a divergent portion (as the wall goes towards the opening), wherein the divergent portion forms a mouth of the glass (Fig. 1, 5).
Regarding claim 11, Davidson discloses a sidewall with a curvature radii but does not explicitly disclose, a curvature radii of the sidewalls are between 50 mm and 60mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a curvature radii of the sidewalls are between 50 mm and 60mm since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II A). This is done for the purpose of improving while allowing an user to swirl the beverage at an ideal rate that allows for elevated experience.
Regarding claim 12, Davidson discloses the glass comprises 65-75 percent silicon dioxide (See fig. below) , 10-20 percent sodium oxide (See fig. below), and 2-16 percent calcium oxide (See fig. below).
PNG
media_image3.png
232
788
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US D459156 ) in view of Janku (US D744285), and D'Orefice (US 3608766) as evidenced by NPL (Wikipedia).
Regarding claim 1, Davidson discloses, An alcoholic drink tasting glass (Fig.1-5; Description) comprising: sidewalls (See annotated fig. below) and a base (See annotated fig. below) which define a volume (See annotated fig. below)for accommodating a liquid , a conical depression (See annotated fig. below) formed in the base and located inside the volume of the alcoholic drink tasting glass and wherein the conical depression is formed by sidewalls which have a constant curvature.
However, Davidson does not explicitly disclose the conical depression comprises a tip.
Janku discloses a wine glass comprising a depression wherein the depression is steep making a tip (fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the depression of Davidson to make it steep thus making a tip as taught by Janku since such modification would interrupt the flow of the drink thereby improving aeration.
However, Davidson does not explicitly disclose, wherein the alcoholic drink tasting glass is formed from soda-lime glass.
D'Orefice discloses, beverage glass made of soda-lime glass (Col. 2; lines 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davidson to make the glass of soda-lime glass as it is known to be inexpensive, chemically stable, reasonably hard, and extremely workable.1
PNG
media_image1.png
397
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitation “a mechanically formed conical depression formed by a tool, and […] the mechanically formed conical depression comprises a mechanically formed tip formed by the tool” is considered product by process. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above)
The limitation “the conical depression is configured to distribute the alcoholic liquid when poured into the alcoholic drink tasting glass, wherein the conical depression is configured to reduce a splash of the alcoholic liquid when poured into the alcoholic drink tasting glass” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Davidson as modified has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Herein the glass of Davidson has all the structure as claimed and is considered to be capable of “distribute the alcoholic liquid when poured […] and reduce a splash of the alcoholic liquid when poured into the alcoholic drink tasting glass”.
The limitation “the soda-lime glass interacts with ethanol in the alcoholic liquid when the alcoholic liquid is poured into the alcoholic drink tasting glass, and wherein the soda-lime glass interaction with the ethanol decreases an amount of ethanol to be vaporized from the alcoholic liquid” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the soda-lime glass of Davidson is just as the instant application as claimed and therefore is expected to perform the same i.e. interact with ethanol when alcoholic liquid is poured and interaction with the ethanol decreases an amount of ethanol to be vaporized from the alcoholic liquid.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argument with regards the depression and the tip being mechanically formed is considered but these are considered product by process. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. See MPEP 2113.
Lastly, the newly incorporated tip is disclosed by prior arts of Barducci and Janku as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DEBOUT (US 20230089369) discloses a glass with a tip at the center of the glass.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda%E2%80%93lime_glass
Prosecution Insights