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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment dated 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (Figs. 1-14, claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species A and Species B are not patentably distinct, and that there is no serious search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because:
The original filed specification and drawings do not support Applicant’s assertion that the two species perform the same function in the same way (see Remarks page 1, last two lines - page 2, first two lines). The embodiment shown in Figs. 15-17B does not appear to have a piston/plunger mechanism, and Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would be inclined to interpret this embodiment, as disclosed in the original filed specification and drawings, as dispensing via pressurization of the whole container rather than driving a piston/plunger. In any case, Examiner acknowledges that electromechanical and pneumatic actuators may be considered generally interchangeable, but pressurization within the cartridge requires significantly different design considerations and structure from the electromechanically actuated embodiment.
The existence of a search burden is supported by the different classification of electromechanical dispensing means (e.g., B67D1/0085) compared to pneumatic means (e.g., B67D1/04), as well as the need to employ different search strategies or search queries based on unrelated features among the species of claimed inventions. Furthermore, an examination burden may exist based on non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a) that appear to be relevant to one species or grouping of patentably indistinct species that are not relevant to the other species or grouping(s) of patentably indistinct species (e.g., with respect to the specific operation of pneumatic means for causing dispensing).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/19/2025. Claims 1-15 will be examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because some of the drawings are 3D renderings which make it difficult to ascertain the details being referenced in the drawings. The 3D rendered figures that need to be converted to line drawings or resubmitted are Figs. 4, 15, and 16E. 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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal language (“comprising” in line 1). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the terms “Bluetooth” and “Wi-Fi” (Page 10, second full paragraph), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “means for preventing settling of dietary supplement particles within each of the cartridges” in lines 9-10. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to require a structural feature (a “means for preventing settling”) to be located in each cartridge, or if the underlined phrase refers to the particles within each cartridge and thus a single “means” that prevents settling in all cartridges simultaneously would satisfy the claim. For purposes of examination only, in light of the specification (see the description of “a rotatable dietary supplement additive unit” on Page 2, last full paragraph) the claim will be interpreted as meaning the latter.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “a corresponding injector member associated with each of the cartridges” in lines 1-2. Similarly to claim 1 above, it is unclear whether Applicant intends the instant claim to require a separate structural feature for each cartridge, or if a single injector member that is associated with each of the cartridges simultaneously would satisfy the claim (i.e., it is unclear if the term “corresponding” requires an equal number of injector members and cartridges).
Regarding claim 3, The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the scope of “substantially vertically oriented” in line 2 is unclear.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the plunger is a plunger rod downwardly extending from a drive shaft of the stepper motor with which it is connected to the piston” in lines 2-4. The structural relationship described in the claim is unclear. In particular, it is unclear to what structural feature(s) the underlined phrase refers.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “each of the cartridges further comprises a metallic ball that loosely sits on top of the hollow tip and a permanent magnet which is fixedly housed within a casing of the dispenser” in lines 2-4. It is unclear how each cartridge would comprise a magnet that is housed in a casing of the dispenser.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2016/0058245).
Regarding claim 1, Smith et al. disclose a dispenser (see especially the embodiment of Figs. 11-13) for dispensing an individualized amount of dietary supplements (see the Abstract), the dispenser comprising:
a) a plurality of replaceable cartridges (300), each of which containing a dietary supplement solution and at least two of which containing different dietary supplement solutions (Paragraphs 0050, 0054);
b) a discharge port (606; Paragraph 0074) of the dispenser;
c) a control system (400; Paragraph 0057; Fig. 4) for controllably discharging a predefined dose of a dietary supplement solution, upon demand, from at least one of the cartridges to the discharge port (Paragraph 0109); and
d) means for preventing settling of dietary supplement particles within each of the cartridges (cartridges are mounted to turn table 1300 rotated by a motor, which would necessarily cause movement of the solution contained in the cartridges; see Paragraph 0084; Examiner notes that Smith et al. further discloses a mixing mechanism that could take a variety of forms, including a vibrator intended to apply force to cup 112 but that may also transmit such forces to the cartridges, resulting in prevention of settling of dietary supplement particles; see Paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 2, Smith et al. further disclose a corresponding injector member (308) associated with each of the cartridges for causing discharge of the predefined dose of the dietary supplement solution to the discharge port (Paragraph 0074) and which is in data communication with the control system (Paragraph 0051).
Regarding claims 5-7, Smith et al. further disclose that the means for preventing settling of dietary supplement particles within each of said cartridges comprises stirring means which comprises a rotatable dietary supplement additive unit provided with the plurality of cartridges (Fig. 13), such that a centrifugal force acting on all of the cartridges during rotation of the dietary supplement additive unit causes the dietary supplement solution to be sufficiently stirred to prevent settling of the dietary supplement particles (as described above regarding claim 1, rotation of the turn table causes movement, i.e., stirring, of the solution within the cartridges). Smith et al. further discloses that the dietary supplement additive unit comprises: (i) a circular base (1302) that is rotatable about a central vertical axis; (ii) an electrical motor in driving engagement with the base (Paragraph 0084); (iii) the plurality of cartridges which are secured to the base and are circumferentially spaced from each other (Fig. 13); and (iv) the corresponding injector member associated with each of the cartridges (each cartridge 300 includes 308; see, e.g., Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Smith et al. further disclose a watery delivery apparatus (302) for timely delivering a supply of potable water to the discharge port so that the supply of potable water is combined with the predefined dose of the dietary supplement solution (Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 11, Smith et al. disclose the dispenser according to claim 10, and further disclose a temperature control apparatus for regulating temperature of the supply of potable water (Paragraph 0079).
Regarding claims 12-14, Smith et al. disclose the dispenser according to claim 10, and further disclose a means for submitting a request to the control system for a desired dietary supplement transfer operation by which a predefined dose of each of a combination of dietary supplement solutions is discharged to the discharge port, wherein the means is a touch screen (e.g., display 114 and button 608, which may include touch screen buttons; Paragraphs 0071, 0074).
Smith et al. further disclose additional means for submitting the request to the control system which comprises a communication apparatus (mobile device 108; Paragraph 0071), the communication apparatus being configured to receive the request by a signal transmitted from a dedicated application running on a processor of a computerized device (an inherent configuration of the disclosed mobile device).
Regarding claim 15, Smith et al. further disclose that the dietary supplement particles that are prevented from settling within each of the cartridges is powder that is maintained as a dispersed suspension within the dietary supplement solution (Paragraph 0054).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Dittrich (US 2014/0305969).
Regarding claim 3, Smith et al. disclose the dispenser according to claim 2, wherein each of the cartridges is fitted with a substantially vertically oriented cylindrical barrel prefilled with a specific dietary supplement solution (see Fig. 13), and further disclose that the corresponding injector member may take a variety of forms, including a screw motor or linear actuator (Paragraph 0110), but are silent regarding the specific components of the corresponding injector member.
Dittrich teaches a dispenser having a plurality of cartridges (reservoirs 6, 8; Paragraph 0057), with each cartridge being associated with a corresponding injector member (28) that comprises a piston (30, 32) that is sealingly engaged with the barrel (Fig. 1), a plunger (34, 36) connected to the piston, and an electromechanical actuator (38, 40) positioned above the barrel for causing plunger displacement (Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the cartridges of Smith et al. with the injector member having a piston, plunger, and electromechanical actuator, as taught by Dittrich, since this configuration is one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to achieve the objective of dispensing the solution from the cartridge. Since Smith et al. suggests potential injector members, but is silent regarding the details of the configuration, one having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the prior art for known potential solutions, of which Dittrich provides a suitable example.
Regarding claim 8, Smith et al.-Dittrich in combination disclose the dispenser according to claim 3. Smith et al. further disclose that a bottom end of the barrel has lower tapered surfaces that taper into a hollow tip (see the funnel shape of the cartridge leading to orifice 306 in annotated Fig. 3 below) from which a conduit extends radially inwardly to the discharge port (the tip of the funnel shape terminating with 306 extends from the hollow tip at the radially inward side of the cartridge, with respect to the centerline of the discharge port [spout 606; see e.g., Fig. 6], which would hold true when configured as shown in Fig. 13), such that the predefined dose of the dietary supplement solution is urged to flow through the barrel, conduit and discharge port.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Smith et al., annotated by Examiner
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Dittrich, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Girard et al. (US 2006/0000851).
Smith et al.-Dittrich in combination disclose the dispenser according to claim 3. Dittrich further teaches that the electromechanical actuator is a stepper motor in data communication with the control system (Paragraphs 0023-0024), and that the plunger is a plunger rod downwardly extending from a drive shaft of the stepper motor with which it is connected to the piston (Paragraph 0058, Fig. 1). Dittrich also notes that gears may be included to facilitate an appropriate force and speed of the piston (Paragraph 0023), but neither reference explicitly discloses the claimed configuration including a cylinder in threaded engagement with the plunger rod.
Girard et al. teach a dispenser for dispensing a beverage concentrate from a similar cartridge (50) using an injector member (38) with an electromechanical actuator (64) that operates via a cylinder (tapped gear 65) surrounding, and in threaded engagement with, a plunger rod (56; Paragraph 0046; Fig. 3). Girard et al. teach this configuration as a means for extending the plunger rod downward from the drive shaft of the actuator (67) such that the speed of rotation of the actuator controls the rate of axial movement of the piston and thus the amount of content dispensed (Paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention of Smith et al.-Dittrich with a set of gears including a cylinder in threaded engagement with the plunger rod, as taught by Girard et al., in order to translate rotation of the stepper motor into axial movement of the piston. Doing so would facilitate limited and determinable rotational displacement of the plunger rod and corresponding discharge of the predefined dose of the dietary supplement solution in response to plunger rod rotation by applying an appropriate force and speed to the piston, as suggested by Dittrich.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Dittrich, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hart et al. (US 2012/0212729).
Smith et al.-Dittrich in combination disclose the dispenser according to claim 8. As noted above regarding claim 1, Smith et al. discloses a turn table holding the cartridges that prevents settling of dietary supplement particles within each of the cartridges, and further discloses a mixing mechanism that could take a variety of forms, including a magnetic mechanism (Paragraph 0053), but only contemplates the use of such a mechanism for mixing dispensed amounts in a cup. Neither Smith et al. nor Dittrich explicitly disclose a magnetic mechanism as a means for preventing settling of dietary supplement particles within each of the cartridges.
Hart et al. disclose a device having a rotatable turn table (carousel 10 mounted on stage 20; Paragraph 0035; Fig. 1) containing a plurality of cartridges (disposable test bottles mounted in wells 12; Paragraphs 0026, 0035) in a similar arrangement to that disclosed by Smith et al. Hart et al. teach that the contents of the cartridges can be mixed by a magnetically coupled mixer, and further teach that this configuration may be implemented with one of the coupled elements fixedly housed within a casing, causing mixing to occur through rotation of the turn table (“magnetically coupled mixer, at a mixing station mounted at a fixed position in the stage. The bottles are mixed in sequence as the carousel is rotated past the mixer”; Paragraph 0030). Though Hart et al. discloses a device with a different intended use, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it pertinent since it provides an example of a magnetically coupled mixer (a means generally well-known in the art and suggested for use by Smith et al. as noted above) in a similarly arranged device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the dispenser of the combined invention of Smith et al.-Dittrich with a magnetically coupled mixer having one of the coupled elements fixedly housed within a casing, as taught by Hart et al., in order to mix the contents of the cartridges in sequence as the turn table rotates. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to seek such a mixing arrangement when using the combined invention with powder-based solutions that tend to settle. One having ordinary skill in the art would further find it obvious to implement this configuration using a metallic ball in the cartridge and a permanent magnet fixedly housed within a casing of the dispenser, since a magnet within the cartridge may unintentionally become coupled to other objects during storage and handling. When implemented in the cartridge disclosed by Smith et al., the metallic ball would necessarily settle to loosely sit on top of the hollow tip, and the permanent magnet would be magnetically coupled with the metallic ball of the cartridge instantaneously rotated to a given region of the casing. Rotation of the turn table during normal operation of the device would cause the metallic ball to become unseated from the hollow barrel tip and also to be rotatably displaced within the barrel by an agitating action, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. In particular, Iotti et al. (US 2020/0000270), Rozentals et al. (US 2022/0185646), Guarin et al. (US 2021/0196074), and Brown (US 2021/0008508) disclose supplement dispensers with a plurality of cartridges that could be modified and/or combined to meet the limitations of at least the independent claim of the instant application. Campos et al. (US 2020/0237622) and Hudson et al. (US 2014/0279792) teach dispensers with injector members relevant to claim 4. Poirier et al. (US 2018/0147120) teach an additive unit relevant to claim 7. Roulin et al. (US 2012/0015080) teach a cartridge having magnetic mixing means relevant to claim 9.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754