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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-10, claims 2-10 recite “A solid block for…” and should be changed to “The solid block for…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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, claim 1 recites “a block comprising one or more particles configured to flavor the liquid”. It is unclear how a block can be made from one particle configured to flavor the liquid.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 recite “the particles”, however claim 1 recites “one or more particles”. It is unclear if “the particles” is referring to the “one or more particles” since the claims do not recite “the one or more particles”.
Claims 4-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown US 2005/0142252.
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a solid shape (302) for creating a flavored beverage from a quantity of liquid in a container, comprising a shape (302) comprising one or more particles configured to flavor the liquid ([0008], [0009], claim 1, 12, [0015]) and a strawstick (301) having a first end extending at least part way into the shape (302) (Fig. 3, claim 1, [0008], [0009]).
Claim 1 differs from Brown in the recitation that the shape of the solid shape is specifically a block, however Brown discloses that the additive lozenge (302) can be manufactured in a variety of shapes ([0009]) and including geometric shapes ([0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the shape of the solid shape (302) of Brown such that the shape of the solid shape is specifically a block, since a block is a known geometric shape. Additionally, Absent compelling evidence of criticality the modification of the solid shape to be a solid block is seen to be a mere change in shape of the solid shape (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B).
Regarding claim 2, Brown discloses that the particles dissolve into the liquid when the block (302) is inserted into the liquid ([0008], [0009], [0010]).
Regarding claim 6, Brown discloses that the strawstick (301) comprises a hollow interior allowing the straw stick to be used as a straw ([0002], [0008], [0009], [0011]).
Regarding claim 7, Brown obviously discloses that a second free end extends out from the liquid when the block is inserted into the liquid (Fig. 3, [0002], [0008], [0009], [0011]).
Regarding claim 8, Brown discloses that the particles are pressed together to form the block (302) ([0008]).
Regarding claim 10, Brown discloses that the particles comprise at least one of a powder ([0008], [0009]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown US 2005/0142252 in view of Kalnin WO 2006/133483 in view of Losova CZ 21922U1 (Espacenet Translation).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 differs from Brown in the recitation that the particles infuse into the liquid when the block is inserted into the liquid to create the flavored beverage. It is noted that Brown discloses broadly discloses that the block (302) is made from a beverage additive and that the additive lozenge (302) can take any number of forms ([0002], [0010], [0015]). Brown discloses that the additive can include material that is soluble or easily disperses as particles to form a suspension when stirred ([0015]), therefore Brown does not limit the additive material to only soluble or dissolvable material.
Kalnin discloses forming a block from particles that infuse into liquid to create a flavored beverage (tea flavors water) ([0028]). Kalnin discloses that the compressed tea particles disperse in liquid ([0031], [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particles of Brown to be particles that infuse into the liquid when the block is inserted into the liquid to create the flavored beverage as taught by Kalnin in order to provide a tea flavored beverage.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown US 2005/0142252 in view of Kalnin WO 2006/133483 view of Dahl US 4,891,232 as evidenced by Losova CZ 21922U1 (Espacenet Translation).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 differs from Modified Brown in the recitation that the block is contained within a mesh bag coupled to the straw stick.
Dahl discloses coupling a mesh bag (14) to a stirring stick (13) in order to contain infusion solid particulates (15) in the bag (abstract, Figs 1-4, col. 1, lines 49-60, col. 3, lines 29-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Brown such that the block is contained within a mesh bag coupled to the straw stick as suggested by Dahl in order to keep the spent infusion solids separate from the formed flavored beverage. It has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Additionally, Losova provides further evidence that it was known in the art to provide a solid block comprised of particles that infuse into liquid to create a flavored beverage (tea flavors water) and discloses providing the block in a bag (Espacenet Translation [0005]-[0008], [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Brown discloses that the mesh bag prevents the particles from being distributed when the block is inserted in the liquid (‘232, abstract, Figs 1-4, col. 1, lines 49-60, col. 3, lines 29-61).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown US 2005/0142252 in view of Nguyen US 2006/0233924 in view of Hanks US 2024/0057632.
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that claim 9 is directed to a method of making the product and "[E]ven 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." (MPEP 2113). In any case, Brown discloses that the solid block (302) can be made by molding ([0013], [0014]).
Nguyen discloses pouring particles into a mold to form a block (dry granulated sugar is mixed with a small amount of water to create a slurry and placed in molds 20) ([0026], [0025]).
Hanks discloses that additives for forming a beverage can be poured in a mold to form a solid shape attached to a straw ([0021], [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the product of Brown by pouring the particles into a mold to form the block as suggested by Nguyen and Hanks in order to suitably form the solid block, it has been held that “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.D).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792