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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 01/27/2026 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 6-7 has /have been amended, claim 4 were previously cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 5-13 are pending in the application with claims 12-13 previously withdrawn. An action on the merits for claims 1-3 and 5-11 are as follow. The 112 (b) Claim Rejections are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's amendment to the claim with no new matter added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Swartz et al. (US 2007/0056447 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Swartz et al. disclose a strainer/stirrer device for brewing cold brew coffee adapted to be insertable into a brew chamber (a mug 104, [0019], Figs 1-2), the strainer/stirrer device comprising:
a strainer (an infusion compartment 114, [0034], Figs 1 and 9) comprising an upper opening (open areas of the structure 904, [0038], Fig 9), straining walls (the sidewall of the structure 904, [0038], Fig 9), and a base portion (bottom sides of the structure 904, [0038], Fig 9);
the strainer forming an inner chamber (an infusion compartment 114, [0034], Figs 1 and 9); a spindle (an arm or shaft 118, [0021], Fig 1) extending outwardly from the base portion;
an impeller (one or more agitation elements or flaps 109, [0036], Fig 1) rotatably mounted on the spindle (109 rotatably mounted on 118, Fig 1), the impeller comprising a plurality of vanes extending from a central axis toward an outer circumference of the impeller (109 comprising a plurality of vanes extending from a central axis toward an outer circumference of 109, Fig 1).
Claim 2, wherein the strainer has a larger diameter at the upper opening than at the base portion (114 has a larger diameter at the upper opening than at the base portion, Fig 9).
Claim 6, wherein the spindle extends from the base portion into a carafe portion (118 extends from the base portion into a carafe portion- inner layer 105, [0019], Fig 1), the impeller rotatably mounted on the spindle (109 rotatably mounted on 118, Fig 1).
Claim 7, further comprising a rim portion (a rim portion including lid 108 and rim 111, [0021-0022], Figs 1 and 11) which contacts the upper portion of the brew chamber (108 and 111 contacts the upper portion of 104, Fig 1) to suspend the strainer from the brew chamber (108 and 111 to suspend 114 from 104, Fig 1).
Claim 8, wherein the rim portion comprises a pour spout (the top to bottom hole 410 that is formed in the lid 108, [0042], Fig 11).
Claim 9, wherein the rim portion comprises a pour spout cover (flap 1106 has a protrusion 1107 that mates with the hole 410, Figs 1 and 11, [0042]).
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz et al. (US 2007/0056447 A1) in view of Dubief (US2020/0268192 A1).
Regarding Claims 3, 5 and 11, Swartz et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 3, 5 and 11.
Dubief teaches a strainer/stirrer device (a brew container 11, [0126], Fig 1) and Claim 3, wherein the impeller (an impeller including: blades 121 and six magnets 124 are located adjacent to a lower end of 2, [0131], Fig 2A) comprises a base plate from which the plurality of vanes extend (a base plate from which blades 121 extend, see Fig 2A), a magnetic element being located in the base plate (six magnets 124 being located in the base plate, Fig 2A).
Claim 5, wherein the upper portion of the strainer comprises a lifting bail (The basket can comprise a handle to easily hold it, [0127]).
Claim 11, wherein the rim portion (a rim portion including an openable lid 125. It is attached to the side wall through hinges 122b and comprises an attaching part 122a, [0138], Fig 2A. Note: a rim portion” taught by Swartz et al. already) comprises a moveable cover portion (an openable lid 125, [0137], Fig 2A) that covers the inner chamber of the strainer (filtering packet 2 of infusion material, [0127], Fig 1. Clearly, 12 needs an inner chamber to hold the infusion material) when in a lowered position (a lowered position of 11, Fig 1. Note: “the inner chamber of the strainer” taught by Swartz et al. already).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Swartz et al. with Dubief’s further teaching of Claims 3, 5 and 11; because Dubief teaches, in Para. [0024] of providing a cold brewed apparatus that is easy and simple to use for a person that is no used to prepare cold brew coffee.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz et al. (US 2007/0056447 A1) in view of Dubief (US2020/0268192 A1) applied to claim 7, further in view of Rivera (US 11,064,836 B2).
Regarding Claim 10, Swartz et al. in view of Dubief teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claim 10.
Rivera teaches a strainer/stirrer device (a brew material holder 30, Col 4 line 27, Fig 5A) and Claim 10, wherein the base portion of the strainer comprises a hanging flange (30 includes a frame 39 (see FIG. 6A)… a bottom cap 33 can be coupled to the bottom of the frame 39, Col 4 line 51-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Swartz et al. in view of Dubief with Rivera’s further teaching of Claim 10; because Rivera teaches, in Col 4 line 60-67, of providing an improved strainer with bottom cap 33 can include a solid bottom plate 35 to retain the brewing material 65 within the brewing material holder 30, or can have an open area to allow liquid to pass through, covered in mesh to retain the brewing material for operational convenience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “Regarding claim 1, the Office asserts that Swartz discloses an impeller rotatably mounted to the spindle. Applicant strongly disagrees with the Office's assertion. Applicant notes that the claims specifically require that the impeller be rotatably mounted to the spindle. Applicant asserts that this is illustrated in Figure 22 and discussed in paragraph [0075] of the pending application”,
“Applicant draws the attention of the Office to Figure 1 of Swartz in which the paddle structure ("flap" 109 and the shaft/arm 118) are illustrated with the same hatched pattern in the figure, indicating that the paddle and shaft/arm is a single structure. This is further reinforced by the exploded diagram of Swartz Figure 2, in which 118 and
109 are shown as a single structure and not separated into components, as are the remainder of the drawing elements. Applicant thus respectfully asserts that Swartz does not disclose the limitation of "rotatably mounted on the spindle" as found in claim 1”.
The examiner’s response: Swartz et al. (US 2007/0056447 A1) disclose exactly a strainer/stirrer device for brewing cold brew coffee adapted to be insertable into a brew chamber as claimed, fully discloses all the recited limitations of Claim 1 as set forth in this office action shown above; especially disclosed “an impeller (one or more agitation elements or flaps 109, [0036], Fig 1) rotatably mounted on the spindle (109 rotatably mounted on 118, Fig 1)” as claimed. Note: during examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention”; see MPEP 2173.01(I). In addition, examiner draws attention to paragraph 65 off applicant’s specification which includes both non-permanent and permanent affixation of the impeller and spindle. Further, applicant has not claimed “rotatable about the spindle” which has a different BRI than “rotatably mounted on” which just requires mounting and being able to rotate. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
B. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “With regard to claim 2, the Office asserts that the strainer of Swartz has a larger opening at the upper opening than at the base portion. Applicant has included herein a partial view of Figure 1 of Swartz, which contains item 114 which the Office asserts is analogous to the claimed strainer. In the partial view, Applicant has annotated the base portion diameter as "B," with the upper opening annotated as "U" (presuming that the opening is formed by removing a portion of 114 to create an opening, even though such functionality is not disclosed in Swartz). Diameter "U" of item 114 is illustrated as smaller than diameter "B." Applicant is unable to understand how an ordinary observer of these figures would feel that the upper opening U has a larger diameter than the base portion B. Even if the measurements were to be taken from the internal diameter of 114, which Applicant asserts does not comport with the language of the claim, the interpretation most likely to support the rejection would be that the diameters are the same and not a larger opening at the upper opening. Applicant also notes that the outermost diameter of 114 does not represent an opening as required by the claim.
The examiner’s response: Swartz et al. (US 2007/0056447 A1) disclose exactly a strainer/stirrer device for brewing cold brew coffee adapted to be insertable into a brew chamber as claimed, fully discloses all the recited limitations of Claim 1 as set forth in this office action shown above; especially disclosed “Claim 2, wherein the strainer has a larger diameter at the upper opening than at the base portion (114 has a larger diameter at the upper opening than at the base portion, Fig 9). Note: during examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention”; see MPEP 2173.01(I). Specifically, the applicant has not directed the phrase “diameter” to any specific part of the device besides “at” the upper opening and the base portion. Paragraph 39 specifically indicates a skeletal structure of 114 surrounded by netting The opening that is covered by lid 906 has a diameter that is greater than another diameter at the base portion that is bifurcated by the skeletal structure. Further, since “base portion” can include up to 50% of the device, any opening created by the netting could be utilized for the smaller diameter. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761