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 .
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
“The scalability of activating the liquids, solvent, cooling agents, heating agents, the molds, and the chemical reactions within the composition of the beverage bag walls 29.”
“It is important to mention the air space reaction in relation to the inner layer 13, the outer layer 11 and the absorbent 56-layer composition and chemical reaction within the absorbent 56 layer for example gelatin powder, solids or any combination causing a change in the physical state of the absorbent 56 layer, within the inner space 46 of the inner layer 13 and of the outer layer 11 of the bag wall 29.”
“The invention discloses the beverage container industry every effort to produce a beverage bag 22 for reduce waste, by producing a collapsible bag wall 29, to reduce raw materials therefore is the beverage bag 22 becomes waste, the bag walls 29 of the beverage bag 22 will be the most biodegradable beverage container with the least waste space requirement.”
“Referring to FIG. 2A, the beverage bag 22 is embodied as a close container with the consumption product within the interior of the beverage bag 22 enclosed by the ziplock 15, with any dispensing apparatus 36 after the ziplock is permanently close or not permanently close.”
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 12-20 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the outer layer." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the valve connector." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the chemical reaction." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 20, it is unclear what is meant by “wherein an air space reaction in relation to the inner layer, the outer layer and the absorbent layer and the chemical reaction within the absorbent layer causing a change in physical state of the absorbent layer within the inner space so as to reduce an air pressure of in the inner space.” What is “an air space reaction in relation to the inner layer”? It is also unclear what is meant by “a water provided in beverage bag and mixed with a material of the absorbent layer and inner surfaces of the inner layer and the outer layer.” Does “a water” mix with the inner surfaces of the inner and outer layer?
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perea-OcHoa et al. (20200299047) in view of Robinson (20170367510) and Dillard (12291385).
Regarding claim 1, Perea-OcHoa discloses a beverage container, comprising: a portable flexible beverage bag (10) comprising a bag wall configured by an inner layer (12) and an outer layer (11) to have at least one display surface; a valve (44C or 44D) positioned in a predetermined location of the beverage bag enabling an orifice; a dispensing apparatus (15C/151C, 23C, or 23D) arranged in the bag wall.
Perea-OcHoa DIFFERS in that it does not disclose an absorbent layer surrounded by the outer layer and by the inner layer; and an identification marker which is a tokenization conjunction with NFT or NIL technology formed on the at least one display surface of the bag wall of the beverage bag.
Regarding the absorbent material, attention is directed to the Robinson reference, which discloses an absorbent material (404). Robinson teaches that absorbent materials are useful for reducing sloshing (par. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Perea-OcHoa reference in view of the teachings of the Robinson reference by including an absorbent material between the inner and outer layer for the purpose of preventing sloshing.
Regarding the marker, attention is directed to the Dillard reference, which discloses an identification marker (23) which is a tokenization conjunction with NFT or NIL technology formed on at least one display surface of a wall (col. 9, lines 24-28; col. 10, lines 49-61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Perea-OcHoa reference in view of the teachings of the Dillard reference by including an identification marker for the purpose of allowing a user to provide proof of ownership of the beverage container (col. 1, 32-36).
Regarding claim 2, the bag wall is made of a material selected from a group consisting of plastic, paper, glass, aluminum, and a combination of one or more of the plastic, paper, glass, and aluminum (par. 0063 of Perea-OcHoa).
Regarding claim 3, the absorbent layer is made of a material selected from a group consisting of a layer medium of wood fiber, sponge like material, cotton fiber, gelatin crystal, and powder reactive to a solvent to produce a reaction (par. 0004 of Robinson).
Regarding claim 4, the identification marker is provided to allow a user of the beverage container to be registered through a digital computing device to activate a NFT or NIL blockchain ledger (Figs. 18-19 of Dillard).
Regarding claim 5, the identification marker is selected from a group consisting of any physical numeric mark, lettering, symbols, a square code, a barcode, a laser mark, a print, a watermark, a luminescent mark, a chemical reactive mark, a chip, a tag, conceal scratcher, UPC, EAN, JAN, ISBN, Brand, and any MPN (Figs. 17-18 of Dillard; col. 9, lines 38-57 of Dillard).
Regarding claim 6, the identification marker is provided to allow an user of the beverage container to be registered through a digital computing device to activate a NFT or NIL blockchain digital application options (Figs. 18-19 of Dillard).
Regarding claim 7, the identification marker is selected from a group consisting of a physical numeric mark, lettering, symbols, a square code, a barcode, a laser mark, a print, a watermark, a luminescent mark, a chemical reactive mark, a chip, a tag, conceal scratcher, UPC, EAN, JAN, ISBN, Brand, and any MPN (Figs. 17-18 of Dillard; col. 9, lines 38-57 of Dillard).
Regarding claim 8, the identification marker is provided to allow an user of the beverage container to be registered through a digital computing device to activate a NFT or NIL blockchain server (Figs. 18-19 of Dillard).
Regarding claim 9, the identification marker is selected from a group consisting of a physical numeric mark, a square code, a barcode, a laser mark, a print, a watermark, a luminescent mark, a chemical reactive mark, a chip, a tag, and a conceal scratcher (Figs. 17-18 of Dillard; col. 9, lines 38-57 of Dillard).
Regarding claim 10, the identification marker is selected from a group consisting of a physical numeric mark, lettering, symbols, a square code, a barcode, a laser mark, a print, a watermark, a luminescent mark, a chemical reactive mark, a chip, a tag, conceal scratcher, UPC, EAN, JAN, ISBN, Brand, and any MPN, in association with a physical item (Figs. 17-18 of Dillard; col. 9, lines 38-57 of Dillard).
Regarding claim 11, the identification marker is selected from a group consisting of a physical numeric mark, a square code, a barcode, a laser mark, a print, a watermark, a luminescent mark, a chemical reactive mark, a chip, a tag, conceal scratcher, UPC, EAN, JAN, ISBN, Brand, and any MPN, that never changes regardless of any blockchain customization or alteration (Figs. 17-18 of Dillard; col. 9, lines 38-57 of Dillard).
Claim(s) 12-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perea-OcHoa et al. in view of Robinson.
Regarding claim 12, Perea-OcHoa discloses a beverage container, comprising: a portable flexible beverage bag (10) comprising a bag wall configured by an inner layer (12) and an inner layer (11) to have at least one display surface, wherein an inner space is defined between the inner layer and the outer layer sealedly; a valve (44C or 44D) positioned in a predetermined location of the beverage bag communicating the inner space with outside; and a dispensing apparatus (15C/151C, 23C, or 23D) arranged in the bag wall.
Perea-OcHoa DIFFERS in that it does not disclose an absorbent layer surrounded by the outer layer. Attention is directed to the Robinson reference, which discloses an absorbent material (404). Robinson teaches that absorbent materials are useful for reducing sloshing (par. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Perea-OcHoa reference in view of the teachings of the Robinson reference by including an absorbent layer for the purpose of preventing sloshing.
Regarding claim 13, a sealing between the inner layer and the outer layer is in an air-seal and airtight manner (par. 0089) and the valve is configured to provide an orifice between the inner layer and the outer layer (i.e., the valve can be opened; par. 0088 of Perea-OcHoa) for activating the absorbent layer with a chemical reaction externally and enable an extraction of air pressure in the inner space.
Regarding claim 14, the absorbent layer is a layer made of a medium selected from a group consisting of wood fibers, sponge like material, cotton fibers, gelatin crystals and a powder reactive to a solvent to produce the chemical reaction (par. 0004 of Robinson).
Regarding claim 15, the beverage container further comprising a valve connector (straw 23C of Perea-OcHoa) configured to introduce an activator selected from a group consisting of water, solvents, solutes, air pressure, vacuum pressure into the inner space affecting the absorbent layer.
Regarding claim 16, the beverage container further comprising a valve connector (straw 23C of Perea-OcHoa) configured to introduce an activator selected from a group consisting of water, solvents, solutes, air pressure, vacuum pressure into the inner space affecting the absorbent layer.
Regarding claim 19, the valve connector (straw 23C of Perea-OcHoa) is configured to introduce one of a liquid and a solvent into the inner space to activate the absorbent layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNELL ALAN LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM-5PM.
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.
/DONNELL A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754