DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on January 21, 2026, the objections the claims, drawings and specification in the previous office action (dated 10/21/2025), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1-16, 18, 21-22, 24 and 25 have been amended,
Claims 17, 19-20, 23, 26-27 and 31 were and still are withdrawn from further consideration,
Claims 36-40 have been newly added.
Therefore, claims 1-16, 18, 21-22, 24, 25 and 36-40 are currently pending.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16, 21-22, 24-25, 36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy (US 20060120211 A1 – art of record; hereinafter McCoy) in view of Munns (US 20030192894 A1; hereinafter Munns).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, McCoy teaches a liquid storage vessel embodiment (400; as shown in Fig. 4) comprising:
a body including:
a first chamber (i.e. the void above the internal diameter reduction (402)) having a first chamber opening;
a second chamber (i.e. the void below the internal diameter reduction (402));
a neck member (i.e. the internal diameter reduction (402)) positioned between the first and second chambers and having a neck opening providing fluid communication between the first and second chambers, wherein the neck opening is positioned at a radial center of the body and sized to enable a vortex to be formed when liquid is positioned in an upper one of the first or second chambers and the body is moved in a swirling motion (McCoy [0060-0063]).
Examiner’s note: with respect to “…wherein the neck opening is sized to enable a vortex to be formed when liquid is positioned in an upper one of the first and second chambers and the body is moved in a swirling motion…” are considered to be functional or intended-use limitations to no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Examiner further notes that applicant has set forth product or apparatus claims, which include functional language or terminology reciting the use, operation, or employment of the apparatus. Therefore, the examiner has treated such claim language in accordance with the MPEP and applicable case law. In other words, a recitation of the intended use 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 (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP §2114); emphasis added.
However, McCoy fails to teach the second chamber having a second chamber opening, a first cap configured to selectively cover the first chamber opening AND the second chamber opening and a second cap configured to selectively cover the second chamber opening AND the first chamber opening.
Munns is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McCoy, which is a liquid storage vessel. Munns teaches a liquid storage vessel embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 2-3) comprising:
a body (12) including:
a first chamber (26) having a first chamber opening (30);
a second chamber (28) having a second chamber opening (32);
a first cap (14) configured to selectively cover the first chamber opening AND the second chamber opening;
a second cap (16) configured to selectively cover the second chamber opening AND the first chamber opening; and
a neck member (i.e. the form of a divider wall (24)) positioned between the first and second chambers (Munns [0017-0022]).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of a first cap and a second cap AND the second chamber having a second chamber opening (as taught by Munns) to the overall liquid storage vessel (of McCoy) to allow the user to access the first chamber and the second chamber (of McCoy) from either end of the overall liquid storage vessel.
Examiner’s note: the first cap (of Munns) is interchangeable the second cap (of Munns); therefore, the respective caps (of Munns) is fully capable of selectively covering the first chamber opening as well as the second chamber opening; emphasis added.
Regarding claim 2, modified McCoy as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for wherein the neck opening has a surface area of between about 0.2 square inches and about 12.6 square inches.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the neck opening have a surface area of between about 0.2 square inches and about 12.6 square inches to adjust the flow rate of the liquid stored in either the first chamber or the second chamber.
Since, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)
In addition, it is noted that NOWHERE in the original disclosure, the applicant POINTS OUT the criticality for the claimed dimension(s) or range(s); emphasis added.
Regarding claim 3, modified McCoy as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for wherein the neck opening has surface area that is between about 5 percent and about 20 percent of an average surface area of at least one of the first or second chambers.
However, McCoy teaches wherein the neck opening has a diameter that ranges between 33 percent to 50 percent of an average inner diameter (which includes the inner diameter of the first chamber OR the inner diameter of the second chamber (McCoy [0060-0063]).
Examiner’s note: McCoy teaches a range for the size of the neck opening. In others words, if the neck opening is very small (i.e. small diameter) relative to the average inner diameter (of rest of the bottle), then the surface area associated with the small neck opening will be great. If the neck is very large (i.e. large diameter) relative to the average inner diameter (of rest of the bottle), then the surface area associated with the large neck opening will be small; emphasis added.
With, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the neck opening (of McCoy) to have a surface area ranging from 5 percent to 20 percent (as suggested by McCoy) to adjust the flow rate of the liquid.
Since, 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, and that such modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component - a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components - a change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A) and/or §2144.05(II)(A)
Regarding claim 4, modified McCoy as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for wherein the neck opening has surface area that is between about 5 percent and about 20 percent of an average surface area of both the first or second chambers.
However, McCoy teaches wherein the neck opening has a diameter that ranges between 33 percent to 50 percent of an average inner diameter (which includes the inner diameter of the first chamber OR the inner diameter of the second chamber (McCoy [0060-0063]).
Examiner’s note: McCoy teaches a range for the size of the neck opening. In others words, if the neck opening is very small (i.e. small diameter) relative to the average inner diameter (of rest of the bottle), then the surface area associated with the small neck opening will be great. If the neck is very large (i.e. large diameter) relative to the average inner diameter (of rest of the bottle), then the surface area associated with the large neck opening will be small; emphasis added.
With, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the neck opening (of McCoy) to have a surface area ranging from 5 percent to 20 percent (as suggested by McCoy) to adjust the flow rate of the liquid.
Since, 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, and that such modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component - a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components - a change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A) and/or §2144.05(II)(A)
Regarding claim 5, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the body includes a central axis, and wherein the neck opening is located at a midpoint of the central axis (see McCoy Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the body is a single, unitary component that is not separable (see McCoy Fig. 4 OR Munns Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 7, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the first and second chambers are permanently coupled together (see McCoy Fig. 4 OR Munns Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 8, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the neck member is a generally flat, annular component having a radially outer surface in contact with or integrally formed with a radially inner surface of the body (see McCoy Fig. 4 OR Munns Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 9, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the body has a central axis, and wherein the first and second caps each include a generally planar axially outermost surface to enable the vessel to be stably stood on end such that the central axis of the body is vertically oriented (see Munns Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 10, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the first and second chamber have generally the same size and shape, wherein the first chamber opening and the second chamber opening have generally the same size and shape, wherein the first cap is configured to be coupled to and selectively cover the second chamber opening, and wherein the second cap is configured to be coupled to and selectively cover the first chamber opening (see Munns Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the body has a smooth and continuous, generally cylindrical shape on an outer surface thereof (see McCoy Fig. 4 OR Munns Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein each cap has a generally cylindrical outer surface with an outer diameter that generally matches an outer diameter of an axial end of the body (see Munns Figs. 2-3).
However, to the degree it can be argued that the outer diameter of each cap (of McCoy) DOES NOT match the outer diameter of the axial end of the body.
Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the outer diameter of each cap (of McCoy) match the outer diameter of the axial end of the body to create a flush outer surface of the overall liquid storage vessel.
Since, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)
Regarding claim 13, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the first chamber opening has a surface area approximately equal to a surface area of the first chamber adjacent to the first chamber opening, and wherein the second chamber opening has a surface area approximately equal to a surface area of the second chamber adjacent to the second chamber opening (see Munns Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 14, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the vessel includes a central axis, wherein the first and second chambers are spaced apart along the central axis, wherein the first chamber opening is positioned at a first axial end of the body and the second chamber opening is positioned at a second, opposite axial end of the body, wherein the first cap is removably threadably attachable to the first axial end, and wherein the second cap is removably threadably attachable to the second axial end (see Munns Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 16, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the neck opening is sized to enable a vortex to be formed when liquid water at a temperature of 25°C is positioned in an upper one of the first or second chambers and the body is moved in the swirling motion.
Examiner’s note: with respect to “…wherein the neck opening is sized to enable a vortex to be formed when liquid water at a temperature of 25°C is positioned in an upper one of the first or second chambers and the body is moved in the swirling motion…” are considered to be functional or intended-use limitations to no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Examiner further notes that applicant has set forth product or apparatus claims, which include functional language or terminology reciting the use, operation, or employment of the apparatus. Therefore, the examiner has treated such claim language in accordance with the MPEP and applicable case law. In other words, a recitation of the intended use 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 (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP §2114); emphasis added.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, McCoy teaches a liquid storage vessel embodiment (400; as shown in Fig. 4) comprising:
a body including:
a first chamber (i.e. the void above the internal diameter reduction (402)) having a first chamber opening;
a second chamber (i.e. the void below the internal diameter reduction (402));
wherein the body is a single, unitary component such that the body not separable into two sub-components, where each sub-component includes one of the first or second chambers;
a neck member (i.e. the internal diameter reduction (402)) positioned between the first and second chambers and having a neck opening providing fluid communication between the first and second chambers; and
wherein the first chamber, the second chamber and the neck opening are sized and configured to enable a vortex to be formed when liquid is positioned in an upper one of the first or second chambers and the body is moved in a swirling motion (McCoy [0060-0063]).
Examiner’s note: with respect to “…wherein the first chamber, the second chamber and the neck opening are sized to enable a vortex to be formed when liquid is positioned in an upper one of the first and second chambers and the body is moved in a swirling motion…” are considered to be functional or intended-use limitations to no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Examiner further notes that applicant has set forth product or apparatus claims, which include functional language or terminology reciting the use, operation, or employment of the apparatus. Therefore, the examiner has treated such claim language in accordance with the MPEP and applicable case law. In other words, a recitation of the intended use 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 (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP §2114); emphasis added.
However, McCoy fails to teach wherein the neck opening has surface area that is between about 5 percent and about 20 percent of an average surface area of at least one of the first or second chambers.
McCoy further teaches wherein the neck opening has a diameter that ranges between 33 percent to 50 percent of an average inner diameter (which includes the inner diameter of the first chamber OR the inner diameter of the second chamber (McCoy [0060-0063]).
Examiner’s note: McCoy teaches a range for the size of the neck opening. In others words, if the neck opening is very small (i.e. small diameter) relative to the average inner diameter (of rest of the bottle), then the surface area associated with the small neck opening will be great. If the neck is very large (i.e. large diameter) relative to the average inner diameter (of rest of the bottle), then the surface area associated with the large neck opening will be small; emphasis added.
With, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the neck opening (of McCoy) to have a surface area ranging from 5 percent to 20 percent (as suggested by McCoy) to adjust the flow rate of the liquid.
Since, 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, and that such modifications would have involved a mere change in the size of a component - a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components - a change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A) and/or §2144.05(II)(A)
Lastly, McCoy fails to teach the second chamber having a second chamber opening, a first cap configured to selectively cover the first chamber opening and a second cap configured to selectively cover the second chamber opening.
Munns is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McCoy, which is a liquid storage vessel. Munns teaches a liquid storage vessel embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 2-3) comprising:
a body (12) including:
a first chamber (26) having a first chamber opening (30);
a second chamber (28) having a second chamber opening (32);
a first cap (14) configured to selectively cover the first chamber opening AND the second chamber opening;
a second cap (16) configured to selectively cover the second chamber opening AND the first chamber opening; and
a neck member (i.e. the form of a divider wall (24)) positioned between the first and second chambers (Munns [0017-0022]).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of a first cap and a second cap AND the second chamber having a second chamber opening (as taught by Munns) to the overall liquid storage vessel (of McCoy) to allow the user to access the first chamber and the second chamber (of McCoy) from either end of the overall liquid storage vessel.
Examiner’s note: the first cap (of Munns) is interchangeable the second cap (of Munns); therefore, the respective caps (of Munns) is fully capable of selectively covering the first chamber opening as well as the second chamber opening; emphasis added.
Regarding claim 25, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the first and second chambers are axially spaced along the body (see McCoy Fig. 4 OR Munns Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 36, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the first and second chambers are shaped and configured to enable the vortex to be formed when liquid is positioned in the upper one of the first or second chambers and the body is moved in a swirling motion.
Examiner’s note: with respect to “…wherein the first and second chamber are shaped and configured to enable a vortex to be formed when liquid is positioned in an upper one of the first and second chambers and the body is moved in a swirling motion…” are considered to be functional or intended-use limitations to no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Examiner further notes that applicant has set forth product or apparatus claims, which include functional language or terminology reciting the use, operation, or employment of the apparatus. Therefore, the examiner has treated such claim language in accordance with the MPEP and applicable case law. In other words, a recitation of the intended use 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 (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP §2114); emphasis added.
Regarding claim 37, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the neck opening is located at a radial center of the neck body (see McCoy Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 38-39, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the body is a single, unitary component that is not separable into two sub-components that are rotatable relative to each other, where each sub-component includes one of the first or second chambers (see McCoy Fig. 4 OR Munns Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 40, modified McCoy as above further teaches wherein the first cap is configured to be threadably coupled to the body to selectively cover the first chamber opening or the second chamber opening, and wherein the second cap is configured to be threadably coupled to the body to selectively cover the first chamber opening or the second chamber opening (see Munns Figs. 2-3).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 1) and further in view of Guoqing (US 20140054301 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Guoqing).
Regarding claim 15, McCoy as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for a handle pivotally coupled to one of the first or second caps, wherein the handle is pivotable between a retracted position wherein the handle is generally flat against an outer, recessed surface of the one of the first or second caps, and an extended position wherein the handle is oriented generally perpendicular to the outer surface of the one of the first or second caps.
Guoqing is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McCoy, which is a liquid storage vessel. Guoqing teaches a liquid storage vessel comprising a cap (30) having a handle (36a or 36b) pivotally coupled to the cap, wherein the handle is pivotable between a retracted position wherein the handle is generally flat against an outer, recessed surface of the cap, and an extended position wherein the handle is oriented generally perpendicular to the outer surface of the cap (Guoqing [0025-0042] and Figs. 1-9).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one of the first AND second caps (of McCoy) with a similar cap having a pivotable handle (as taught by Guoqing) to allow to user to easily carry the overall liquid storage vessel during transport. Since, the cap(s) of both McCoy and Guoqing are considered to be art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the cap with a pivotable handle (of Guoqing) for one of the first and second caps (of McCoy). An express suggestion to substitute on equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP §2143(1)(B) or §2144.06 (II)
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 1) and further in view of Willis et al. (US 11155397 B2 – art of record; hereinafter Willis).
Regarding claim 18, McCoy as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for a plug configure to be removably positioned in, on or over the neck opening to block a flow of fluid therethrough.
Willis is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and McCoy, which is a compartmented liquid storage vessel. Willis teaches a liquid storage vessel (100) comprising:
a body (112) including:
a first chamber (i.e. second housing element (106)) having a first chamber opening; and
a second chamber (i.e. first housing element (104)) having a second chamber opening;
a first cap (204 or 206) configured to selectively cover the first chamber opening; and
a neck member (i.e. valve seat (120)) positioned between the first and second chambers and having a neck opening (i.e. valve aperture (126)) providing fluid communication between the first and second chamber; and
a plug (128) configured to removable positioned in the neck opening to block a flow of fluid therethrough (Willis Col. 7 ln. 20 – Col. 16 ln. 5 and Figs. 1-106).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the neck opening (of McCoy) with a similar plug (as taught by Willis) to allow the user to carry two different fluids or items at once and without them getting mixed with each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection(s).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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. Avilés can be reached on 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights