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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 25th 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status:
Claims 3-9, 14-16 and 18-22 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 10-13 and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22 are newly added.
Claims 3 and 16 are amended.
Claims 3-9, 14-16 and 18-22 are examined as follow:
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim limitation “seal” in claims 3 and 22 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “seal" coupled with functional language “configured to….” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “seal" has been described in Paragraph 0242 cited as some kind of seal ring or sealing part such as rubber seal.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 22, the limitation “wherein the seal is configured to expand under pressure” is insufficient disclosure in the specification that clearly explaining how the seal configured to expand under pressure, what corresponding structure of the seal that allow the seal to perform the expanding when under pressure.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
In claim 22, the limitation “wherein the seal is configured to expand under pressure” is indefinite, because it is unclear how the seal expand under pressure, and what corresponding structure of the seal that expand due to under pressure. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, Examiner assumed that such limitation is implying the seal is flexible and can be shaped when under pressure to provide a better sealing.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 3, 7, 9, 15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volz et al (US2010/0326284A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Volz, in view of Stumphauzer et al (US5260081 newly cited) herein set forth as Stumphauzer.
Regarding claim 3, Volz discloses a cup (#14, fig.2) comprising a closed end (#20, fig.2) and an open end (refer to the opening end where #22 is attached in fig.2) opposite the closed end (#20, fig.2), the open end (refer to the opening end where #22 is attached in fig.2) configured to be attached (refer to the attachability with #22 in fig.2) to the carbonated beverage maker having a carbonation source (Examiner note: the limitation of beverage maker and a carbonation source does not affect the structural or material property of the cup, therefore it is just an intended use limitation, since the prior art Volz’s cup is attractable to a station (refer to fig.2), and since there is no other structural limitation clarify how the carbonation source of the beverage maker would modified the structural of the cup to distinct from the prior art Volz’s cup, such that the carbonation source can merely inject into the cup opening and then close the lip without any structural modification to the cup or the lid, therefore the limitation read on Volz’s cup); a metal sheath (#18, fig.2, refer to Paragraph 0032 cited: “…two metal bands 18 are provided that encompass the wall 16…”) surrounding the outside of the cup (#14, fig.2) and configured to withstand a pressure (it is noted, #18 are metal it is inherently capable to handle a pressure) within the cup (#14, fig.2) when a beverage (Examiner noted: Volz’s cup is intended for a beverage too) within the cup (#14, fig.2) is being carbonized with carbon dioxide from the carbonation source (Examiner note: the limitation of beverage maker and a carbonation source does not affect the structural or material property, therefore it is just an intended use limitation); and a magnetically-driven impeller (#24, fig.2) disposed at an inner side (refer the inside of #14 in fig.2) of the closed end (#20, fig.2) of the cup (#14, fig.2), wherein the impeller (#24, fig.2) is configured to be magnetically-driven by an impeller motor (#28, fig.2) outside of the carbonation cup (#14, fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
675
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Volz does not explicitly disclose a seal configured to seal the cup against the carbonated beverage maker to form a pressure vessel.
In the similar field of cup for preparing beverage, Stumphauzer discloses a seal (seal ring #31, fig.5) configured to seal the cup (container #26 fig.5) against the carbonated beverage maker (gas generator #12, fig.5) to form a pressure vessel (refer to “pressure vessel cited in Col 5 line 38-44 below) (refer to Col 5 line 38-44 cited: “…The carbonation tank 14 is shaped to form a pitcher, with a hollow cylindrical container 26, a handle 28 attached to the container 26 thereof and a removeable closure lid 30 having a seal ring 31 which sealingly engages the top of the container 26 and forms the carbonation tank or pitcher 14 as a pressure vessel for carrying out the carbonation of liquids.…”).
PNG
media_image2.png
693
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volz’s cup with a seal configured to seal the cup against the carbonated beverage maker to form a pressure vessel, as taught by Stumphauzer, in order to provide a better sealing for a pressure vessel, such that would reduce leakage or spillage during the beverage preparation.
Regarding claim 7, the modification Volz and Stumphauzer discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, Volz further discloses wherein the cup (#14, fig.2) comprises a thermal insulating material (refer to Paragraph 0018 cited: “…The remaining container wall stretching up from that point is preferably made out of glass…”).
Regarding claim 9, the modification Volz and Stumphauzer discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, Volz further discloses wherein the impeller (#24, fig.2) is removably attached (refer to Paragraph 0034 cited: “…Inside the container 14 there is a stirring device 24 that can be taken out of the container 14 in an axial direction. The stirring device 24 in this case is arranged along the central longitudinal axis of the container 14 in a rotatable way in the container 14. On the bottom 20 of the container, a raised part 26 facing axially upwards is provided in a circular cylindrical way. The raised part 26 serves as a bearing pin for the stirring device 24…”) to the cup (#14, fig.2) at a spindle (#26, fig.2) protruding from the closed end of the cup (#14, fig.2).
Regarding claim 15, the modification Volz and Stumphauzer discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, Volz further discloses wherein the carbonation cup (#14, fig.2) is configured to be attached to a cup docking module (refer to fig.2, where cup #14 docked on #12) of the carbonated beverage maker (Examiner note: the limitation of beverage maker and a carbonation source does not affect the structural or material property, therefore it is just an intended use limitation), and wherein when the carbonation cup is attached to the cup docking module (#14, fig.2), the weight (Examiner note: weight is inherently disclosed by Volz’s cup) of the carbonation cup (#14, fig.2) pulls the cup docking module down to a lower position along a vertical direction so that the impeller is close enough to the impeller motor (Examiner note: such limitation on the carbonation maker would not affect the material or structure of the claimed cup).
Regarding claim 21, the modification Volz and Stumphauzer discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, Volz does not explicitly disclose wherein the seal is formed internal to a lip of the cup.
In the similar field of cup for preparing beverage, Stumphauzer further discloses wherein the seal (seal ring #31, fig.5) is formed internal to a lip (refer to the location of the seal ring #31 in fig.5) of the cup (container #26 fig.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volz’s cup with wherein the seal is formed internal to a lip of the cup, as taught by Stumphauzer, in order to provide a better sealing for a pressure vessel, such that would reduce leakage or spillage during the beverage preparation.
Regarding claim 22, the modification Volz and Stumphauzer discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, Volz does not explicitly disclose wherein the seal is configured to expand under pressure.
Since, Stumphauzer disclose a seal that sealingly engages (refer to Col 5 line 38-44 cited: “…The carbonation tank 14 is shaped to form a pitcher, with a hollow cylindrical container 26, a handle 28 attached to the container 26 thereof and a removeable closure lid 30 having a seal ring 31 which sealingly engages the top of the container 26 and forms the carbonation tank or pitcher 14 as a pressure vessel for carrying out the carbonation of liquids.…”, Examiner note: also flexible and shape changing under pressure are the required material behavior of any sealing material, also, refer to pertinent prior art at conclusion for further evidence of flexible and shape changing material for sealing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volz’s invention with the seal is configured to expand under pressure, as taught Stumphauzer, in order to provide a better sealing for a pressure vessel, such that would reduce leakage or spillage during the beverage preparation.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volz et al (US2010/0326284A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Volz, in view of Stumphauzer et al (US5260081 newly cited) herein set forth as Stumphauzer , and further in view of Himelstein (US2012/0074091A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Himelstein.
Regarding claim 4, the modification Volz and Stumphauzer discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, Volz does not disclose comprising an attachment member disposed at the open end and configured to seal the carbonation cup when attached to the carbonated beverage maker.
In the field of glassware safety, Himelstein discloses comprising an attachment member (#110b, fig.1) disposed at the open end (refer to the open end of #120 in fig.1) and configured to seal the carbonation cup (#14, fig.2) when attached to the carbonated beverage maker (refer as intended use).
PNG
media_image3.png
721
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volz’s cup with an attachment member disposed at the open end and configured to seal the carbonation cup, as thought by Himelstein, in order to provide a water and air tight attachment, such that would not generate mess and leakage.
Regarding claim 5, the modification Volz and Stumphauzer discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, Volz does not disclose comprising the sheath completely surrounds the outside of the cup so that the cup is not visible from the outside of the carbonation cup.
In the field of glassware safety, Himelstein discloses comprising the sheath (#112, fig.1) completely surrounds the outside of the cup (#102, fig.1) so that the cup (#102, fig.1) is not visible from the outside of the carbonation cup (#102, fig.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
721
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volz’s cup with comprising the sheath completely surrounds the outside of the cup so that the cup is not visible from the outside of the carbonation cup, as thought by Himelstein, in order to provide safety for the glassware, such that would not reduce possible of lost all the information.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volz et al (US2010/0326284A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Volz, in view of Stumphauzer et al (US5260081 newly cited) herein set forth as Stumphauzer , and further in view of CN204535808U (previously cited) herein set forth as CN5808U.
Regarding claim 6, the modification Volz and Stumphauzer discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, Volz does not disclose further comprising a fill line indicator to suggest a fill line of a diluent.
In the field of cup utilization design, CN5808U discloses the use of a fill line indicator (#3, fig.1) to suggest a fill line of a diluent (refer as intended use).
PNG
media_image4.png
590
495
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volz’s cup with a fill line indicator to suggest a fill line, as taught by CN5808U, in order to provide easy work flow of measuring required mixtures, instead of measuring in a different cup, such that would reduce cups usage and speed up the overall speed of the task.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volz et al (US2010/0326284A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Volz, in view of Stumphauzer et al (US5260081 newly cited) herein set forth as Stumphauzer, and further in view of CN203802280U (previously cited) herein set forth as CN2280U.
Regarding claim 8, the modification Volz and Stumphauzer discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, Volz further discloses wherein the impeller (#24, fig.2) comprises a base (refer to “base” annotated in Zoom In fig.2 below) and blades (refer to “blade” annotated in Zoom In fig.2 below) protruding from the base (refer to “base” annotated in Zoom In fig.2 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
546
505
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Volz does not disclose wherein the impeller comprises: a ring disposed above the blades.
In the field of stirring and mixing, CN2280U discloses wherein the impeller (#23, fig.3) comprises: a ring (refer to “ring” annotated in fig.3) disposed above the blades (refer to “blade” annotated in fig.3).
PNG
media_image6.png
293
301
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volz’s impeller with a ring disposed above the blades, as taught by CN2280U, in order to provide the mean to better control and restriction the directional movement of the fluid or material being stirred or mixed, such that the result of the stirring and mixing would be better managed and more consistence.
Claims 14, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volz et al (US2010/0326284A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Volz, in view of Stumphauzer et al (US5260081 newly cited) herein set forth as Stumphauzer and further in view of Dewar (US5665462 newly cited) herein set forth as Dewar.
Regarding claim 14, the modification Volz and Stumphauzer discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, Volz does not disclose wherein the cup comprises a transparent plastic layer.
In the field of beverage container and cup, Dewar discloses wherein the cup comprises a transparent plastic layer (refer to Col 6, line 5-7 cited: “…The non-foaming plastisol is essentially transparent and light pink in colour so that the felt can be seen inside the coating. The foam layer is white and opaque …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volz’s cup with comprises a transparent plastic layer, as taught by Dewar, in order to provide protection, reduced instant breaking and shattering of the glass cup.
Regarding claim 16, Volz discloses a carbonation cup (#14, fig.2) for use with a carbonated beverage maker (Examiner note: intended use), comprising:
refer to the shape of #14, fig.2);
a metal sheath (#18, fig.2, refer to Paragraph 0032 cited: “…two metal bands 18 are provided that encompass the wall 16…”) disposed outside it is noted, #18 are metal it is inherently capable to handle a pressure) within Examiner noted: Volz’s cup is intended for a beverage too) within Examiner note: the limitation of beverage maker and a carbonation source does not affect the structural or material property, therefore it is just an intended use limitation);
a magnetically-driven impeller (#24, fig.2) disposed at an inner side of the base (refer the inside of #14 in fig.2) Refer to the structure of #24 in fig.2) configured to create a vortex (Examiner note: when #24 rotate a vortex is inherently generated) that draws carbon dioxide from the carbonation source (Examiner note: the limitation of beverage maker and a carbonation source does not affect the structural or material property, therefore it is just an intended use limitation) near the base of the carbonation cup (#14, fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
675
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Volz does not disclose wherein the cup comprises a transparent plastic layer; a seal interior to the plastic layer and configured seal the carbonation cup against a carbonated beverage maker to form a pressure vessel.
In the similar field of cup for preparing beverage, Stumphauzer discloses a seal (seal ring #31, fig.5) configured to seal the cup (container #26 fig.5) against the carbonated beverage maker (gas generator #12, fig.5) to form a pressure vessel (refer to “pressure vessel cited in Col 5 line 38-44 below) (refer to Col 5 line 38-44 cited: “…The carbonation tank 14 is shaped to form a pitcher, with a hollow cylindrical container 26, a handle 28 attached to the container 26 thereof and a removeable closure lid 30 having a seal ring 31 which sealingly engages the top of the container 26 and forms the carbonation tank or pitcher 14 as a pressure vessel for carrying out the carbonation of liquids.…”).
PNG
media_image2.png
693
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volz’s cup with a seal configured to seal the cup against the carbonated beverage maker to form a pressure vessel, as taught by Stumphauzer, in order to provide a better sealing for a pressure vessel, such that would reduce leakage or spillage during the beverage preparation.
In the field of beverage container and cup, LUSHER discloses wherein the cup comprises a transparent plastic (refer to Col 6, line 5-7 cited: “…The non-foaming plastisol is essentially transparent and light pink in colour so that the felt can be seen inside the coating. The foam layer is white and opaque …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volz’s cup with comprises a transparent plastic layer, as taught by Dewar, in order to provide protection, reduced instant breaking and shattering of the glass cup.
Regarding claim 18, the modification of Volz, Stumphauzer and Dewar discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 16, Volz further discloses wherein the impeller (#24, fig.2) is configured to be magnetically-driven by an impeller motor (#28, fig.2) outside of the carbonation cup (#14, fig.2).
Regarding claim 19, the modification of Volz, Stumphauzer and Dewar discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 16, the modification of Volz and Dewar already disclosed the
Volz further discloses wherein the impeller (#24, fig.2) is removably attached (refer to Paragraph 0034 cited: “…Inside the container 14 there is a stirring device 24 that can be taken out of the container 14 in an axial direction. The stirring device 24 in this case is arranged along the central longitudinal axis of the container 14 in a rotatable way in the container 14. On the bottom 20 of the container, a raised part 26 facing axially upwards is provided in a circular cylindrical way. The raised part 26 serves as a bearing pin for the stirring device 24…”) to the cup (#14, fig.2) at a spindle (#26, fig.2) protruding from the closed end of the cup (#14, fig.2).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volz et al (US2010/0326284A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Volz, in view of Stumphauzer et al (US5260081 newly cited) herein set forth as Stumphauzer, further in view of Dewar (US5665462 newly cited) herein set forth as Dewar, and further in view of Himelstein (US2012/0074091A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Himelstein.
Regarding claim 20, Volz discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 16, Volz does not disclose comprising an attachment member disposed at the open end and configured to seal the carbonation cup when attached to the carbonated beverage maker.
In the field of glassware safety, Himelstein discloses comprising an attachment member (#110b, fig.1) disposed at the open end (refer to the open end of #120 in fig.1) and configured to seal the carbonation cup (#14, fig.2) when attached to the carbonated beverage maker (refer as intended use).
PNG
media_image3.png
721
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Volz’s cup with an attachment member disposed at the open end and configured to seal the carbonation cup, as thought by Himelstein, in order to provide a water and air tight attachment, such that would not generate mess and leakage.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Claim Objection: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on March 25th 2026 that overcame the Claim Objection in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 25th 2026 have been fully considered but moot in view of the new grounds of rejection with the newly cited secondary Prior art Stumphauzer et al (US5260081 newly cited).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Flies et al (US2004/0206717A1 newly cited) discloses the use of rubber seal for beverage container.
Liepa et al (US4007134 newly cited) discloses the use of rubber seal in the carbonation device.
Hopper et al (US4208903 newly cited) discloses the use of rubber seal for seal beverage container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 March 28th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights