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 .
The amendments filed 1/9/2026 have been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the funnel and the receptacle are both referenced by the number 140.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites the limitations "the vertical projection of the top end opening" and “the bottom end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer edge of the bottom end surface". It is unclear which “bottom end surface” is being referenced in line 6 of the claim (“bottom end surface” of line 2 or of line 5, the line 5 bottom end surface lacking antecedent basis for “the outer edge” if in reference that of the spillage receptacle). For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referencing the bottom end surface of line 5.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " wherein the funnel comprising a top wide opening and a substantially tapered shape ending at a drainage stem having a narrow opening which is narrower than the top wide opening, and comprising inner sidewalls". It is unclear whether the funnel is to be “comprising inner sidewalls” or the drainage stem is be “comprising inner sidewalls”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the funnel comprising inner sidewalls.
Claims 3, 4, and 5 recite the limitation(s) “wherein the funnel comprises sidewalls”. It is unclear whether or not these sidewalls include or do not include the sidewall of the funnel in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the sidewalls including the sidewall of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the outer sidewall of the beverage container”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the inner side of the sidewalls”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation “the inner walls of the spillage receptacle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “each point” and “the circumference”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “the vertical projection”, “each point” and “the circumference”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the lowest point”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the inner space”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “the walls of the beverage container and the spillage receptacle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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: “fixation mechanism” in claim 15.
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 2,727,645 (Dore of record) and US Patent No. 5,590,861 (Ardolino hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1-3, Dore discloses: A drinking vessel comprising: a beverage container (10) comprising a bottom end (9) surface and a sidewall extending upward from the outer edge of the bottom end surface to a top edge defining a top end opening (see fig. 2); a spillage receptacle (2) having a bottom end surface (5), a sidewall (4) extending from the outer edge of the bottom end surface to a top edge defining a top end opening (at 6) encompassing by a margin the vertical projection of the top end opening of the beverage container (see Fig. 2), the bottom end being lower than the top end opening of the beverage container (see Fig. 2); a funnel (3) situated inside the spillage receptacle (see Fig. 2), the funnel having a top edge defining a top end opening (14), a sidewall (17) and drainage means (15, 16), adapted to drain spillage from the beverage container into the spillage receptacle (column 2, lines 18-23).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Funnel Pedestal)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Funnel Top Edge)][AltContent: textbox (Top Edge/ Top End Opening)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
622
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dore fails to disclose wherein the margin is at least 5mm and up to 200 mm.
However, with reference to Figs. 5 and 6 below, Ardolino discloses a spill collecting plate wherein a spillage receptacle (30) having a bottom end surface (at 44), a sidewall (34) extending from the outer edge of the bottom end surface to a top edge defining a top end opening encompassing by a margin of at least 5 mm and up to 200 mm the vertical projection of the top end opening of the beverage container (dish/spillage plate diameter ~7 inches/177.8 mm, beverage container/cage 18 diameter 4 inches/101.6 mm, column 5, lines 4-10: therefore teaches diametrical margin of 76.2 mm and radial margin of 38.1 for catching spills, see Abstract: “The side walls of this base plate are of a sufficient size to retain upon its upper surface any liquid spilled therein”).
[AltContent: textbox (Spillage Plate Top End Opening )][AltContent: textbox (Top End Opening of Beverage Container)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top Edge)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
326
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
286
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have sized the margin of the spill catching device of Dore to have been a sufficient size for catching/holding spillage from a container, such as a margin within the claimed range as taught by Ardolino for the purposes of rendering the plate of sufficient size for catching/retaining any liquid spilled therein (See Ardolino Abstract).
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the funnel comprising a top wide opening (defined at channels 16, see fig. 3) and a substantially tapered shape ending at a drainage stem (at portions of 15 folded down/inwards in Fig. 2) having a narrow opening which is narrower than the top opening (of the funnel, see Fig. 2), and comprising inner sidewalls being sloped inwards and downwards (at lips 15).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the funnel comprises sidewalls wherein at least a portion of the sidewalls are straight (see fig. 2, portions of 15 are frustoconical contacting/accommodating sidewall of cup 10).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the funnel comprises sidewalls wherein at least a portion of the sidewalls is compatible with the outer sidewall of the beverage container to secure the beverage container inside the spillage receptacle (See Fig. 2).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the funnel comprises sidewalls, the inner side of the sidewalls comprise protruding ribs (at lips 15) facing inwards to be pressed against a lower portion of the beverage container (column 2, lines 1-7).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the funnel comprises pedestals extending inwards from the sidewall of the funnel defining a chassis for the beverage container (see Fig. 1).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein a lower section of the sidewall of the spillage receptacle facing inwards together with the bottom end surface of the spillage receptacle facing inwards, and together with outer walls of the funnel facing the inner walls of the spillage receptacle, define a space which holds spillage and prevents it from being spilled even when the drinking vessel is tilted (column 2, lines 29-35, see Fig. 2).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein a lower section of the sidewall of the spillage receptacle facing inwards together with the bottom end surface of the spillage receptacle facing inwards, and together with outer walls of the funnel and outer walls of the drainage stem facing the inner walls of the spillage receptacle, define a space which holds spillage, and prevents it from being spilled even when the drinking vessel is tilted (column 2, lines 29-35, See Fig. 2).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the top end opening of the spillage receptacle is larger than the top end opening of the beverage container by a radial excess of at least 5% at each point around the circumference of the top end opening of the beverage container (38.1 mm / 101.6 mm is ~37.5%, per the dimensions taught by Ardolino as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention except wherein the top end opening of the spillage receptacle is larger than the top end opening of the beverage container by a margin of at least 10 mm and up to 200 mm from the vertical projection of each point of the circumference of the opening of the beverage container (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the lowest point of the bottom end surface of the spillage receptacle is positioned below the bottom end surface of the beverage container (see Fig. 2).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the sidewall (4) of the spillage receptacle is surrounding at least a portion of the beverage container (see fig. 2).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein at least a portion of the top end opening of the spillage receptacle is lower than the top end opening of the beverage container (See Fig. 2).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the funnel is adapted to fit in a gap between the beverage container and the spillage receptacle (see Fig. 2).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the funnel comprises a fixation mechanism (12/15) for fixating the beverage container (see Fig. 2, column 2, lines 1-7).
In re claim 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the beverage container and the funnel being reversibly connected (column 2, lines 26-29).
In re claim 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the spillage receptacle and the funnel being reversibly connected (column 1, lines 66-71).
In re claim 18, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the funnel comprises at least one of an aperture, slit, slot, open ended stem or a plurality thereof allowing drops of spillage to drain into the inner space of the spillage receptacle (i.e. channels 16, column 2, lines 1-7).
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention including wherein the fixation mechanism of the funnel is at least one of: being made of an elastomeric material and having dimensions slightly smaller than the beverage container adapted to press against the walls of the beverage container and the spillage receptacle (column 2, lines 1-26).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dore in view of Ardolino as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2009/0050599 (Martin et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Dore in view of Ardolino discloses the claimed invention except wherein the vessel is in A kit comprising a drinking vessel according to claim 1 and instructions for using the drinking vessel in a Kiddush.
However, Martin et al. discloses a cup assembly which may include a labels/instructions for use, as well as other indicia (paragraph 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided in a kit instructions for the use of the cup assembly of Dore in view of Ardolino as disclosed by Martin et al. for the predicable purposes of ensuring proper use of the assembly by a user by providing instructions to the use describing the use of the assembly.
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. “in a Kiddush”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s)have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks that the instructions for a Kiddush are specific to the splash-containing margin. However, it is not clear that splash capture is specific to a Kiddush ceremony in any manner that would render the proposed drinking vessel/spillage receptacle/instruction combination improper for the intended use of drinking. Note that no instructional steps are claimed for the Kiddush, only a kit assembled from a vessel and instructions for assumedly drinking from the vessel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733