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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/11/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14, 17-19, 22-25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerasari (US 3043464) in view of Sirota (US 2011/0155684).
Regarding Claim 11
Cerasari teaches an aroma container (below – Fig. 1 and 2) for a drinking device which is attachable to a drinking device (1), the aroma container (9) comprising: an aroma chamber including a carrier substance (15) that contains a fluid with an aromatizing substance; wherein the aroma chamber is enclosed by a wall which comprises an interior circumferential surface (shown at 10), an exterior circumferential surface (11’), a top side (11) and a lower side (shown at 6 – Fig. 2); wherein the interior circumferential surface (shown at 10) has a cross-section that is complimentary to the portion of the drinking device where it is attached; at least one first opening (12) for air to flow in; and at least one second opening (12) for air to flow out (Col. 1, Ln. 20 – Col. 2, Ln. 29).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cerasari does not teach the interior circumferential surface has a non-circular cross-section.
Sirota teaches a drinking device (below – Fig. 1), having a neck portion and a complimentarily shaped collar (90). Sirota further teaches that the neck portion (15) may be circular or have a square or polygonal shape (Paragraph [0023]).
PNG
media_image2.png
686
319
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cerasari and Sirota are analogous inventions in the field of beverage containers with attached portions. Because both teach a beverage container having an opening with attachments at the neck portion, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the neck and attached portion (i.e. aroma container) with the teachings of the square or polygonal shape of Sirota as a square/polygonal shape is known in the art. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Further with the square/polygonal shaped neck, the interior circumferential surface of the aroma container would have a non-circular cross-section.
Regarding Claim 12
Cerasari in view of Sirota (hereinafter “modified Cerasari”) teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Cerasari further teaches the aromatizing substance (15) is provided in liquid form which is applied to the carrier substance.
Regarding Claim 13
Modified Cerasari teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Sirota further teaches the space surrounded by the interior circumferential surface may have several different shapes. Modified Cerasari does not specifically teach it has a drop-shaped cross-section. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the space surrounded by the interior circumferential surface have a drop-shaped cross-section, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Further, As such, the claim of the space surrounded by the interior circumferential surface having a drop-shaped cross-section does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 14
Modified Cerasari teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Modified Cerasari (via Sirota) further teaches the aroma container has a prismatic geometry.
Regarding Claim 17
Modified Cerasari teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Cerasari further teaches the aroma container comprises a plurality of second openings (12).
Regarding Claim 18
Modified Cerasari teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Cerasari further teaches the first and second openings are spaced apart. However, Cerasari does not teach a single first opening and a single second opening are provided, and the first opening and the second opening are spaced apart.
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a single first opening and a single second opening provided, such that if the aroma in the aroma container were very strong it would not overwhelm the user. Applicant has not disclosed that a single first opening and a single second opening being provided, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of a single first opening and a single second opening being provided does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 19
Modified Cerasari teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Cerasari further teaches the aroma container is configured to attach to a head part (6) of the drinking device that is arranged at an angle in relation to a longitudinal axis of a storage container of the drinking device (e.g. perpendicular).
Regarding Claim 22
Modified Cerasari teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Cerasari further teaches the top side (11) is at least partially flat.
Regarding Claim 23
Modified Cerasari teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Cerasari further teaches a step (shown at 5) between the interior circumferential surface (shown at 10) and the top side (11).
Regarding Claims 24 and 25
Modified Cerasari teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Cerasari does not specifically teach the aroma container is marked corresponding to the aromatizing substance, or the aroma container is colored corresponding to the aromatizing substance. However, the use of both of these methods are exceptionally well known in the art as labeling methods for indicating the contents of the container.
As such, at the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the aroma container marked corresponding to the aromatizing substance, or the aroma container colored corresponding to the aromatizing substance. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). As such, the claim of the aroma container marked corresponding to the aromatizing substance, or the aroma container colored corresponding to the aromatizing substance does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 27
Modified Cerasari teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Cerasari further teaches the interior circumferential wall (10) is arranged perpendicular to the top side (11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Claim 15, 16, 20, 21, and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 1-10, 15, 16, 20, and 26 were previously indicated as allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/112026, with regards to claim 11, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Cerasari does not teach “the aroma chamber is enclosed by a wall which comprises an interior circumferential surface, an exterior circumferential surface, a top side and a lower side”. Applicant appears to be arguing that the “interior circumferential surface, exterior circumferential surface, top side and lower side” are all part of one wall. Such a wall would appear to be a solid wall and have a cross-section looking something like what is shown below:
[AltContent: textbox (Top side)]
[AltContent: textbox (Inner circumferential surface)][AltContent: textbox (Outer circumferential surface)][AltContent: roundedrect][AltContent: textbox (Lower side)]
The Examiner believes the Applicant intends to claim something more along the lines of “the aroma chamber is enclosed within an annular member comprising an interior circumferential wall, an exterior circumferential wall, a top wall, and a lower wall”. Such a member would have a cross-section looking something like what is shown below:
[AltContent: textbox (Top side)]
[AltContent: textbox (Inner circumferential surface)][AltContent: textbox (Outer circumferential surface)][AltContent: roundedrect][AltContent: textbox (Lower side)]
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-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, 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 21 September 2026
Prosecution Insights