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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 11, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Those objections and rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 15-20, 25 and 26 are currently pending.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 15-20, 25 and 26 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 15-20, 25 and 26 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “wherein the first bottle comprises a mid-region generally equidistant between the first discharge opening and the base end” and “the second bottle comprises a mid-region generally equidistant between the second discharge opening and the base end.” The specification does not discuss a particular mid-region that is “generally equidistant” between the first discharge opening and the base and generally equidistant between the second discharge opening and the base end. While the figures necessarily show some region presented at a middle of each bottle, since the figures are not indicated as drawn to scale, it is not clear from the figures that such a mid-region would necessarily have been “generally equidistant” from the discharge opening and the base end of each of the first and second bottles, thus presenting an issue of new matter.
Claims 7, 10, 15-20, 25 and 26 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20090223999) in view of DeCleir (US 20160167864) and in further view of Kracht (US 3255877), VanGordon (US 20170297797) and Gebauer (GB 2508989), and in further view of Fogel (US 20130134161).
Regarding claim 1, Hill teaches a drink-enhancer system comprising:
a container apparatus comprising a first chamber (see figure 4, item 11A), a second chamber (see figure 4, item 11B), and a barrier to prevent liquid within one of the first and second chambers to flow to the other of the first and second chambers (since both chambers are closed chambers, it would have been obvious that there would have been a barrier to prevent liquid within one of the chambers from flowing into the other).
a plurality of drink-enhancers comprising at least a first drink-enhancer (see paragraph 43, “lime juice”) and a second drink- enhancer (see paragraph 43, “tequila”), each of the first and second drink-enhancers being liquid (it would have been obvious that lime juice and tequila are liquid), the second drink-enhancer being different from the first drink-enhancer, the first drink-enhancer being in the first chamber of the container apparatus, the second drink-enhancer being in the second chamber of the container apparatus, wherein the contents of the first chamber are different from the contents of the second chamber (that is, Hill’s teachings of lime juice and tequila disclose two different liquids, one in each chamber);
a first discharge opening (see figure 1A, item 11C) and a second discharge opening (see figure 1A, item 11D; paragraph 40), the first discharge opening being adapted and configured to discharge the first drink-enhancer from the first chamber, the second discharge opening being adapted and configured to discharge the second drink-enhancer from the second chamber (this would have been the obvious purpose of each of the discharge openings), the container apparatus further comprising at least one closure (see figure 1A, item 12A and 13A; paragraph 41);
wherein the at least one closure comprises a first closure (figure 1A, item 12A), and wherein the drink-enhancer system further comprises a second closure (figure 1A, item 13A), the first closure being adapted and configured to removably cover the first discharge opening, the second closure being adapted and configured to removably cover the second discharge opening, the first closure and the second closure being independently operable (see figure 1A, where it would have been clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the closures are independently operable);
wherein the container apparatus comprises a first member and a second member, the first member being a unitary, one-piece molded member, the second member being a unitary, one-piece molded member (see figure 1A, where containers 11A and 11B are unitary one-piece members; see paragraph 2 which suggests molded plastic container), the first chamber being within and defined by the first member, the second chamber being within and defined by the second member (see figure 1A, item 11A and 11B define the first and second chambers within the respective first and second members), the first member being fixedly secured to the second member (see the abstract – “The individual containers are attached together using various means such as shrink wrap material”);
wherein the first member comprises a first bottle and the second member comprises a second bottle (that is, the containers, as shown in figure 1A and 4, for example, can be construed as bottles), the first bottle being fixedly secured to the second bottle via shrink wrap (see the abstract, “shrink wrap material”; paragraph 12; see figure 1A, item 14 and paragraph 39j), the shrink wrap being adapted and configured to maintain the fixed securement of the first bottle to the second bottle during discharge of the first drink-enhancer from the first chamber and during discharge of the second drink-enhancer from the second chamber (this is an intended use that the prior art would have been capable of performing);
wherein the first bottle further comprises a base end opposite the first discharge opening and the second bottle further comprises a base end opposite the second discharge opening, the first bottle being fixedly secured to the second bottle via the shrink wrap such that the base ends of the first and second bottles are face-to-face and immediately adjacent one another (see figure 4, where base ends near 40A-B and 41A-B would have been face to face and immediately adjacent one another and where each base is opposite the respective first and second discharge opening.
Claim 1 differs from Hill in specifically reciting, a first outlet valve in fluid communication with the first discharge opening, a second outlet valve in fluid communication with the second discharge opening, each of the first and second valves being movable between a closed position and an open position, each of the first and second valves being biased towards the closed position, the first valve being movable from its closed position to its open position upon an increase of fluid pressure in the first chamber, the second valve being movable from its closed position to its open position upon an increase of fluid pressure in the second chamber;
wherein the shrink wrap has a first line of weakness adjacent the first closure and a second line of weakness adjacent the second closure, the first line of weakness enabling a user to remove a first shrink wrap portion of the shrink wrap adjacent the first closure while maintaining the fixed securement of the first bottle to the second bottle, the second line of weakness enabling a user to remove a second shrink wrap portion of the shrink wrap adjacent the second closure while maintaining the fixed securement of the first bottle to the second bottle;
Regarding the first and second outlet valves, DeCLeir teaches a first outlet valve in fluid communication with the first discharge opening, a second outlet valve in fluid communication with the second discharge opening, each of the first and second valves being movable between a closed position and an open position, each of the first and second valves being biased towards the closed position, the first valve being movable from its closed position to its open position upon an increase of fluid pressure in the first chamber, the second valve being movable from its closed position to its open position upon an increase of fluid pressure in the second chamber (see paragraph 9 and 47 and at least, figure 13, item 239a and 239b). DeCleir teaches that such valves can block flow from the discharge opening when it not desired to dispense the liquid (see paragraph 15, last sentence; paragraph 47-48).
To therefore modify Hill, who is not specific as to the particulars of the discharge opening, and to include a first outlet valve and a second outlet valve, that are movable between a closed and open position upon an increase in fluid pressure within the first and second chambers, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of controlling the dispensing of the contents from each of Hill’s chambers and preventing flow of liquid when it was not desired.
Regarding the limitations of, “wherein the shrink wrap has a first line of weakness adjacent the first closure and a second line of weakness adjacent the second closure, the first line of weakness enabling a user to remove a first shrink wrap portion of the shrink wrap adjacent the first closure while maintaining the fixed securement of the first bottle to the second bottle, the second line of weakness enabling a user to remove a second shrink wrap portion of the shrink wrap adjacent the second closure while maintaining the fixed securement of the first bottle to the second bottle,” while Hill teaches a shrink film (see at least, paragraph 27 and 42), the claim differs from Hill with respect to the above limitation.
However, Kracht teaches that it has been conventional to provide containers comprising beverage liquids (see column 1, lines 48-50: “cans” “fruit juices”) positioned end to end, where a shrink wrap is used to help keep the container secured together (see column 1, lines 32-50). The shrink wrap extends over the ends (i.e. closures) of each container (see figure 1-4, item 20). To therefore modify Hill, who already teaches a shrink wrap, and to extend the shrink wrap over the ends of Hill’s container would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design for the purpose as taught by Kracht for ensuring that the containers also remain tightly engaged with each other. VanGordon also teaches a container with a similar type of closure as that of Hill (see figure 10A and 10B) and which container can be used for liquids and fluids (see paragraph 41). The container has a shrink wrap that extends from the underside of the bottom and over the closure (see paragraph 3, “a sleeve circumscribing at least a portion of the container”; see figure 4, item 200 and paragraph 44-45), which shrink wrap allows for using the same base container while adjusting the indicia on the sleeve to identify the contents (see paragraph 1) and provides access the closure but also prevents the cap from being altered prior to removal of the sleeve (see paragraph 4, “the sleeve configured to prevent the cap from being altered from the first state into the second state when intact on the container”). It is additionally noted that Gebauer further evidences removable shrink films on both ends of a container for the purpose of being able to access the closure both ends, after removal of the shrink film so as to access the contents (see figure 3, item 6 and page 3, last two paragraphs).
To therefore modify the combination and to extend Hill’s shrink wrap such that it extends over the ends of each of Hill’s first and second closure and includes a line of weakness associated with each of Hill’s first and second closure, as taught by Kracht and VanGordon would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing an additional mechanism by which Hill’s two containers can remain securely packaged together while also providing a way to access both of Hill’s closures while keeping the containers securely packaged together and provide a means for preventing opening of either of Hill’s closures prior to removal of the portion of the shrink film.
Further regarding the first and second members being a unitary, one-piece molded member, DeCleir teaches that the container apparatus comprises a first member and a second member, the first member being a unitary, one-piece molded member, the second member being a unitary, one-piece molded member, the first chamber being within and defined by the first member, the second chamber being within and defined by the second member (see paragraph 10), and the first member being fixedly secured to the second member (see figure 16 and 17). Since Hill teaches a concept of two containers secured together, both which comprise different ingredients that can enhance a drink, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used a unitary one-piece molded member for the first and second members of the container apparatus as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on conventional expedients that have been useful for dispensing liquid drink enhancers therefrom.
Regarding the new limitation of, wherein the first bottle comprises a mid-region generally equidistant between the first discharge opening and the base end, the first bottle tapering in a first tapering region away from the mid-region and toward the first discharge opening, the first bottle tapering in a second tapering region away from the mid-region and toward the base end; wherein the second bottle comprises a mid-region generally equidistant between the second discharge opening and the base end, the second bottle tapering in a first tapering region away from the mid-region and toward the second discharge opening, the second bottle tapering in a second tapering region away from the mid-region and toward the base end, Fogel teaches a container similar to that of Hill (see figure 5 and 6) and where each of the first and second bottle comprise a mid-region such that the first and second bottles taper away from the mid-region toward both the discharge opening and the base end of both first and second bottles, respectively (see figure 5, item 38, 39 and how the container tapers away from these mid-regions).
To therefore modify the combination and use another conventional shape for a similarly configured liquid container apparatus would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design based on known shapes used for a similar type of container.
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein the shrink wrap extends from at least the first tapering region of the first bottle to at least the first tapering region of the second bottle, the shrink wrap tapering away from the mid- region of the first bottle and toward the first discharge opening of the first bottle, the shrink wrap tapering away from the mid-region of the first bottle and toward the base end of the first bottle, the shrink wrap tapering away from the mid-region of the second bottle and toward the second discharge opening of the second bottle, the shrink wrap tapering away from the mid-region of the second bottle and toward the base end of the second bottle”, since Fogel teaches a shape where both the first and second bottles have a mid-region from which there is a tapering toward the discharge end and the base end of both first and second bottles; and since Fogel also teaches that the shrink wrap covers both the two containers 32 and 33, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the combination is teaching that the shrink wrap would also extend from the first tapering region of the first bottle to the first tapering region of the second bottle and where the shrink wrap would also taper away from the mid-regio of both the first and second bottle and toward the each of the first and second discharge end and first and second base end.
Regarding claim 10, Hill’s container apparatus as shown in figure 1A can be construed as a single bottle with the first 11A and second 11B chambers being chambers of the single bottle.
Regarding claim 25, it is noted that while the claim recites how the first drink enhancer “may” be used and to what type of drink it may be added, this is not seen to further limit the particular structure of the claimed drink enhancer system. That is, the claims are directed to the packaged drink enhancer system and not to the method of using the drink enhancer system. The prior art teaching would have been capable of adding the first drink enhancer to a drink and where the drink can be any of those listed. Nonetheless, DeCleir teaches use with water (see paragraph 48).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above which relies on Hill (US 20090223999) as the primary reference, and in further view of Fresnel (US 20110177268).
Regarding claim 7, VanGordon’s teaching of using pre-weakened or perforated sections (see paragraph 44, figure 9, item 210), which can be construed as encompassing score lines.
If it could have been construed that VanGordon did not specifically teach score lines, then Fresnel teaches a shrink wrapped container (see figure 1, item 3 and figure 3) where the entirety of the container up to the closure of the container can be enclosed in the shrink film (see figure 3) and which shrink wrap comprises perforations near the closure for allowing access to the closure while keeping the remainder of the shrink film secured to the container (see paragraph 26). Frensel teaches using score lines or perforations as the form of weakness for facilitating removal of the shrink wrap at the closure (see figure 2c, item 211 vs Figure 2D, item 311).
To therefore modify the combination and use score lines would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a substitution of one known type of line of weakness for facilitating tearing, for another, recognized for performing the same function.
Claim 15-20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 and 25 above which relies on Hill (US 20090223999) as the primary reference, and in further view of Ragnarsson (US 20140017386).
Regarding claim 15, the claim differs from the combination, as applied to claim 1 in specifically reciting that the first drink-enhancer comprises at least one flavor component, one or more alcohol based solvent components and one or more acids.
Ragnarsson teaches drink enhancing liquids (see at least, paragraph 81, 85 and 86 and tables 12 and 13 on page 13, which show different flavoring formulations). Ragnarsson also teaches that the first drink-enhancer comprises at least one flavor component, one or more alcohol based solvent components, and one or more acids (see paragraph 10, “alcohol containing flavorings”; paragraph 13, acids; paragraph 15 “flavoring”).
Since Hill is not limiting as to the particular drink components within each of the first and second chambers, and since DeCleir already teaches a multi-chambered drink enhancer system comprising a container apparatus with a first and second chamber (see figures 16 and 17) to therefore modify the combination and to include a drink enhancer that comprises a flavor component, an alcohol based solvent component and one or more acids would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design based on the conventional type of beverage enhancers that where desired to be packaged.
Regarding claim 16, Ragnarsson teaches that the first drink-enhancer further comprises a fruit juice concentrate (see paragraph 92, where the drink enhancer is a concentrate including fruits and therefore encompasses including a fruit juice concentrate; see also paragraph 116 which discloses fruit flavor emulsions as part of the concentrate; see paragraph 88 and 93 where microemulsions include higher concentration of flavor key and therefore suggest fruit juice concentrates).
Regarding claim 17, Ragnarsson teaches that the first drink enhancer can include at least an acid as discussed above with respect to claim 15. Furthermore, in view of Stuck, the combination teaches and suggests including different flavor compositions in each compartment, and Ragnarsson teaches variations in the flavoring formulation (see page 13, Table 13, and which can further include at least a sweetener (see paragraph 13). Therefore, the combination teaches and suggests a second drink enhancer that comprises at least a sweetener and the first drink enhancer including at least an acid.
Regarding claims 18-19, Ragnarsson teaches and suggests that any of the formulations can also include caffeine or vitamins (see paragraph 13 and 85), thus making it obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first and second drink enhancer to include known additional additives such as caffeine or vitamins, for their known effects.
Regarding claim 20, DeCleir teaches wherein the first outlet valve comprises a flow-control valve in fluid communication with at least the first chamber, the flow-control valve being adapted and configured to dispense a specific dosage of at least the first drink-enhancer (see paragraph 5 and 59-60). That is, since the valve is used for dispensing via pressure as a result of squeezing the container, the valve is seen to be adapted and configured to dispense some specific dosage based on the pressure applied. At paragraph 5 and 106, DeCleir further teaches solving the problem of inconsistent amounts being dispensed using the same squeezing force, thus teaching the valve configured for dispensing a specific dosage. It is further noted however, that Ragnarsson teaches that there is a valve that allows for a specific dosage to be dispensed (see at least paragraph 69).
To therefore modify the combination to configure the flow control valve to dispense a specific dosage of at least the first drink enhancer would have been obvious to one having oirndary skill in the art, for providing controlled dispensing of the desired dose of the drink enhancer.
Regarding claim 26, as discussed above with respect to claim 18 and 19, in view of Ragnarsson, the combination teaches that the first drink enhancer can comprise caffeine.
Response to Arguments
On pages 8-9 of the response, Applicant urges that the prior art does not teach the newly recited claim limitations to claim 1 as presented in the response filed November 11, 2025.
These arguments are not persuasive in view of the rejections as presented in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792