The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Restriction/Election
The Examiner acknowledges the response to restriction requirement on 5/26/2026 where the Applicant elected Group II: Claims 18-21 without traverse. In doing so, the Applicant canceled Claims 1-17 and added new Claims 22-36.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the central portion, the variable pressure region 306, the contraction section 308, the throat section 310, and the diffusion section 312 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The claimed drying elements 300, proximal end portion 302, and distal end portion 304 in Figure 5 are inconsistent with its labeling Figures 8 and 9. Therefore, drying elements 300, proximal end portion 302, and distal end portion 304 must be clearly shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, ALL the drying elements 300 as labeled in Figures 8 and 9 must have proximal end portion 302, and distal end portion 304. For example, as best shown in the Figure 9 the topmost drying elements 300 shares the proximal end portion 302 with the centermost drying element 300. However, for the topmost drying element the proximal end portion 302 is actually the distal end portion 304. Therefore, the drawings are not consistent with the claimed subject matter. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In Paragraph [00120] the drying element is incorrectly identified as 310. Appropriate correction is required
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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “elongate member” in Claims 18, 27, 28, and 36, “drying member” in Claims 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, and 27, “drying device” in Claim 23, “tip element” in Claims 23 and 33, “cylindrical centering element” in Claims 26 and 35, “cleaning member” in Claims 28, 29, 31, and 34-36, and “cleaning device” in Claim 33.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 22, 23, 27, 32, 33, and 36 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the contraction section". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a contraction section has not been previously claimed.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the throat section". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a throat section has not been previously claimed.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the drying device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a drying device has not been previously claimed.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the first drying member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a first drying member has not been previously claimed.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the contraction section". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a contraction section has not been previously claimed.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the throat section". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a throat section has not been previously claimed.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the cleaning device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a cleaning device has not been previously claimed.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the first cleaning member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a first cleaning member has not been previously claimed.
Claims 18-36 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The Applicant’s claims rely upon the structure of a central portion, a variable pressure region, a contraction section, a throat section, and a diffusion section, however, the Applicant’s disclosure fails to clearly identify, or provides conflicting details of the invention, making the scope of the claim language indefinite since the subject matter is not distinctly identified.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 18-20, 23, 24, 26-30, and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seltz US 2017/0216890 (hereafter Seltz).
Regarding Claim 18, Seltz teaches:
18. (Original) A kit (see discussion below) comprising: a beverage container (reusable drinking vessel) comprising a drinking straw (straw 100); and an elongate member (drinking straw cleaning system 200) configured for advancement through a lumen of the drinking straw (Figures 5A-5C); at least one drying member (one of three flaps 206 shown in Figure 3 removes fluid from inside the straw promoting drying) coupled to a portion of the elongate member (Figure 3), wherein the drying member comprises distal (labeled in attached figure below) and proximal (labeled in attached figure below) end portions and a central portion (labeled in attached figure below) between the distal and proximal end portions (shown in attached figure below); and wherein the central portion is shaped to create a pressure gradient along the central portion from the distal end portion to the proximal end portion (due to sliding of the flaps 206 against the interior walls or surfaces of the straw 100).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Seltz discloses in Paragraph [0003] that “many reusable drinking vessels are provided with drinking straws” and that “Further, if the straw is a reusable straw, then a user need to clean the straw before using it again. It is difficult to clean the straw if the straw is used for a drink that is sticky in nature. It would be a benefit, therefore, to have a drinking straws cleaning system that could be used to thoroughly clean a fluid passageway or hollow cavity of a drinking straw.” Therefore, Seltz anticipates a reusable beverage container that includes a reusable straw that needs to be periodically cleaned. Seltz additionally discloses a device that is specifically designed for cleaning reusable straws. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to package the Seltz straw cleaning device with a reusable beverage container and a reusable straw specifically sized to match the dimensions of the straw cleaning device with the motivation to ensure that the straw cleaning device could be sold commercially knowing that it would perform as well as possible when combined with a beverage container and a properly sized reusable straw.
Regarding Claim 19, Seltz teaches:
19. (Original) The kit of claim 18, wherein the pressure gradient (due to sliding of the flaps 206 against the interior walls or surfaces of the straw 100) causes an increase in a relative velocity between the drying member (one of three flaps 206 shown in Figure 3) and fluid and air within the lumen as the drying member is advanced through the lumen (Figures 5A-5C).
Regarding Claim 20, Seltz teaches:
20. (Original) The kit of claim 18, wherein the pressure gradient (due to sliding of the flaps 206 against the interior walls or surfaces of the straw 100) causes an increase in shear stress between fluid and air in the lumen and an internal wall of the lumen (due to sliding of the flaps 206 against the interior walls or surfaces of the straw 100).
Regarding Claim 23, Seltz teaches:
23. (New) The kit of claim 18, wherein the drying device (overall device shown in Figure 3) further comprises a tip element (labeled in attached figure above) having a substantially cylindrical shape (shown in Figure 3) and sized to advance through the lumen of the drinking straw (Figures 5A-5C).
Regarding Claim 24, Seltz teaches:
24. (New). The kit of claim 18, wherein the central portion (labeled in attached figure below) of the drying member (one of three flaps 206 shown in Figure 3) comprises a first tapered region (labeled in attached figure below) extending inwardly toward the distal end portion (shown in attached figure below) and a second tapered region (labeled in attached figure below) extending inwardly toward the proximal end portion (shown in attached figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
377
410
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 26, Seltz teaches:
26. (New) The kit of claim 18, further comprising a cylindrical centering element (labeled in attached figure in Claim 1) coupled to the drying member (one of three flaps 206 shown in Figure 3) for centering the drying member as the drying member is advanced through the lumen of the drinking straw (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 27, Seltz teaches:
27. (New) The kit of claim 18, further comprising a second drying member (labeled in attached figure in Claim 1) coupled to a second portion (labeled in attached figure in Claim 1) of the elongate member (drinking straw cleaning system 200), wherein the second drying member comprises distal (labeled in attached figure in Claim 1) and proximal (labeled in attached figure in Claim 1) end portions and a central portion (labeled in attached figure in Claim 1) between the distal and proximal end portions and wherein the central portion is shaped to create a pressure gradient along the central portion from the distal end portion to the proximal end portion (due to sliding of the flaps 206 against the interior walls or surfaces of the straw 100), wherein the proximal end portion of the second drying member is coupled to the distal end portion of the first drying member (through connection to drinking straw cleaning system 200 as shown in attached figure in Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 28, Seltz teaches:
28. (New) A kit comprising: a beverage container (reusable drinking vessel) comprising a drinking straw (straw 100); and an elongate member (drinking straw cleaning system 200) configured for advancement through a lumen of the drinking straw (Figures 5A-5C); at least one cleaning member (one of three flaps 206 shown in Figure 3 cleans the inside the straw) coupled to a portion of the elongate member (Figure 3), wherein the cleaning member comprises distal (labeled in attached figure below) and proximal (labeled in attached figure below) end portions and a central portion (labeled in attached figure below) between the distal and proximal end portions (shown in attached figure below); and wherein the central portion is shaped to create a pressure gradient along the central portion from the distal end portion to the proximal end portion (due to sliding of the flaps 206 against the interior walls or surfaces of the straw 100).
PNG
media_image3.png
465
858
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Seltz discloses in Paragraph [0003] that “many reusable drinking vessels are provided with drinking straws” and that “Further, if the straw is a reusable straw, then a user need to clean the straw before using it again. It is difficult to clean the straw if the straw is used for a drink that is sticky in nature. It would be a benefit, therefore, to have a drinking straws cleaning system that could be used to thoroughly clean a fluid passageway or hollow cavity of a drinking straw.” Therefore, Seltz anticipates a reusable beverage container that includes a reusable straw that needs to be periodically cleaned. Seltz additionally discloses a device that is specifically designed for cleaning reusable straws. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to package the Seltz straw cleaning device with a reusable beverage container and a reusable straw specifically sized to match the dimensions of the straw cleaning device with the motivation to ensure that the straw cleaning device could be sold commercially knowing that it would perform as well as possible when combined with a beverage container and a properly sized reusable straw.
Regarding Claim 29, Seltz teaches:
29. (Original) The kit of claim 28, wherein the pressure gradient (due to sliding of the flaps 206 against the interior walls or surfaces of the straw 100) causes an increase in a relative velocity between the cleaning member (one of three flaps 206 shown in Figure 3) and fluid and air within the lumen as the cleaning member is advanced through the lumen (Figures 5A-5C).
Regarding Claim 30, Seltz teaches:
30. (Original) The kit of claim 28, wherein the pressure gradient (due to sliding of the flaps 206 against the interior walls or surfaces of the straw 100) causes an increase in shear stress between fluid and air in the lumen and an internal wall of the lumen (due to sliding of the flaps 206 against the interior walls or surfaces of the straw 100).
Regarding Claim 33, Seltz teaches:
33. (New) The kit of claim 28, wherein the cleaning device (overall device shown in Figure 3) further comprises a tip element (labeled in attached figure in Claim 28) having a substantially cylindrical shape (shown in Figure 3) and sized to advance through the lumen of the drinking straw (Figures 5A-5C).
Regarding Claim 34, Seltz teaches:
34. (New). The kit of claim 28, wherein the central portion (labeled in attached figure below) of the cleaning member (one of three flaps 206 shown in Figure 3) comprises a first tapered region (labeled in attached figure below) extending inwardly toward the distal end portion (shown in attached figure below) and a second tapered region (labeled in attached figure below) extending inwardly toward the proximal end portion (shown in attached figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
479
512
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 35, Seltz teaches:
35. (New) The kit of claim 28, further comprising a cylindrical centering element (labeled in attached figure in Claim 28) coupled to the cleaning member (one of three flaps 206 shown in Figure 3) for centering the cleaning member as the cleaning member is advanced through the lumen of the drinking straw (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 36, Seltz teaches:
36. (New) The kit of claim 28, further comprising a second cleaning member (labeled in attached figure in Claim 28) coupled to a second portion (labeled in attached figure in Claim 28) of the elongate member (drinking straw cleaning system 200), wherein the second cleaning member comprises distal and proximal end portions and a central portion between the distal (labeled in attached figure in Claim 28) and proximal (labeled in attached figure in Claim 28) end portions and wherein the central portion (labeled in attached figure in Claim 28) is shaped to create a pressure gradient along the central portion from the distal end portion to the proximal end portion (due to sliding of the flaps 206 against the interior walls or surfaces of the straw 100), wherein the proximal end portion of the second cleaning member is coupled to the distal end portion of the first cleaning member (through connection to drinking straw cleaning system 200 as shown in attached figure in Claim 28).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of straw cleaning devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights