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 .
Status of Claims
Amendment to the Claims was filed on 4/30/2026.
Claims 2 and 3 were canceled.
Claims 1, 4-6 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The Showalter embodiment of Fig. 35C features a sloped floor (125). However, a flat bottom combined with a sloped floor (a combination of the Showalter embodiment of Fig. 35C and the Showalter embodiment of Fig. 14) cannot concentrate all the residual ingredients. Instead, it guides the ingredients via the sloped floor to the flat bottom where the auger or lifting silo is located. In other words, the flat bottom with a sloped floor does not resolve the issue of ensuring that all residual liquid at the flat bottom can be fed out of the canister through the feeding pipeline”, In response to applicant's argument the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. “concentrate all the residual ingredients” and “complete removal of all residual ingredients by concentrating them into the funnel-shaped bottom and facilitating their discharge through the feeding pipeline that extends to the funnel-shaped bottom, thereby avoiding waste of the ingredients”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Amendment to the Claims filed on 4/30/2026 obviates the necessity of the 112(b) or 112 Second paragraph rejections raised in the office action mailed on 3/2/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Showalter US 10259699 (“Showalter”).
Regarding Claim 1, Showalter discloses a canister system (50, fig, 14), comprising a rack (guides 70a-c in chambers 52 for supporting the canisters 10), at least one canister (10), an ingredient storage box (83, canister with carbonated fluid), and a pipeline system (21, 85 with inlet and outlets 22, 22b, and 22c), wherein a refrigeration chamber (52) is provided in the rack (guides 70a-c in chambers 52 for supporting the canisters 10), the canister (10) is stored in the refrigeration chamber (52), and the canister (10) is communicated with the ingredient storage box (carbonated fluid 83) through the pipeline system (21, 85), and wherein the canister comprises a canister body (23), a canister cover (upper surface of canister 10) which is installed on the canister body (23), and a feeding pipeline (21) which is installed on the canister cover (upper surface of canister 10, see fig. 26) and is communicated with the pipeline system; and wherein the bottom of the canister body is funnel-shaped (embodiment of fig. 12, illustrates a flat bottom and fails to illustrate a funnel shaped lower end), and a feeding pipe (21) extends to the bottom of the canister body (23), and a quick connector (col. 9 lines 20-26, “What is important is the V-shape (e.g., funnel shape)).
The bubble tea machine is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 4 Showalter discloses the lower end of the canister body (23) is provided with a discharge port (57), and the canister further includes an end cover (see fig. 40C), which is screwed at the discharge port (57). Showalter discloses embodiments with an upper discharge port and a lower discharge port. Showalter fig. 40C illustrates a lower discharge port cap 57 and a discharge port safety valve 113a. Fig. 40C does not illustrate the connections of the valve, discharge port, or cover cap nor are they discussed in the specification. However, the discharge port, valve (113a) and “screw on connection of the cap are illustrated in figs. 36A and 36B and discussed in col. 21 lines 59-64, “FIGS. 36A-36B illustrate side views of a drink container or keg with a screw-on cap, two couplings, two safety valves, and well tube 22, according to an aspect.”
Regarding Claim 5, Showalter discloses the canister body further comprises a handle (132, fig. 36E), which is installed on the side of the canister body (see fig. 36E).
Regarding Claim 6, Showalter discloses the canister cover is provided with a canister door (top lid 53) which is hinged (hinges 60, col. 11 lines 22-25) with the canister cover (upper surface of canister 10, see fig. 12).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Daphne Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-9966 and fax number is (571) 273-9966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9 AM-6 PM (eastern).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor either Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/DAPHNE M BARRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights