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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that claims 1-15 do not positively recite the bowl. In claim 1, the bowl is recited as an intended use of the nozzle (line 1, “a nozzle control assembly for a bowl…”). Thus, any limitations reciting specific structure of the bowl in claims 1-15 will be considered to be met if the nozzle of the prior art would be capable of attachment to a bowl having the recited structure, whether or not the prior art explicitly teaches a bowl having the recited structure. Claims 16-20 positively recite the bowl and nozzle, and thus structure of the bowl in claims 16-20 will be given patentable weight.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12207669. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are merely broader recitations of the claims of the cited patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 11, 15, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cornelius (US 3540694, hereinafter Cornelius).
Regarding claim 1, Cornelius discloses a nozzle control assembly (figure 1, valve assembly 10) for a bowl (chamber 6) for use with a micro-puree machine, the bowl having a first end, a second end, and a sidewall extending between the first and send ends, the sidewall defining an interior volume of the bowl (chamber 6 would include this structure, or assembly 10 would be fully capable of attaching to a bowl that does), the second end of the bowl including a nozzle (flow passage 24) in fluid communication with an interior of the bowl (see figure 2), the nozzle control assembly comprising:
a stopper (figures 3 and 4, member 12) configured to be arranged in a first position (column 2, lines 50-55), in which the stopper covers the nozzle, and a second position (shown in figure 2), in which the stopper does not cover the nozzle; and
a dial (upper end of member 12 seen in figure 1) rotatable relative to the second end of the bowl, the dial configured to control extrusion of processed ingredients from the interior volume of the bowl through the nozzle (see positions of dial in figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, the bowl and valve of Cornelius would be fully capable of being oriented such that the nozzle is positioned in a vertically downward direction, meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Cornelius discloses a nozzle (figure 1, flow passage 24) that is integrated with the bowl (chamber 6).
Regarding claim 4, Cornelius discloses a nozzle (figure 1, flow passage 24) positioned at the end of the bowl (chamber 6). It is noted that this end could be considered to be the “second end,” meeting the claim.
Claim 11 concerns only a specific structural feature of the bowl. Because the bowl is merely recited as an intended use of the nozzle assembly in claims 1 and 11, and the nozzle assembly of Cornelius would be fully capable of attachment to a bowl having the recited features, the claim is met.
Regarding claim 15, Cornelius discloses the stopper being a cap (figure 2, member 12 acts as a cap for passage 24 when closed).
Regarding claim 16, Cornelius discloses a bowl (figure 2, chamber 6) for use with a micro-puree machine, the bowl comprising:
a first end, a second end, and a sidewall extending between the first and send ends, the sidewall defining an interior volume of the bowl (chamber 6 can be seen to include these structures in figure 2), the second end of the bowl including a nozzle (flow passage 24) in fluid communication with an interior of the bowl (see figure 2);
a stopper (figures 3 and 4, member 12) configured to be arranged in a first position (column 2, lines 50-55), in which the stopper covers the nozzle, and a second position (shown in figure 2), in which the stopper does not cover the nozzle; and
a dial (upper end of member 12 seen in figure 1) rotatable relative to the second end of the bowl, the dial configured to control extrusion of processed ingredients from the interior volume of the bowl through the nozzle (see positions of dial in figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, the bowl and valve of Cornelius would be fully capable of being oriented such that the nozzle is positioned in a vertically downward direction, meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 18, Cornelius discloses a nozzle (figure 1, flow passage 24) that is integrated with the bowl (chamber 6).
Regarding claim 19, Cornelius discloses a nozzle (figure 1, flow passage 24) positioned at the end of the bowl (chamber 6). It is noted that this end could be considered to be the “second end,” meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Cornelius discloses the stopper being a cap (figure 2, member 12 acts as a cap for passage 24 when closed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 12-14 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.
Claim 5 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because, although the prior art discloses a stopper operated by a dial and a hinged plug, the combination of a hinged plug operated by a dial is not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Claim 12 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art does not reasonably disclose, teach, or suggest a pin on the interior of the dial for engaging a cam track on the bowl.
It is noted that, if the subject matter of claim 5 was amended into claim 1, the claim would likely be rejected under statutory double patenting in view of claim 1 of US Patent 12207669.
It is noted that claim 11 would likely contain allowable subject matter if the bowl was positively recited in claims 1 and 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited references generally disclose stoppers to control the flow from containers that use a rotational movement (i.e. a dial) to operate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Claire Wang can be reached on 571-270-1051. 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 C HOWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights