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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/981455, filed on 12/14/2024.
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 protrusion (of the container sidewall) and stepped portion (clam 3) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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 1-6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the additive tray" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The additive tray is not positively recited, as the tumbler is not positively recited prior. Claims 2-6 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected. For the purpose of examination, it shall be interpreted that the container is configured to abut an inner surface and a bottom surface of the additive tray.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the " in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " an inner surface of the additive tray" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “protrusion” and “stepped portion” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “protrusion” and “stepped portion” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Both of these items fail to be identified in the drawings. It is not clear if either of these features are shown in the drawings. There aren't many "protruding surfaces" and further, there is nothing that resembles multiple steps on a sidewall in the drawings. Especially considering a catching jaw and .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101932696 B1) in view of Biba (US 20030019188 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses an additive capsule configured to be inserted into an additive tray of a pumping tumbler for preparing beverages, the pumping tumbler comprising: a drinking water tray configured such that an upper part is open, a lower end is shielded, and a drinking water storage space configured to store drinking water or a beverage is formed therein; a cover unit detachably coupled to the upper part of the drinking water tray, the cover unit being configured to shield the open upper part of the drinking water tray, the cover unit being provided with a drinking hole through which a user can drink the drinking water or the beverage in the drinking water storage space; an additive tray detachably coupled to the lower end of the drinking water tray, the additive tray having formed therein an additive storage space configured to store an additive; and a pumping unit installed in the drinking water tray and the cover unit, the pumping unit being configured to pump the additive in the additive tray through a flow path formed through a bottom surface of the drinking water tray and to supply the additive to drinking water storage space, wherein the additive capsule is configured as a disposable container (100) configured to store an additive, the additive capsule comprises: a container portion (100) abutting an inner surface and a bottom surface of the additive tray.
Examiner Note: The pumping tumbler and associated features are not being positively claimed. These features are mentioned in terms of intended function, however, are not part of the present invention as written.
Lee failed to disclose of a lid film configured to shield an upper surface of the container portion, and the lid film is punched by pressing of the suction pipe. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely disposable beverage container features, Biba taught of heat shrink lid with the intent for a straw to pass through predetermined locations (44, 46). Films in lieu of lids are common in the art. Further, the film of Biba does not require through openings, allowing for a better seal prior to use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of disposable containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lid film as taught by Biba for the lid as disclosed by Lee since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Bibas film creates a better seal as there are no openings for straws (suction pipes) prior to use. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
214
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Lee further discloses wherein a catching jaw (130) and a catching protrusion (protrusions of 240, also antecedent issue, see 112b rejection above) are formed respectively on an outer surface of the container portion and an inner surface of the additive tray at positions corresponding to each other when coupled to each other, and when the additive tray is separated from the drinking water tray, the additive capsule is located in the additive tray.
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Lee further discloses wherein a sidewall of the container portion comprises a protrusion formed as a result of an upper part of an outer circumferential surface thereof protruding outward, and a stepped portion configured to be seated on the inner surface of the additive tray is formed at a boundary of the protrusion.
Examiner Note: See 112b above. It is unclear the feature being described. Can consider one of Lee’s 110s to meet the claimed surfaces.
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 3, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Lee further discloses wherein a seating portion (horizontal portion of 110) configured to be seated on an edge of an upper end of the additive tray is formed at an edge of an upper end of the sidewall.
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 4, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Lee further discloses wherein the seating portion comprises a horizontal plate (horizontal portion of 110) extending outward in parallel from the upper end of the sidewall by a distance corresponding to a thickness of the edge of the upper end of the additive tray. (intended function)
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 5, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Lee further discloses wherein the seating portion further comprises a vertical plate (downward portion of 110) extending downward from an end of the horizontal plate by a predetermined distance.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20210345832-A1 OR US-20190152679-A1 OR US-20090188884-A1 OR US-20140186507-A1 OR US-9745115-B2
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735