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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen (US 2014/0091086) in view of Hall (US 4779722).
Regarding Claim 1, Sorensen discloses a container comprising a first chamber and a second chamber (103) in addition to a liquid chamber (101). As discussed in Sorensen Paragraph 0020, multiple chambers may be used. Therefore, while three smaller containers are not explicitly disclosed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that additional smaller containers may be added to the containers shown in Sorensen as an obvious modification in the duplication of parts that would provide only predictable results in allowing further material to be stored by the container system.
Sorensen also discloses a first seal (104) positioned between the first chamber and the liquid chamber and a second seal (104) positioned between the second chamber and the first chamber. A third seal may be positioned between the second chamber and the third chamber as an obvious variation in the duplication of parts in the further attachment of additional sealed containers.
Sorensen does not disclose the first seal, the second seal, and the third seal are each independently operable to open and close communication between the chambers. Rather, Sorensen discloses that the smaller containers (103) may be detached from the container to add their contents to the beverage container as discussed in Paragraph 0030.
Hall discloses a similar mixing container with a plurality of stacked vertical compartments (2A, 2B, 2C) with seals (10) having individually operable communication means wherein holes (12 and 14) may be brought into registry. Hall also discloses three or more compartments and ingredients may be used in the bottle. Sorensen and Hall are analogous inventions in the art of containers with compartments storing powdered materials for mixing.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container having chambers and a liquid chamber as disclosed in Sorensen to have independently operable seals to open and close communication between the chambers as disclosed in Hall in order to allow a user to selectively choose which compartments to mix in a desired sequence and rate for different contents (Col. 2 Lines 24-35 and Col. 5 Lines 2-42).
Regarding Claim 2, both Sorensen and Hall disclose the chambers and the liquid chamber are vertically stacked chambers.
Regarding Claim 3, both Sorensen and Hall disclose the first chamber and the liquid chamber are directly adjacent to each other, and wherein the second chamber and the first chamber are directly adjacent to each other.
Regarding Claim 4, both Sorensen and Hall disclose a first sidewall surrounds the first chamber and wherein a second sidewall surrounds the second chamber.
Regarding Claim 5, Sorensen discloses an access point is positioned at a first end of the liquid chamber at lid (102). Sorensen also discloses the first seal (104) is positioned at a second end of the liquid chamber, and wherein the second end of the liquid chamber is opposite the first end of the liquid chamber.
Regarding Claim 6, while Sorensen and Hall do not disclose the third chamber is larger than the first chamber, and wherein the third chamber is also larger than the second chamber, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the volumes and dimensions of the smaller chambers may be modified to accommodate differing amounts of contents as desired. Please see MPEP 2144.04 IV Section A for a discussion on the obviousness of changes in size, proportion or shape.
Regarding Claim 7, Hall discloses the first seal, the second seal, and the third seal are each independently rotatable.
Regarding Claim 8, Hall discloses each of the first seal, the second seal, and the third seal are configured to form liquid tight seals in a closed position.
Regarding Claim 9, as discussed above, while the relative sizes of the chambers are not disclosed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the volumes and dimensions of the chambers may be modified to accommodate differing amounts of contents. Sorensen discloses the liquid chamber is positioned at a first end of the container, and wherein an added third chamber may be positioned at a second end of the container opposite the first end.
Regarding Claim 10, as discussed above, Sorensen in view of Hall discloses a container, comprising: a liquid chamber at a first end of the container; a first chamber adjacent to the liquid chamber; a second chamber adjacent to the first chamber; and a third chamber at a second end of the container that is opposite the first end, wherein the first chamber and the second chamber are positioned between the liquid chamber and the third chamber. Furthermore, as discussed above, the relative sizes of the chambers such as the third and first chambers may be modified as an obvious variation in the relative sizes of the chambers.
Regarding Claim 11, as discussed above, Hall discloses a first seal positioned between the first chamber and the liquid chamber; a second seal positioned between the second chamber and the first chamber; and a third seal positioned between the second chamber and the third chamber, wherein the first seal, the second seal, and the third seal are each independently operable to open and close communication between the chambers.
Regarding Claim 12, Hall discloses closed communication between the chambers seals off fluidic communication between the chambers.
Regarding Claim 13, Sorensen and Hall disclose the first chamber, the second chamber, the third chamber, and the liquid chamber are cylindrical (Hall Col. 3 Lines 17-20 and Sorensen Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Sorensen discloses the liquid chamber comprises an access point configured to be a user drinking opening.
Regarding Claim 16, Sorensen discloses the access point comprises a spout structure.
Regarding Claim 17, Sorensen in view of Hall discloses a container, comprising: a liquid chamber; a first chamber, wherein the first chamber is directly adjacent to the liquid chamber; a second chamber, wherein the second chamber is directly adjacent to the first chamber; and a third chamber, wherein the third chamber is directly adjacent to the second chamber, and wherein the first chamber is configured to be selectively sealed off from fluidic communication with the liquid chamber.
Regarding Claim 18, Hall discloses first valve positioned between the first chamber and the liquid chamber; a second valve positioned between the second chamber and the liquid chamber; and a third valve positioned between the third chamber and the liquid chamber.
Regarding Claim 19, Hall discloses the first valve, the second valve, and the third valve are each configured to be independently adjusted between a closed state and an open state.
Regarding Claim 20, a person having ordinary skill would be capable of arranging the valves of Hall at a bottom of the first chamber, wherein the second valve coupled at a bottom of the second chamber, and wherein the third valve is coupled at a bottom of the third chamber to ensure proper selective mixing of the contents.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen (US 2014/0091086) in view of Hall (US 4779722) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Raymus (US 2014/0216959).
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Sorensen discloses the limitations of Claim 10 as discussed above. Modified Sorensen does not disclose a mixing device, wherein a mixing element is fit within the liquid chamber.
Raymus discloses a similar multi-compartment beverage container comprising a mixing device (22) in the form of screens. Modified Sorensen and Raymus are analogous inventions in the art of mixing containers.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Modified Sorensen with the mixing device of Raymus in order to sift the solute and provide means for breaking up clumps in order to achieve a homogeneous mixture (Paragraph 0068).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736