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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-11, 13-15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 Line 4 could read, “…cups are arranged near a center of the base.”
Claim 13 Line 4 could read, “…a vertical direction between a top side ….”
Claim 20 Line 3 could read, “…are arranged near a center of the base ….”
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "such as" [Line 3] renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaughn (10,010,203).
Re Claim 1, Vaughn – a beverage coaster – discloses a system [Fig. 1], comprising: a cup holding unit including a body [101] defining a cavity, a cup holder positioned on the body, wherein the cup holder is configured to receive a cup [100], a basket [104] positioned in the cavity on the body, wherein the basket is removable [by pegs 106] from the cavity on the body, wherein the basket extends around the cup holder, and wherein the basket is configured to catch liquid that spills when pouring into the cup [through sponge 102, Col. 2 Lines 59-63].
Re Claim 2, Vaughn discloses the basket defines multiple perforations [103]; and the perforations allow liquid to drain from the basket into the cavity on the body [Col. 2 Lines 59-63].
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughn as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Easley (533,584).
Vaughn does not expressly disclose that the body includes multiple pegs extending into the cavity; and the pegs are configured to disrupt the flow of liquid such as to inhibit the liquid from splashing. However, Easley – a lemon squeezer – discloses multiple pegs [Easley, C] extending into the cavity; and the pegs are configured to disrupt the flow of liquid such as to inhibit the liquid from splashing [Easley, Page 1 Col. 1 Line 51 to Col. 2 Line 59]. The examiner notes the pegs allow for the pulp to stay on the top of the squeezer, while the pegs allow for the flow of the liquid into the catcher. The Applicant believes the claimed invention has an improvement over the prior art, when the prior art discloses the pegs are able to allow for smooth flow of liquid to prevent splashing. See MPEP 2143 (I)(C). One of ordinary skill would be able to modify the body of the Vaughn beverage coaster to have pegs to allow for the flow of liquid into the catcher, before the effective filing date of the invention with predictable and obvious results, to allow the liquid to flow into the catcher without spilling.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11 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.
Re Claim 4, the prior art discloses most of the claimed invention. However, the prior art does not expressly disclose a suction cup positioned under the body; and wherein the suction cup is configured to secure the body in place against a surface during pouring.
Re Claim 9, the prior art discloses most of the claimed invention. However, the prior art does not expressly disclose that the base is mounted to multiple suction cups; one or more of the suction cups are arranged along a perimeter of the base; and one or more of the suction cups are arranged near the center of the base.
Claims 12-20 appear to have allowable subject matter. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Re Claim 12, the prior art discloses most of the claimed invention. However, the prior art does not expressly disclose that the spout is rotatable from the body, wherein the spout allows liquid to flow when rotated away from the body, and wherein the spout prevents liquid from flowing when rotated into the body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1893. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
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-Bosques 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.
/ROBERT J HICKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736