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 the Application
Claims 1-8 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 03/14/25 and 6/22/26 have been acknowledged and considered by the Office.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 31 in the reply filed on 6/18/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant identified claims 1-10 as reading on the elected species. However, claims 9-10 read on species 9, 10, and 11. Therefore, claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to:
because spring 1233 appears to pass through a solid wall in Fig. 12e.
as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1224.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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 6 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.
As per claim 6, the limitation “the one or more measurement indicators” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4856681 to Murray.
As per claim 1, Murray discloses an ingredient dispenser for dispensing a measured amount of dry ingredient comprising:
a receptacle (10) configured to contain the dry ingredient;
an actuating portion (20, 30, 50, 56) engageable with the receptacle, the actuating portion comprising a funnel (20) and a valve (50, 56); and
a measuring chamber (70) engageable with the actuating portion,
wherein the funnel is configured to accumulate at least a portion of the dry ingredient from the receptacle (Fig. 2), and wherein the funnel is insertable into the valve (Fig. 2) to dispense the accumulated dry ingredient into the measuring chamber (Fig. 2).
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3232498 to Bennett.
As per claim 1, Bennett discloses an ingredient dispenser for dispensing a measured amount of dry ingredient comprising:
a receptacle (12) configured to contain the dry ingredient;
an actuating portion (14, 20, 33) engageable with the receptacle, the actuating portion comprising a funnel (14) and a valve (20, 33); and
a measuring chamber (42) engageable with the actuating portion,
wherein the funnel is configured to accumulate at least a portion of the dry ingredient from the receptacle (Fig. 3), and wherein the funnel is insertable into the valve (Fig. 3) to dispense the accumulated dry ingredient into the measuring chamber (Col. 3, ¶ 5).
As per claim 3, Bennett further discloses the measuring chamber is configured to be removably engageable with the actuating portion to permit dispensing of the dry ingredient from the measuring chamber (Col. 3, Ln. 28-30; Fig. 3).
As per claim 8, Bennett further discloses the actuating portion is engageable with the receptacle via an interference fit (Fig. 3).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3232498 to Bennett in view of Official Notice.
As per claim 2, Bennett discloses the claimed invention except for the measuring chamber including a lid portion. However, the office makes Official Notice that containers with removable lids are old and well known in the art and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill at the time the application was effectively filed to provide the measuring chamber of Bennett with a removable lid configured to be opened to permit dispensing of the dry ingredient from the measuring chamber and to removably close the top opening for reasons including to prevent contamination of the interior of the measuring chamber.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4856681 to Murray in view of US 20220111991 to Wilson.
As per claim 5, Murray discloses the claimed invention except for the valve being a cross-slit valve. Wilson teaches a reusable food pouch comprising a one-way slit valve (12).\ It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Murray according to the aforementioned teachings from Wilson for reasons including to provide a one-way valve.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3232498 to Bennett in view of US 6796343 to Kelsey et al.
As per claim 6, one or more measurement indicators include one or more volume markings located on the measuring chamber configured to indicate a numeric value associated with the measurement volume of the measuring chamber. Kelsey teaches a dispenser for dispensing a measured amount of fluid comprising a measuring chamber (2) having measurement indicators including one or more volume markings (18) located on the measuring chamber configured to indicate a numeric value associated with the measurement volume of the measuring chamber (Col. 2, Ln. 52-58). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Bennett according to the aforementioned teachings from Kelsey to indicate a volume of contents received into the measuring chamber.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3232498 to Bennett in view of US 6662972 to Chu.
As per claim 7, Bennett discloses the claimed invention except for the measuring chamber having an adjustable capacity. Chu teaches a dispenser comprising an adjustable capacity measuring chamber (2; Col. 2, Ln. 53-55). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Bennett according to the aforementioned teachings from Chu for reasons including to control a volume of contents received into the measuring chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 4 the closest prior arts of record (US 3232498 and US 4856681 to Murray) fail to disclose, either alone or in any combination, an invention according to claim 4.
Specifically, with regard to claim 4 the prior art of record does not disclose, either alone or in any combination, an ingredient dispenser comprising inter alia: a receptacle configured to contain dry ingredient and an actuating portion engageable with the receptacle and comprising a funnel and a valve, and a measuring chamber engageable with the actuating portion and the funnel is insertable into the valve to dispense the dry ingredient into the measuring chamber, and the actuating portion includes a biasing element wherein the biasing element is configured to remove the funnel from the valve in the absence of a force applied from a user to insert the funnel into the valve.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 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 Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights