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 1-10 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
identify the following terms in the specification by reference to the drawings, designating the corresponding part or parts therein to which each term applies: “second discharging port” and “discharging shroud” and “first discharging port” and “guiding part” and “dispensing plate”.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“first hinging point” (claim 2)
“guiding part” (claim 2)
“connecting portion” (claim 2)
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
In regards to claim 2, claim limitations “guiding part” and “connecting portion” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses generic placeholders “part” and “portion” and coupled with functional language “guiding” and “connecting” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
As per claim 1, the limitation “the bottom” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Further as per claim 1, the limitation “which is provided with a first discharging port” is ambiguous. Specifically, it is unclear to what particular structure the term “which” refers.
As per claim 2, the following limitations lack antecedent basis in the claims: “the top […] of the accommodating cavity” and “the […] bottom of the accommodating cavity” and “the side wall” and “the accommodating cavity” and “the first hinging point” and “the bottom of the U-shaped accommodating portion” and “the bottoms of the two side walls”.
Further, as per claim 2, claim limitations “guiding part” and “connecting portion” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Further as per claim 2, the limitation “a second discharging port” appears to be a double inclusion not supported by the specification.
As per claim 4, the limitation “the shape” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
As per claim 5, the limitation “the second hinging point” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
As per claim 6, the limitation “the front side of the second transmission part” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
As per claim 7, the following limitations lack antecedent basis in the claims “the bottom of the second transmission part” and “the top rear side of the sealing slide groove”.
Further as per claim 7, the limitation “food-grade material” is ambiguous. Specifically, there appears no standard by which to measure “food-grade” and the scope of the limitation cannot be determined.
As per claim 9, the terms “bottom” and “top” have unclear antecedent basis. A correction may include: “the handle is a frustum structure that gradually tapers from a bottom of the frustum structure to a top of the frustum structure”.
As per claim 10, the following limitations lack antecedent basis in the claims: “the side of the discharging tray” and “the side” and “U-shaped accommodating portion”.
Further as per claim 10, the limitation “”
Claims 3-8 depend from claim 2 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 6-8 depend from claim 5 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 7-8 depend from claim 5 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
In view of the numerous informalities and indefiniteness issues noted above, although a search of the prior art has been conducted, no meaningful application of prior art against claims 2-8 can be made at this time. This should not be taken as an indication that the claims would be allowable if all of the noted issues are corrected. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of 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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3052381 to Carpigiani.
As per claim 1, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Carpigiani discloses a discharging mechanism for a cold drink dispenser, comprising:
a discharging tray (2), a casing (F), and a handle (13);
the discharging tray is installed on the casing (Fig. 3), the handle is installed on the discharging tray (Fig. 1 & 3), the discharging tray is provided with a second discharging port (6), and the bottom of the discharging tray is provided with a discharging shroud (see Figure A - below) which is provided with a first discharging port (see Figure A - below), and the first discharging port is connected and communicates with the second discharging port (Fig. 3);
the bottom of the handle is provided with a sealing member (14) and a transmission assembly (9), the transmission assembly connects the handle and the sealing member (Fig. 3), the transmission assembly is used to control the movement of the sealing member, and the sealing member is used to control the opening and closing of the second discharging port (Col. 2, ¶ 8; Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
403
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: US 3052381, Fig. 3 - annotated
As per claim 9, Carpigiani further discloses the handle is a frustum structure that gradually tapers from bottom to top (Fig. 1 and 3).
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8496141 to McKay et al.
As per claim 1, and as the examiner can understand the claim, McKay discloses a discharging mechanism for a cold drink dispenser, comprising:
a discharging tray (14), a casing (16), and a handle (23);
the discharging tray is installed on the casing (Fig. 2), the handle is installed on the discharging tray (Fig. 2), the discharging tray is provided with a second discharging port (16), and the bottom of the discharging tray is provided with a discharging shroud (41) which is provided with a first discharging port (see Figure B - below), and the first discharging port is connected and communicates with the second discharging port (Col. 2, Ln. 57-67);
the bottom of the handle is provided with a sealing member (39) and a transmission assembly (24), the transmission assembly connects the handle and the sealing member (Fig. 2), the transmission assembly is used to control the movement of the sealing member, and the sealing member is used to control the opening and closing of the second discharging port (Col. 3, ¶ 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
659
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: US 8496141, Fig. 2 - annotated
As per claim 10, and as the examiner can understand the claim, McKay further discloses wherein a top of a U-shaped accommodating portion is provided with an avoidance slope, which inclines downwards and away from a side of the discharging tray (see Figure C - below).
PNG
media_image3.png
625
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure C: US 8496141, Fig. 1A – annotated
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
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights