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 Status
Pending claims 1-15 are addressed below.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are positively recited as part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I). For the purpose of compact prosecution, limitations following “preferably” will be addressed as alternative/optional, until further clarification.
Claim 1 recites “the outer surface of the wall” in line 11, which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “its proximal end”, which lacks proper antecedent basis of the claim. It is unclear which component’s proximal end is being referenced.
Claims 2-3, 11 recite “proximal to”. The term “proximal” in claims 2-3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximal” 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.
Claim 11 recites “the longitudinal direction ”, which lacks proper antecedent basis of the claim.
Claim 13 recites “its enclosure”, which lacks proper antecedent basis of the claim. It is unclear which component’s enclosure is being referenced.
Other claim(s) listed in the rejection title is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency upon the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by August (DE202021101790U1, published 7/19/2022). Alternatively, claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by August (WO2022207387A1, filed 3/21/2022).
Regarding claim 1, August discloses a mouthpiece (24; fig. 5) for a scent-based taste drinking system, comprising:
a base portion (lower end portion engaging with 30) connectable to a storage container (30) for drinking liquid which comprises a base surface (see annotation); and
a suction port (22) connected at its proximal end to the base surface and comprising a wall (wall of 22) surrounding a transport channel (channel inside 22) for drinking liquid, a suction opening (top opening of 22) at a distal end of the suction port (22), and an aroma transport channel (23) extending through the wall for transporting aroma from an air-permeable aroma container (10), connectable to the mouthpiece (24), to the transport channel for drinking liquid (inside 22);
a first motion stopper structure (26), preferably a convex shaped structure (see fig. 5, 26 is convex outward from the cylindrical outer wall portion of the suction port), the first motion stopper structure (26) being arranged at the outer surface of the wall of the suction port (22); and
at least one biasing element (see annotation) arranged at the base surface (see annotation) of the base portion or arranged at the suction port (22), and configured to bias an object, preferably the air-permeable aroma container (10) connectable to the mouthpiece (as shown in the figure), in a distal direction away from the base portion (see annotation) and towards and/or against the first motion stopper structure (26).
Regarding claim 2, August discloses the mouthpiece according to claim 1, wherein the at least one biasing element (see annotation below) is arranged on the base surface or suction port at or proximal to an angular position of the suction port at which the aroma transport channel (23) is provided (the annotated “biasing element” extends around the suction port and adjacent aroma channel 23; see fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, August discloses the mouthpiece according to claim 1, wherein the base surface or suction port is without any biasing element located at or proximal to the wall of the suction port (22) substantially circumferentially opposite to the position of the aroma transport channel (28).
Regarding claim 5, August discloses the mouthpiece according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one biasing element (30) and/or the first motion stopper structure (40) are integrally formed with the mouthpiece.
Regarding claim 6, August discloses the mouthpiece according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one biasing element (25 and protrusion extending from the annotated base surface) is a convex element extending from the base surface (see fig. 5), preferably a rounded dome (parts of 25 are rounded dome).
Regarding claim 7, August discloses the mouthpiece according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one biasing element (25 and protrusion extending from the annotated base surface) is substantially hollow to allow the escape of air under a compressive force acting on the at least one biasing element (25 is hollow at the center and in between upward extending dome portion of 25).
Regarding claim 10, August discloses a system of a mouthpiece (24) and an aroma container (10; fig. 5), comprising: an air permeable aroma container (10) which comprises an outlet opening (15) for aromatized air to exit the aroma container; and the mouthpiece (24) according to any of the preceding claims (see rejections above).
Regarding claim 11, August discloses the system according to claim 10, wherein the aroma container (10) is configured to be attachable to the suction port (see fig. 5) of the mouthpiece (24) such that it is displaceable in the longitudinal direction of the suction port (different position as shown in figs. 5a-5b) between an initial position at or proximal to the base surface of the mouthpiece (when cover 27 is on; fig. 5b) wherein the outlet opening (15) is out of alignment with the aroma transport channel (23) and an operating position in abutment with the first motion stopper structure (26) wherein the outlet opening (15) is in alignment with the aroma transport channel (23; as shown in fig. 5a); and
wherein the at least one biasing element is configured to bias the aroma container (10) from the initial position into the operating position (fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 13, August discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the aroma container comprises an air inlet opening (14; fig. 3) arranged in a bottom part (12) of its enclosure; wherein the at least one biasing element (see annotation above) is arranged on the mouthpiece such that the air inlet opening (14) in the operating position is not obstructed by the at least one biasing element (fig. 5a; see airflow arrow shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, August discloses a scent-based taste drinking device, comprising: a storage container (30) for drinking liquid with a filling opening (top opening connected with mouthpiece 24); and the system of a mouthpiece and an aroma container according to any of the claims 10 to 13 (see rejection of claim 10-11 shown above), and preferably a straw in fluid communication with the transport channel for drinking liquid (inside 22) of the mouthpiece, wherein
the mouthpiece (24) is attachable to the filling opening (see figs 5a, 5b) of the storage container (30).
Regarding claim 15, August discloses the scent-based taste drinking device according to claim 14, further comprising:
a lid (27) attachable to the storage container (60), preferably by screwing on the lid (27) onto a thread (“This cover can, for example, be designed as a screw cover and have a screw thread that has multiple threads. The screw cap threads in more easily thanks to the more common screw thread”; end of page 4 and top of page 5) provided on the outer circumference of a cylindrical sidewall close to the filling opening; wherein the lid (27) is configured to shift the aroma container (10) during the attachment of the lid (27) to the storage container (30) against the biasing force of the at least one biasing element from its operating position, or optionally stand-by position, into its initial position (see operating position in fig. 5b and initial position in fig. 5a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 9, 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights