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
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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-15, 17, 33, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakos (US 10716426B2) in view of Ross (US 9706874B1).
Yakos discloses in reference to claim:
1. (Original) A French press assembly 20 configured to be secured to a container 38, the French press assembly comprising:
a lid assembly 36 configured to mate with a top portion of the container, the lid assembly comprising:
a lid, a connect rod 66 configured to slide within the lid;
a handle 98 connected to a first end of the connect rod; and
a base assembly 42 connected to the connect rod, the base assembly comprising:
a plunger comprising a plunger body 44, a filter 80, and a threaded portion 64, the threaded portion configured to connect to a second end of the connect rod at 96, a circular valve 82 (note that the valve 82 is considered circular in that it presents as substantially circular in form—further note Yakos discloses that the valve 82 includes at least one flap that is movable in response to pressure—noting the use of a valve having just a single unitary flap would take the form of a circle) configured to overlay a circumference of the filter, wherein while plunging (see figure 5), the valve is configured to deform as a user applies a downward force on the handle and wherein the filter is configured to block grounds as a liquid beverage passes through the filter.
PNG
media_image1.png
1171
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
937
765
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yakos does not explicitly disclose the new claim limitations of wherein the circular valve comprises a continuous circular outer perimeter .
Note that Yakos discloses the use of substantially circular valve, wherein the depicted embodiment provides a plurality of pie shaped flaps. Yakos further discloses the a single (unitary) flap may also be envisioned.
Ross discloses a similar pressing device including:
Movably resting on the fixed filter 150 is a flat movable flapper valve 160 having a round base sized to fit within the opening 142 of soft flexible press stopper 140 and rest over filter 150. The movable flapper valve 160 has a central opening 162. A threaded shaft 180 or rivet extends through a first thread washer or nut 190 positioned below filter 250, extends through opening 152 in filter 150, extends through opening 162 in flat movable flapper valve 160 and a second threaded washer or nut 192 resting above flat movable flapper valve 160. The threaded shaft 180 extends to and is connected to an elongated shaft 182 terminating in a round handle 186 for the complete apparatus 110.
PNG
media_image3.png
1059
912
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Since Yakos teaches the optional configuration of a valve having a single flap, and Ross teaches a similar device using a single flap valve having a continuous circular outer perimeter and resting on a mesh filter, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to substitute the circular valve of Ross in the Yakos device at least under KSR rationale A, B or C.
2. (Original) The French press assembly of claim 1, wherein the lid includes a lid rim A, a base surface B, and a sidewall C between the base surface and the lid rim, and wherein the lid rim comprises ridge portions A, D.
PNG
media_image4.png
629
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
3. (Original) The French press assembly of claim 2, wherein a surface of the lid rim and the base surface of the lid extend parallel to each other.
Note that Yakos discloses portions of the surface of the lid rim and portions of the base surface as parallel, however, a change in the shape of the lid rim and base is generally considered to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan at least from an aesthetic design perspective.
4. (Original) The French press assembly of claim 2, wherein a knob extends upwardly from the base surface of the lid and wherein the knob comprises an opening for receiving the connect rod, and wherein the handle rests on the knob when the handle is in a downward position.
Yakos discloses a knob extending down from the base surface. A change in the positioning of the knob, either extending upwardly or downwardly from the base surface is a modification well within the ordinary skill of the artisan. One of skill in the art may be motivated to place the knob extending upwardly in the Yakos device (as depicted below in examiner modified fig. 6) to abut the downwardly presented knob of the handle 98 in order to prevent the handle portion 98 from recessing too far into recess 106 making it difficult for the user to use.
PNG
media_image5.png
1258
944
media_image5.png
Greyscale
5. (Original) The French press assembly of claim 4, wherein the opening of the knob comprises a vent, wherein the vent is configured to prevent glugging when pouring a beverage from the container. Note that “vent” is an intended use of the hole that does not serve to distinguish from the prior art having a hole–noting that Yakos shows in figure 6 a space around the rod 66 and hole that would serve to vent air therethrough)
6. (Original) The French press assembly of claim 5, wherein the connect rod is configured to slide within the vent. Note that the connecting rod 66 is configured to slide within the hole which may act as a vent.
7. (Original) The French press assembly of claim 1, wherein the plunger body includes one or more spokes that extend from a central portion to an outer portion and wherein the one or more spokes support the filter, and wherein the circular valve is positioned above the one or more spokes and the filter. See Figure 9 of Yakos and Fig. 18 of Ross combining to teach the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image6.png
954
795
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
236
747
media_image7.png
Greyscale
8. (Original) The French press assembly of claim 1, wherein the valve includes a valve hole located in a radial center, wherein the connect rod is configured to extend through the valve hole. See Figure 9
9. (Original) The French press assembly of claim 1, wherein the base assembly further comprises a wiper gasket 68 portion extending around a perimeter of the plunger. See Figure 9
11. (Original) The French press assembly of claim 1, wherein the circular valve is formed of an elastomeric material. Note that Ross teaches the use of elastomeric material for the circular valve. The movable flapper valve can be made out of material selected from the group consisting of silicone and rubber.
12. (Original) A French press assembly configured to be secured to a container, the French press assembly comprising:
a lid assembly configured to mate with a top portion of the container, the lid assembly comprising:
a lid 36 and a connect rod 66 configured to slide within the lid, wherein the lid further comprises:
a lid rim A comprising ridge portions A, D,
a recessed surface 106 adjacent to the lid rim, a base surface 104 adjacent to the recessed surface, the base surface includes comprising a knob extending upwardly from the base surface, the knob comprising a hole located at a radial center of the base surface, wherein the hole is configured to receive the connect rod, and the connect rod is configured to pass through the hole, wherein the hole also forms a vent (note that vent is an intended use of the hole that does not serve to distinguish from the prior art –noting that Yakos shows in figure 6 a space around the rod 66 and hole that would serve to vent air therethrough) , and
a handle 98 connected to a first end of the connect rod; wherein the handle rests on the knob when the handle is in a downward position; and
a base assembly 42 configured to connect to the lid assembly through the connect rod, the base assembly comprising:
a plunger that includes a plunger body 44, a filter 80, and a threaded portion 64 located on an inner rim of the plunger body, the threaded portion configured to connect to a second end of the connect rod at 96, wherein the plunger body includes one or more spokes 52 that extend from the inner rim to an outer rim, wherein the filter is supported by the one or more spokes within the plunger body; a circular valve 88 configured to cover the filter. See claims 1 , 4, mutatis mutandis
13. (Original) The French press assembly of claim 12, wherein the second end of the connect rod includes a second threaded portion to threadedly connect to and attach to the base assembly. See claim 1 mutatis mutandis
14. (Original) The French press assembly of claim 12, wherein the one or more spokes are located equidistant around the plunger body. See figure 9
15. (Original) The French press assembly of claim 12, wherein the valve includes a valve body with a valve hole located in a radial center of the valve body, wherein the connect rod is configured to extend through the valve hole. See Figure 9
17. (Original) The French press assembly of claim 12, wherein the circular valve is formed of an elastomeric material.
Note that Ross teaches the use of elastomeric material for the circular valve. The movable flapper valve can be made out of material selected from the group consisting of silicone and rubber.
33. (New) The French press assembly of claim 12, wherein the circular valve comprises a continuous circular outer perimeter. See claim 1, mutatis mutandis
34. (New) The French press assembly of claim 12 wherein the circular valve is positioned above the one or more spokes and the filter. See claim 1, mutatis mutandis
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-32 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc
