Action on the merits
Notice of AIA status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Restriction not required
This application contains the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1: Reproductions 1.1-1.9
Embodiment 2: Reproductions 2.1-2.9
Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. See In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959). Embodiments that are patentably distinct from one another do not constitute a single inventive concept and thus may not be included in the same design application. See In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm'r Pat. 1967).
The identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. The differences between the appearances of the embodiments are considered minor and patentably indistinct, or are shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art cited. Accordingly, they are deemed to be obvious variations and are being retained and examined in the same application.
Foreign priority
The claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d), 386(a) or (b) to Chinese application number CN-202530401952.3, filed July 10, 2025, is acknowledged however, a the certified copy of the Chinese application does not list the inventor nor the assigns shown in the instant application, as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(a), and the requirements have not been met. The inventor is not named in the document retrieved by the USPTO, and the official USPTO translation of the document (attached) lists the applicant of the Chinese application as, “Fujian Dongxi Lehuo Technology Co., Ltd. The applicant of the instant application is, “Fujian EastWest Lifewit Technology Co., LTD.”
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the non-patent literature (NPL), “Lifewit 1 Gallon Drink Dispenser for Party with Leak-Proof Spigot,” published by Lifewit Home US on or before a June 4, 2025 review with images on Amazon.com (Lifewit), in view of U.S. patent D098,485 to J. M. Travis, published February 4, 1936 (Travis).
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 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 designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
In a proper rejection of a design claim under 35 U.S.C. 103, there must be a reference (the basic design), of something in existence, whose design characteristics are visually similar to the claimed design, in order to support a holding of obviousness. This is the primary reference.
Once such a design has been established, features thereof may reasonably be interchanged with or added from those in other pertinent references—the secondary references—to achieve the claimed design. Such modifications, however, cannot destroy the fundamental characteristics of the basic design reference.
Lifewit shows a beverage dispenser that is visually similar to the claimed design, in that:
Both designs show the top portion of a beverage dispenser with an octagonal shape.
The top of the beverage dispenser part is wider at the top and tapers downward to the bottom surface, in both designs.
Both designs show a visually similar thickness of the top portion of the beverage dispenser.
Both designs have visually similar proportions.
The angles in between the planar surfaces are visually similar in both designs.
PNG
media_image1.png
754
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lifewit differs from the claimed design in that:
The claimed design does not show transparent surfaces, while the beverage dispenser in Lifewit has transparent surfaces.
Travis shows a beverage dispenser with opaque surfaces.
It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed design, to modify Lifewit to be opaque, as demonstrated by Travis.
Travis demonstrates that the modification of this ornamental feature is commonplace in the field of beverage dispenser design, and would therefore have an obvious design choice.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese registration number CN-307802798-S to Yan Zhenxiang, published January 20, 2023 (Yan), in view of U.S. patent D098,485 to J. M. Travis, published February 4, 1936 (Travis).
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 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 designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
In a proper rejection of a design claim under 35 U.S.C. 103, there must be a reference (the basic design), of something in existence, whose design characteristics are visually similar to the claimed design, in order to support a holding of obviousness. This is the primary reference.
Once such a design has been established, features thereof may reasonably be interchanged with or added from those in other pertinent references—the secondary references—to achieve the claimed design. Such modifications, however, cannot destroy the fundamental characteristics of the basic design reference.
Yan shows a beverage dispenser that is visually similar to the claimed design, in that:
Both designs show the top portion of a beverage dispenser with an octagonal shape.
The top of the beverage dispenser part is wider at the top and tapers downward to the bottom surface, in both designs.
Both designs show a visually similar thickness of the top portion of the beverage dispenser.
Both designs have visually similar proportions.
The angles in between the planar surfaces are visually similar in both designs.
PNG
media_image2.png
710
823
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yan differs from the claimed design in that:
The claimed design does not show transparent surfaces, while the top portion of the beverage dispenser in Yan has transparent surfaces.
Travis shows a beverage dispenser with opaque surfaces.
It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed design, to modify Yan to be opaque, as demonstrated by Travis.
Travis demonstrates that the modification of this ornamental feature is commonplace in the field of beverage dispenser design, and would therefore have an obvious design choice.
Overcoming the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
The applicants may attempt to overcome the rejections by:
Persuasively arguing that the claim is patentably distinct over the prior art, or
Amending the claim to patentably distinguish over the prior art, or
Perfecting a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120, or
Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130.
The publication date of the Lifewit primary reference is inside of the one-year grace period afforded to the applicants under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) for disclosures with a prior public availability date. The publication date of the Yan primary reference is outside of the one-year grace period afforded to the applicants under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) for disclosures with a prior public availability date.
Conclusion
The references not relied upon are cited as pertinent to the claimed design. The claim is twice rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARVA P ADAMS whose telephone number is 571-272-6479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, or via video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, George Ulsh, can be reached at 571-270-1433. 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, or for more information, visit www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Visit 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.
/ARVA P ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2922
