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 .
Detailed Correspondence
Foreign Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on People’s Republic of China Patent Application No. CN202530401964 is acknowledged. The certified copy has been received.
Restriction Not Required
This application contains the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1 - Figs. 1.1-1.9 Directed to a base unit for household drink dispenser having an octagonal shape with flat faces and curved portions connecting the flat faces of the sidewalls, and a disclaimed central element
Embodiment 2 - Figs. 2.1-2.9 Directed to a base unit for household drink dispenser having a hexagonal shape with flat faces and curved portions connecting the flat faces of the sidewalls, and a disclaimed central element
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 above-identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are basically the same. The mere choice of one well-known geometric form rather than another equally well known, which does not in any way modify the other portions of a design, cannot support a patent. In re Hopkins 390 O.G. 5; 3 USPQ 112 (1929). Furthermore, 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.
Specification
The Specification is objected to because Reproduction 1.9 and 2.9 are described as Reference views. “Reference view” is not understood to have any special meaning in U.S. practice. Examiner suggests amending the descriptions of Reproduction 1.9 and 2.9 to:
--perspective view--
General Information Pertaining to the Rejections Below
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 present application contains multiple embodiments. The rejections below apply to each embodiment because the embodiments contain well known geometric forms. The mere choice of one well-known geometric form rather than another equally well known, which does not in any way modify the other portions of a design, cannot support a patent. In re Hopkins 390 O.G. 5; 3 USPQ 112 (1929).
A design may be embodied in less than the entire article, In re Zhan, 204 USPQ 988 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it is reasonable to compare such a design to prior art embodied in less than an entire article. The examiner has done so in the following rejection.
Claim Rejection 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 section102, 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 claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lifewit 1 Gallon Drink Dispenser for Parties with Fruit Infuser, (hereafter Lifewit Dispenser with Infuser), citation U on the attached PTO-892, Amazon Review Date of June 09, 2025, in view of Foreign Patent No. CN307802798S (hereafter Yan), published on 01/20/2023, Foreign Patent Document R on Examiner’s Notice of References, page 1.
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.
The Lifewit Dispenser with Infuser reference has design characteristics that are visually similar to those of the claimed design. Lifewit Dispenser with Infuser is identical to the claimed design except that Lifewit Dispenser with Infuser has a transparent base instead of an opaque base, which is not an inventive difference and does not constitute a patentably distinct design. Only difference between patented and prior art designs is one of materials of manufacture and not of design, Ace Fastener Corp. v. U.S., 125 USPQ 143 (1960).
PNG
media_image1.png
950
1611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 the transparent surface of Lifewit Dispenser with Infuser with Yan by substituting the base’s opaque surface of Yan because such a modification is one that the ordinarily skilled designer’s experience, relativity, and common sense would employ which are commonplace in the relevant field of endeavor. Additionally, such a modification is no more than a simple substitution of surface ornamentation over an article of manufacture. This substitution is a known feature that is commonplace in the field of drink dispensers (base/stand), and it would have been within the skill of an ordinary designer to apply an opaque surface and is an obvious modification.
The claimed design has no patentable distinction over the examiner’s combination of references.
Claim Rejection 35 USC 103
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lifewit 1 Gallon Drink Dispenser for Party with Leak-Proof Spigot, (hereafter Lifewit Dispenser with Spigot), citation V on the attached PTO-892, Amazon Review Date of July 06, 2025, in view of Foreign Patent No. CN307802798S (hereafter Yan), published on 01/20/2023, Foreign Patent Document R on Examiner’s Notice of References, page 1.
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.
The Lifewit Dispenser with Spigot reference has design characteristics that are visually similar to those of the claimed design. Lifewit Dispenser with Spigot is identical to the claimed design except that Lifewit Dispenser with Spigot has a transparent base instead of an opaque base, which is not an inventive difference and does not constitute a patentably distinct design. Only difference between patented and prior art designs is one of materials of manufacture and not of design, Ace Fastener Corp. v. U.S., 125 USPQ 143 (1960).
PNG
media_image2.png
1189
1633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 the transparent surface of Lifewit Dispenser with Spigot with Yan by substituting the base’s opaque surface of Yan because such a modification is one that the ordinarily skilled designer’s experience, relativity, and common sense would employ which are commonplace in the relevant field of endeavor. Additionally, such a modification is no more than a simple substitution of surface ornamentation over an article of manufacture. This substitution is a known feature that is commonplace in the field of drink dispenser (base/stand) and would have been within the skill of an ordinary designer to apply an opaque surface and is an obvious modification.
The claimed design has no patentable distinction over the examiner’s combination of references.
Conclusion
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as set forth above.
The references cited but not applied are considered the most pertinent art related to the claimed design.
Reply Reminder
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
Discussion of the Merits of the Application
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below.
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below.
Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence
The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System‐Web (EFS‐Web) (Registered eFilers only) https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply
Mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313‐1450
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571‐273‐8300)
Hand‐carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY WIERENGA whose telephone number is 571-270-0216. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30AM-3:30PM ET. 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 Patent Center. Examiner requires an interview agenda to be submitted one week prior to the interview. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, George Ulsh can be reached at 571-270-1433.
/AMY C WIERENGA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2922
Prosecution Insights