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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
A new Claim interpretation section has been added in the present Office action based on the Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2 January 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 remains rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Claims 13-14 and 17-18 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.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 2 January 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: claim 1 was amended.
Claims 1-20 and 23 are pending.
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.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not 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 not 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 function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one or more touch elements” in claim 1. The generic placeholder is “element” and the functional limitations are “touch” and “for moving the dispensing head and the ingredient processing unit between the deployed operative position and retracted storage position.” Structure that is used from the Specification includes a “button(s) or a touch pad or a touch screen.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 15, 19-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branko et al (WO-2017037212-A1) in view of Gavillet et al. (US-20130269536-A1) and Maisch (US-20130247771-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Branko discloses a machine (fig.1-4) for preparing and dispensing a beverage (beverage 2, fig.1-4), the machine comprising:
an outside housing (housing body 10, fig.1-4) having one or more outside faces (refer to the outside faces of housing body 10, fig.1-4);
a dispensing head (beverage dispensing head 20, fig.1-4) having a beverage outlet (outlet 21, fig.1-4) , wherein the dispensing head is movable (refer to fig.3 and 4) between:
a deployed operative position (refer to fig. 4) in which the dispensing head is outside of the outside housing and the beverage (beverage 2, fig.1-4) is dispensable via the beverage outlet (outlet 21, fig.1-4) to a beverage dispensing surface (user-recipient placement location 30, fig.1-4) for positioning a user-cup or user mug (user-recipient 3, fig.1-4); and
a retracted storage position (refer to fig.3) in which the dispensing head is inside of the outside housing; and
a liquid circuit (beverage preparation unit 11,12, 13, 14, 15, dispensing head 20 and fluid guide 22, fig.1-4) configured for processing the beverage (beverage 2, fig.1-4) and delivering the beverage (beverage 2, fig.1-4) into the beverage outlet (outlet 21, fig.1-4), the liquid circuit (beverage preparation unit 11,12, 13, 14, 15, dispensing head 20 and fluid guide 22, fig.1-4) comprising at least one activatable unit (beverage preparation unit 11,12, 13, 14, 15, fig.1-4) configured for enabling liquid (beverage 2, fig.1-4) to pass through during beverage preparation (“flow circuit,” page 16, line 13), the at least one activatable unit is activated, maintained activated (“supply beverage 2 to outlet 21,” page 16, lines 31-32), deactivated, and maintained deactivated (refer to the operational status of beverage preparation unit 11,12, 13, 14, 15, fig.1-4 (“not operated to process a liquid,” page 17, line 8), the at least one activatable unit comprises an ingredient processing unit (mixing module 11 and first part 11’, fig.1-4),
and the beverage flows directly from the ingredient processing unit (mixing module 11 and first part 11’, fig.1-4) through the beverage outlet (outlet 21, fig.1-4) of the dispensing head when the dispensing head is in the deployed operative position (refer to fig. 4; “dispensing configuration,” page 29, line 28),
the dispensing head (beverage dispensing head 20, fig.1-4) is configured to be maintain in:
(ii)the retracted storage position irrespective of whether:
the one of the at least one activatable unit is activated,
the one of the at least one activatable unit is maintained activated,
the one of the at least one activatable unit is deactivated, and
the one of the at least one activatable unit is maintained deactivated (refer to Abstract cited: “…The control unit (16) is configured to: —maintain or leave the beverage dispensing head (20) in its retracted position when the beverage preparation unit (11,12,13,14,15) is not operated to process a liquid; and/or—move the beverage dispensing head (20) into its deployed position or maintain or leave it in this position only when the control unit (16) operates the preparation unit (11,12,13,14,15) to process a liquid for dispensing via the outlet (21)…” and page 7, lines 26-37, cited: “…Control unit 16 may be configured to operate preparation unit 11,12,13,14,15 to evacuate residual beverage when beverage dispensing head 20 is in its deployed position or when it is in its retracted position or when it is moved to the deployed position or when it is moved to the retracted position. For instance, preparation unit 11,12,13,14,15 is operated for rinsing outlet 21, such as a rinsing with a volume of rinsing water corresponding to a single beverage portion or less delivered via preparation unit 11,12,13,14,15 to a waste collector 19, e.g. a waste collector 19 located in main body 10 and optionally removable therefrom…”)
PNG
media_image1.png
763
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
729
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Branko does not explicitly disclose the dispensing head and the ingredient processing unit are configured to move together between the deployed operative position and the retracted storage position; one or more touch elements for moving the dispensing head and the ingredient processing unit between the deployed operative position and retracted storage position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of capsule brewing units, Gavillet teaches the dispensing head (tubular cover 11, figs. 2a-2b and fig. 3) and the ingredient processing unit (capsule holding unit 12, fig. 3) are configured to move together (“fixed relationship,” para 0046) between the deployed operative position (fig. 2a; “open position,” para 0056) and the retracted storage position (fig. 2b; “closed position,” para 0056).
Gavillet, figs. 2a-2b and 3
PNG
media_image3.png
516
715
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
450
983
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Branko to include, attaching the capsule holding element 12 to the tubular cover 11 into a combined holding assembly 3, in view of the teachings of Gavillet, by attaching the first part 11’ to the dispensing head 20, as taught by Branko, in order to use a sliding closure mechanism instead of a hinged cover-like closure, because a covered passage safely contains possible hot liquid projections until depressurization occurs, for the advantage of increasing safety preventing possible injury to a user caused by hot liquid projections (Gavillet, para 0039).
Branko/Gavillet do not explicitly disclose one or more touch elements for moving the dispensing head and the ingredient processing unit between the deployed operative position and retracted storage position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of capsule brewing units, Maisch teaches one or more touch elements (sensing arrangement 70, fig. 3; “touch pad, a touch-plate, a push button, a turn button or a toggle lever,” para 0022) for moving the dispensing head (part 30, fig. 4) and the ingredient processing unit (part 20, fig. 4) between the deployed operative position (figs. 3 and 5) and retracted storage position (fig. 4; sensing arrangement 70 is activated in fig. 3, para 0087, which leads to the beverage formation step in fig. 4 and the evacuation step shown in fig. 5, para 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Branko, in view of the teachings of Maisch, by adding a sensing element 70, as taught by Maisch, to top of the beverage machine, as taught by Branko, in order to use a simple sensing element that activates the beverage machine, which is already programmed to derive a specific user request, for the advantage of simplifying the control of the machine so that a user is not confronted with multiple different operating options each time the device is activated (Maisch, paras 0020 and 0033).
Regarding claim 2, Branko further discloses the dispensing head (beverage dispensing head 20 and mixing module 11, fig.1-4) is movable (refer to fig. 3-4):
manually by a user between the deployed operative position and the retracted storage position; and/or automatically by at least one of a motor or an automatic return-spring (refer page 17, line 38- page 18, line 16 cited: “…Beverage dispensing head 20 may be moved into its retracted position in at least one of the following instances: immediately at the end of servicing beverage preparation unit 11,12,13,14,15; immediately at the end of preparing a portion of beverage by beverage preparation unit 11,12,13,14,15 or after a short period of time after the end, such as a period of time in the range of 1 to 15 sec, such as to 12 sec, e.g. 5 to 10 sec, optionally beverage dispensing head 20 being maintained in its deployed position upon preparing a portion of beverage to allow during this short period of time a user to request the preparation of a further portion of beverage by preparation unit 11,12,13,14,15; and in the absence of a detection by a sensor 18 connected to control unit 16 of a user-recipient 3 in placement location 30, optionally sensor 18 being an optical or a proximity sensor (FIG. 4)…”).
Regarding claim 3, Branko further discloses the dispensing head (beverage dispensing head 20, fig.1-4) is maintained in the deployed operative position (refer to fig. 4) and in the retracted storage position (refer to fig.3) by a friction force (“friction gear,” page 10, line 5; using a “cam arrangement” to switch positions is construed as applying a friction force).
Regarding claim 5, Branko further discloses the dispensing head (beverage dispensing head 20 and mixing module 11, fig.1-4) comprises an ingredient processing unit (mixing module 11 and first part 11’, fig.1-4) that has an ingredient holder forming an ingredient seat (refer to fig. 1 and 2, how ingredient capsule 4 interact with mixing module 11).
Regarding claim 7, Branko further discloses a user-interface device (user-interface 17, 17’, fig.1) movable from:
(i) a user-interface deployed operative position (refer to fig.4) adjacent to an outside face (outside face 25, fig.4) of the one or more outside faces (refer to the outside faces of housing body 10, fig.1-4) of the outside housing (housing body 10, fig.1-4) to
(ii) a retracted storage position (refer to fig.1) in the outside housing (housing body 10, fig.1-4)
wherein the user-interface device (user-interface 17, 17’, fig.1) is accessible by a user (refer as “user”) for operating the machine (fig.1-4) to prepare and dispense the beverage (beverage 2, fig.1-4) when the user-interface device is in the user-interface deployed operative position (refer to page 16, lines 30-39 cited: “…Machine 1 includes a control unit 16 for controlling preparation unit 11,12,13,14,15 to supply beverage 2 to outlet 21. For instance, control unit 16 is connected to a user-interface 17,17′, such as a user-interface 17,17′ located on dispensing head 20 and movable therewith, e.g. a user-interface 17 that remains accessible to a user when head 20 is in its retracted position and/or a user-interface 17′ that is accessible to a user in the deployed position and inaccessible (or hidden) to a user in the retracted position. See FIGS. 1 and 4…”), and the user-interface device (user-interface 17’, fig.1) is inaccessible to a user (refer as “user”) for operating the machine (fig.1-4) when the user-interface device is in the user-interface retracted storage position (refer to page 16, lines 30-39 cited: “…Machine 1 includes a control unit 16 for controlling preparation unit 11,12,13,14,15 to supply beverage 2 to outlet 21. For instance, control unit 16 is connected to a user-interface 17,17′, such as a user-interface 17,17′ located on dispensing head 20 and movable therewith, e.g. a user-interface 17 that remains accessible to a user when head 20 is in its retracted position and/or a user-interface 17′ that is accessible to a user in the deployed position and inaccessible (or hidden) to a user in the retracted position. See FIGS. 1 and 4…”).
Regarding claim 8, Branko further discloses the user-interface device (user-interface 17’, fig.1) is coupled to the dispensing head (beverage dispensing head 20 and mixing module 11, fig.1-4) and is driven by the dispensing head (beverage dispensing head 20, fig.1-4) or vice versa between the user-interface deployed operative position (refer to fig.4) and the user-interface retracted storage position (refer to fig.3) (refer to Col 10, line 5-15 cited: “…Machine 1 includes a control unit 16 for controlling preparation unit 11,12,13,14,15 to supply beverage 2 to outlet 21. For instance, control unit 16 is connected to a user-interface 17,17′, such as a user-interface 17,17′ located on dispensing head 20 and movable therewith, e.g. a user-interface 17 that remains accessible to a user when head 20 is in its retracted position and/or a user-interface 17′ that is accessible to a user in the deployed position and inaccessible (or hidden) to a user in the retracted position. See FIGS. 1 and 4…”).
Regarding claim 15, Branko further discloses the machine (fig.1-4) has one or more stationary placement members (refer as the bottom surface of the machine in fig.1-4) for placing such the machine (fig.1-4) onto a generally flat external (refer to the flat surface the machine is on).
Regarding claim 19, Branko further discloses wherein the at least one activatable unit (beverage preparation unit 11,12, 13, 14, 15, fig.1-4) comprises a liquid driver (pump 14, fig.1).
Regarding claim 20, Branko further discloses wherein the at least one activatable unit (beverage preparation unit 11,12, 13, 14, 15, fig.1-4) comprises a thermal conditioner (thermal fluid conditioner 15, fig.1).
Regarding claim 23, Branko further discloses wherein the dispensing head (beverage dispensing head 20 and mixing module 11, fig.1-4) and the ingredient processing unit (mixing module 11 and first part 11’, fig.1-4) are configured to enable the beverage to flow directly from the ingredient processing unit through the beverage outlet (outlet 21, fig.1-4) of the dispensing head (“supply beverage 2 to outlet 21,” page 16, lines 31-32).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branko et al (WO-2017037212-A1) in view of Gavillet et al. (US-20130269536-A1) and Maisch (US-20130247771-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above and further in view of Robinson (US2099660).
Regarding claim 4, Branko discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1 above, Branko does not explicitly disclose the dispensing head is guided between the deployed operative position and the retracted storage position by a cam follower and cam arrangement.
Robinson discloses the teaching of using a cam follower and cam arrangement (refer to Col 1 line 41-52 cited: “…Another object of the invention is to provide a cam follower, preferably a universally applicable cam follower, in a form which can be manufactured more economically. To this end the centering indentations are formed at the ends of the longitudinal lubricating channel, a screw driver slot is formed in the head of the stud, and a single retaining ring is used, being driven onto a slightly raised shoulder so that it will not mar the shank of the stud as it is being driven into position for cooperating to form the roller bearing raceway.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Branko dispensing head movement utilizing the teaching of cam follower and cam arrangement, as taught by Robinson, in order to provide a more economical manufacturing of the product (refer to Col 1 line 41-44 cited: “…Another object of the invention is to provide a cam follower, preferably a universally applicable cam follower, in a form which can be manufactured more economically…”).
Regarding claim 10, Branko discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 7 above, Branko does not explicitly disclose the dispensing head is guided between the user-interface deployed operative position and the user-interface retracted storage position by a cam follower and cam arrangement.
Robinson discloses the teaching of using a cam follower and cam arrangement (refer to Col 1 line 41-52 cited: “…Another object of the invention is to provide a cam follower, preferably a universally applicable cam follower, in a form which can be manufactured more economically. To this end the centering indentations are formed at the ends of the longitudinal lubricating channel, a screw driver slot is formed in the head of the stud, and a single retaining ring is used, being driven onto a slightly raised shoulder so that it will not mar the shank of the stud as it is being driven into position for cooperating to form the roller bearing raceway.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Branko dispensing head movement utilizing the teaching of cam follower and cam arrangement, as taught by Robinson, in order to provide a more economical manufacturing of the product (refer to Col 1 line 41-44 cited: “…Another object of the invention is to provide a cam follower, preferably a universally applicable cam follower, in a form which can be manufactured more economically…”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branko et al (WO-2017037212-A1) in view of Gavillet et al. (US-20130269536-A1) and Maisch (US-20130247771-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Viet-Doan (US2016/0058242A1).
Branko discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1 above, Branko does not disclose wherein the beverage dispensing surface is formed by an external placement support configured for placing the machine in position for preparing and dispensing said the beverage.
Viet-Doan discloses the dispensing surface (refer to the surface of 36, fig.3) is formed by an external placement support (stand 36, fig.3) for placing the machine (appliance 2, fig.3) in position for preparing and dispensing said the beverage (refer to the title “portable coffee brewer”).
PNG
media_image5.png
491
600
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Branko’s invention with wherein the beverage dispensing surface is formed by an external placement support configured for placing the machine in position for preparing and dispensing said the beverage, as taught by Viet-Doan, in order to provide an outdoor beverage maker that more rugged, portable, sealed, stowable and preventing the ingress of water, dirt and debris (refer to Paragraph 0007).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branko et al (WO-2017037212-A1) in view of Gavillet et al. (US-20130269536-A1) and Maisch (US-20130247771-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Agon et al (US-20130247772-A1, cited in 892 form filed 3 March 2023).
Branko discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 7 above. Branko does not explicitly disclose the user-interface device is movable, between the user-interface deployed operative position and the user-interface retracted storage position along a first direction and a second direction that is non-parallel to the first direction.
However, in the same field of endeavor of capsule brewing units, Agon teaches the user-interface device (indicator 1, fig. 2; page 18 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses that the user-interface device 31 may bear one or more indicators) is movable (“pivotally mounted about axis 1’,” para 0061), between the user-interface deployed operative position (position shown in fig. 2) and the user-interface retracted storage position (position shown in fig. 3) along a first direction (direction parallel to indicator 1, fig. 2) and a second direction (direction parallel to indicator 1, fig. 3) that is non-parallel to the first direction.
Agon, figs. 2 (annotated) and 3
PNG
media_image6.png
856
988
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
729
949
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Branko to include, the user-interface device is movable, between the user-interface deployed operative position and the user-interface retracted storage position along a first direction and a second direction that is non-parallel to the first direction, in view of the teachings of Agon, by using a pivotally mounted user-interface 1, as taught by Agon, for the user-interface 17, as taught by Branko, in order to provide a user-interface that is connected to the processing unit and indicates the status of the processing unit, for the advantage of using an interface that is economic, reliable, and ergonomic and that provides useful information regarding the machine’s status (Agon, paras 0007 and 0009).
Claims 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branko et al (WO-2017037212-A1) in view of Gavillet et al. (US-20130269536-A1) and Maisch (US-20130247771-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Icardi (US2013/0036914A1).
Regarding claim 11, Branko discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1 above, Branko does not disclose a power supply arrangement comprising a connector to an external power supply, the power supply arrangement further comprising an internal power accumulator configured for powering the machine to prepare and dispense the beverage when the machine is not powered via said connector.
Icardi discloses a power supply arrangement (fixed base 2, fig.2) comprising a connector (electric power supply device 5, fig.2) to an external power supply (refer to “electric power supply” device 5, fig.2), and an internal power accumulator (battery 38 and refer to paragraph 0062), for powering to prepare and dispense the beverage when such machine (refer to title) is not powered via said connector (electric power supply device 5, fig.2) (refer to Paragraph 0062 cited: “…the arrangement may be such that, when the movable part 3 is coupled to the fixed part 2 and the latter is connected to a power source, the control circuits 24 ensure that the battery 38 is kept charged so as to prepare it for subsequent use.…”).
PNG
media_image8.png
681
510
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Branko’s invention with a power supply arrangement comprising a connector to an external power supply, and an internal power accumulator, for powering to prepare and dispense the beverage when such machine is not powered via said connector, as taught by Icardi, in order to provide the ability to ready to make beverage anywhere and anytime (refer to Paragraph 0062 cited: “…the arrangement may be such that, when the movable part 3 is coupled to the fixed part 2 and the latter is connected to a power source, the control circuits 24 ensure that the battery 38 is kept charged so as to prepare it for subsequent use.…”).
Regarding claim 12, Branko discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1 above, Branko does not disclose a docking station and a module disconnectably connected to the docking station, the docking station and the module comprising at least one of: a station ingredient supply and a module liquid connector connectable to the station ingredient supply and a station connector to an external power supply.
Icardi discloses a docking station (fixed base 2, fig.2) and a module (movable part 3, fig.2) disconnectably connected to the docking station (fixed base 2, fig.2), the docking station (fixed base 2, fig.2) and the module (movable part 3, fig.2) comprising at least one of: a station ingredient supply (reservoir 4, fig.2) and a module liquid connector (hydraulic connector 16, fig.2) connectable to the station ingredient supply (reservoir 4, fig.2) and a station connector (electrical connector 17, fig.2) to an external power supply (refer as the “electrical power supply” from electrical power supply device 5, fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Branko’s invention with a docking station and the module disconnectably connected to the docking station, the docking station and the module comprising at least one of: a station ingredient supply such as a water tank and a module liquid connector connectable to the station ingredient supply; and a station connector to an external power supply, as taught by Icardi, in order to provide an advantage of greater versatility of use, not limited exclusively to the domestic environment or to communal buildings (refer to Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 16, the modification of Branko and Icardi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 12, Branko does not disclose wherein the station ingredient supply comprises a water tank supply.
Icardi further discloses wherein the station ingredient supply comprises a water tank supply (reservoir 4, fig.2) (refer to paragraph 0034 cited: “…the fixed base part 2, in particular its vertical portion 2a, is provided with a refillable reservoir 4 for the water required for preparation of the beverages…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Branko’s invention with wherein the station ingredient supply comprises a water tank supply, as taught by Icardi, in order to provide an advantage of greater versatility of use, not limited exclusively to the domestic environment or to communal buildings (refer to Paragraph 0012).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 and 17-18 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show “a movable placement member deployed placement position configured for increasing stability and/or safely placing the machine on the external support surface in the orientation for preparing and dispensing the beverage; and a movable placement member retracted rest position within the outside housing or collapsed against the outside housing for: reducing a size of the machine; and/or providing a configuration suitable for placing a module onto a docking station of the machine and connecting the module to the docking station,” as recited in claim 13, where the “dispensing head” is either “outside of the outside housing” or “inside of the outside housing” as recited in claim 1.
The closest prior art of record (Zhao/CN104188541) teaches legs that can be construed as a “movable placement member.” However, Zhao teaches that these support legs are attached to a support seat that would not permit a “dispensing head” to be either “outside of the outside housing” or “inside of the outside housing” as recited in claim 1. To modify the original reference (Branko/WO2017037212A1) with Zhao, the “support seat” is needed. Attaching the support seat to the housing taught by Branko would not meet the limitation “a movable placement member retracted rest position…collapsed against the outside housing.” If instead, only the “support legs” were incorporated into the Branko reference (and not the support seat), then this modification would not meet the limitation “reducing the size of the machine” because the legs would project beyond the bottom of the outside housing that is taught by Branko.
Furthermore, Zhao is non-analogous art. The Specification discloses that the “field of the invention pertains to beverage preparation machines provided with a storable dispensing head, e.g. machines using capsules of an ingredient of the beverage to be prepared.” Although Zhao teaches a beverage preparation machine (specifically, a soybean milk maker), Zhao does not teach using ingredient capsules. Moreover, Zhao’s teachings are not pertinent to the problem that is addressed in the Instant Application. The Specification discloses that the problem that is address in the Instant Application is brewing beverages from capsules. Instead, Zhao is focused on the problem of producing milk from soy beans. There is no mention of a brewing or heating device in the Zhao reference.
The examiner relied on fig. 9 of the Drawings in the Instant Application and the figure’s corresponding description in the Specification to understand the claimed “movable placement member.”
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the present invention as set forth in claims 1 and 13.
Response to Argument
Applicant' s arguments file 2 January 2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Branko and Gavillet combined with Maisch.
For the above reasons, the rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/19/2026