DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/2026 in response to Office Action 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that examiner’s response is incorrect about the preamble of the primary prior art Lynd since Lynd doesn’t have “brewing system” in its claims so the whole response is moot (pages 8-9, 11, 12 para 1, 13). However, the preamble discussed was the Applicant’s preamble, not that of the prior art. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 1 line 3, Applicant argues that Lynd does not teach “a brewing vessel” because Lynd never discloses those exact words, nor specifically that any brewing does occur (page 12 para 3 sentence 1). Nor secondary prior art Lin (page 15 para 1). Examiner points out that the vessel is claimed as a “brewing vessel”, which under broadest reasonable and standard interpretation means “a vessel capable of brewing”. Furthermore, this is an apparatus claim, so any methods are merely functional language, meaning nearly any drinking vessel can brew as long as the structure reads on the claimed structure. In other words, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Lynd does not teach a filter basket (page 12 para 3 lines 2-3). Nor Lin (page 14 para last). Examiner points out that secondary prior art Okabe does.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Lynd combined with Lin does not teach all of claim 1 (page 12 para 3 lines 2-3). Examiner points out that Okabe combined with those two does.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Lynd/Lin/Okabe does not teach all of claim 1 (page 15 para 3) without evidence or anything to respond to. Therefore examiner disagrees to the mere allegation, since nothing can be responded to.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Okabe does not teach a brewing vessel or filter basket as claimed (pages 16-17). Examiner points out the brewing vessel is taught by Lynd and the basket by Okabe in such a way that combines to read on the whole claim, with Lin. See the combination summary on page 6 below.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 23 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20030214140 by Lynd (hereinafter “Lynd”) in view of US Pub 20090056556 by Lin (hereinafter “Lin”) in view of US Pat 4697503 issued to Okabe et al. (hereinafter “Okabe”).
Regarding claim 1, Lynd teaches an immersion coffee or tea brewing system for producing a brewed concentrate (Fig 1, a system 20 with 46 is necessarily capable of immersion brewing; wherein the following is also included in the system), the ICB system comprising:
a brewing vessel (Fig 1, a vessel is body 20) having a top (Fig 1, top opening 26 with rim 30) and
a cavity (Fig 1, a cavity of the vessel 20 is shown) within the brewing vessel,
the cavity comprising a top portion having a circular cross-section and an inner diameter (Fig 1, an inner diameter of 30), and
the top of the brewing vessel comprises
an outer diameter (Fig 1, an outer diameter of 30),
But Lynd does not explicitly teach a bag.
Lin, however, teaches
a brewing vessel is configured to receive a closeable filter (Fig 2, Abstract, a closeable filter bag 22 of tea, and water, in a vessel) having coffee or tea and resting against a bottom surface of the brewing vessel during brewing (Fig 2, 22 contacts the bottom of the vessel during brewing (i.e. because of the water)), and water, ([0037], material of bag 22 “steeps” in a solution of tea and water over time, then Fig 3, 22 is lifted from vessel and not immersed).
The purpose of a tea filter bag is to brew (Lin, Abstract). 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 the liquid of Lynd with a tea bag as taught by Lin in order to advantageously be able to brew to the user’s desire.
But Lynd/Lin does not explicitly teach a basket.
Okabe, however, teaches
a filter basket (Figs 1, a filter basket is drip maker cup-shaped receiver 10, with flat feet on its bottom surface between apertures 60) configured to be removably attached to the top of the brewing vessel (Fig 1 shows 10 capable of removably attaching to the top of a brewing vessel cup C), hold a closeable filter (Fig 1, 10 holds a closeable filter bag is pack 11 closed) upon completion of brewing, and drain the closeable filter into the brewing vessel (Fig 1, 10 is capable of holding 11 until all drips are done/completed (i.e. meaning brewing is done)), wherein
the filter basket (10) comprises
a lower portion comprising an outer diameter with circular outer circumference (Figs 1-2, a lower portion of 10 is proximal space 50, and has an outer circular circumference), and a top portion comprising an outer diameter with circular outer circumference (Figs 1-2, a top portion 22 has an outer circular circumference); wherein
the outer diameter of the lower portion of the filter basket is less than the inner diameter of the top portion of the cavity such that it passes into the cavity when installed on top of the brewing vessel (Fig 1, diameter 50 is less than diameter 22 and passes into a cavity of C), and
the outer diameter of the top portion of the filter basket is greater than the outer diameter of the top of the brewing vessel such that it extends above the cavity when installed on the vessel (Fig 2, diameter 22 is greater than a diameter of C, and 22 extends above C).
The purpose of a filter basket is to brew by dripping (Okabe, Fig 1). 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 the brewing vessel of Lynd with a basket as taught by Okabe in order to advantageously allow dripping type brew.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields that claimed invention via the brewing vessel of Lynd having the brewing of Lin and the filter basket of Okabe as/in an in immersion brewing system, thereby necessarily having the filter basket of Okabe be able to hold the closeable filter of Lin.
Regarding claim 2, Lynd/Lin/Okabe further teaches the brewing vessel comprises a graduated spout extending outward from the top of the brewing vessel (Lynd, Fig 1, graduated spout 31 extends outward from 30); and the ICB further comprises a lid (Lynd, Fig 1, a lid 46) having a top surface within a flat plane (Lynd, Figs 1 and 10, a top surface comprised of 54 and 51 is shown planar flat), and a cylindrical portion (Lynd, [0030] [0041], Figs 1 and 10, “cylindrical” flange portion 56) extending downward from the top surface (Lynd, Fig 1, [0041], “a downwardly depending flange 56 defining a cylindrical shape”), wherein the lid is configured to:
be removably attached to the top of the brewing vessel prior to removably attaching the filter basket (Lynd, Fig 1, lid 46 is capable of being removed and attached to the top of the vessel prior to any other action),
rest in a drip catching configuration with the lid separated from the brewing vessel and the lid top surface resting flat against a support surface (Lynd, Figs 3 and 10, lid 46 is capable of separating from the vessel and resting flat against a support surface [0047] “table”), whereupon the filter basket lower portion outer diameter is less than an inner diameter of the lid cylindrical portion such that the closeable filter may be set on a lid underside, within the cylindrical portion of the lid (thereby is capable of having Okabe’s filter basket’s smaller lower portion diameter set inside Lynd’s cylindrical portion 56 of lid 46, and Okabe’s or Lin’s closeable filter 11 or 22 respectively, contact Lynd’s underside surface 68), to catch drips after use of the filter basket for filter draining (whereby Lynd’s lid is capable of catching draining drips of the Okabe or Lin filter bag), and
seal the brewing vessel for storage or to prevent off-gassing (Lynd, Fig 10, [0041], lid 46 in the rotated closed position is capable of sealed storage from “friction-fit” of the lid flange cylindrical portion 56) from the immersion of the coffee or tea in the water (or Lynd, Fig 10, [0041], lid 46 in the rotated closed position is capable of preventing off-gassing via sealing from “friction-fit” of the lid flange cylindrical portion 56, while Lin, Fig 2, tea filter bag 22 is immersed). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify structure that yields the cited capabilities.
Regarding claim 3, Lynd further teaches the lid (Fig 1, 46) includes an off-gassing opening within the cylindrical portion (Fig 1, an off-gassing opening within 56 is portion 58), and the lid is configured to be rotated along the top of the brewing vessel from a sealed position for storage or that prevents off-gassing (see claim 2, the lid rotated sealed storage position that prevents off-gassing via [0041] friction-fit) to an open position that allows off-gassing or serving through the off-gassing opening when the off-gassing opening is aligned with the graduated spout (Fig 1, open position allows off-gassing or serving through 58).
Regarding claim 8, Lynd/Lin/Okabe further teaches the closeable filter (Lin, Fig 2, filter bag 22), wherein the closeable filter is a filter bag having a flat bottom (Lin, 22 bottom is shown as a flat straight line) configured to rest on the bottom surface of the brewing vessel (Lin, 22 is resting on the vessel bottom) and an open top configured to receive the coffee or tea and the water (Lin, tea bag 22 is necessarily capable of having an open top since it has tea inside, and capable of receiving water whether open or closed because of the material/what it is). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify structure that yields the cited capabilities.
Regarding claim 9, Lynd/Lin/Okabe further teaches the closeable filter is further configured to be
partially sealed by twisting the open top to a closed position after receiving the coffee or tea and water (Lin, Fig 2, closed filter bag 22 is shown with its top opening partially twisted closed after receiving tea and water) and
constructed from a material that allows the closeable filter to be steeped in a coffee solution or tea solution for an extended period of time (Lin, [0037], material of bag 22 “steeps” in a solution of tea and water over time),
lifted from the brewing vessel after being filled with coffee or tea and immersed in the coffee solution or tea solution for the extended period of time (Lin, Fig 3, 22 is lifted from vessel and not immersed after being immersed/filled), and
placed on the filter basket to drain the coffee solution or tea solution from the closeable filter to the brewing vessel (Okabe, Fig 1, filter bag 11 (or for example Lin’s bag 22) is placed on the basket 10 to drain the waterlogged bag), and wherein
the coffee solution is created by the coffee and the water or the tea solution is created by the tea and water (Okabe and Lin, tea solution is water and tea). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify structure that yields the cited capabilities.
Regarding claim 23, Lynd further teaches the lid cylindrical portion (Fig 1, 56) has an off-gassing opening in a portion thereof (Fig 1, opening 58 in 56 allows off-gassing), and the spout is configured to allow off-gassing when the lid is rotated to an open position by aligning the off-gassing opening of the lid with the spout of the brewing vessel (Fig 1, vessel spout 31 aligns with lid opening 58, defining an open position, and allowing off-gassing).
Regarding claim 28, Lynd/Lin/Okabe further teaches the filter basket comprises a plurality of feet on a bottom surface of the filter basket (Okabe, Fig 1, filter basket 10 has flat feet on its bottom surface between apertures 60), whereby the filter basket feet are configured to rest flat on the lid underside in the drip catching configuration (Okabe, flat surface, Lynd, flat surface, see claim 2, rest flat contacting each other). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify structure that yields the cited capabilities.
Regarding claim 29, Lynd/Lin/Okabe further teaches the filter basket feet comprise flat portions of the filter basket bottom surface (Okabe, Fig 1, the feet are portions of basket 10 bottom surface). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynd/Lin/Okabe in view of CN 109619977 issued to Yang et al. (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 5, Lynd/Lin/Okabe each further teach the brewing vessel is constructed of a material (inherently constructed of a material),
But Lynd/Lin/Okabe does not explicitly teach a transparent material.
Yang, however, teaches a brewing vessel constructed of a transparent material (Abstract, a brewed beverage portable quantitative trickling filter extraction device,
of graduated glass [page 3, line 6, after Fig 7 description],
with a marking scale [page 2, line 28] for volume on the outer surface [Fig 5, V and equations of V] on the transparent material [page 2, line 30]).
The purpose of a transparent glass brewing vessel with volume measurement markings is to accurately determine the solution volume (Yang, page 2, lines 29-30). 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 the brewing vessel of Lynd/Lin/Okabe to be glass with markings as taught by Yang in order to advantageously measure for cooking.
Regarding claim 6, Lynd/Lin/Okabe/Yang above already includes all limitations, including the brewing vessel includes volume measurement markings (Yang, page 2, line 28, markings) along an outer surface of the brewing vessel (Yang, Fig 5, outer surface of a vessel). See details in the parent claim 5 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 7, Lynd/Lin/Okabe/Yang above already includes all limitations, including the transparent material is glass (Yang, page 3, line 6, glass). See details in the parent claim 5 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynd/Lin/Okabe in view of US Pub 20160296062 by Gross et al. (hereinafter “Gross”).
Regarding claim 10, Lynd/Lin/Okabe does not explicitly teach that the extended period of time is greater than approximately one hour ([0002] 12-24 hours).
The purpose of a time greater than one hour is to have cold brewing (Gross teaches, [0002] cold brew is created by doing 12-24 hours). 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 the use of Lynd/Lin/Okabe to cold brew as taught by Gross in order to advantageously allow cold brew versatility.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynd/Lin/Okabe in view US Pat 5775205 by Melton (hereinafter “Melton”).
Regarding claim 21, Lynd/Lin/Okabe does not explicitly teach separate tongs.
Melton, however, teaches tongs (col 2, lines 30-31, tongs are used on tea bags for sanitary reasons). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided tongs of Melton to Lynd/Lin/Okabe in order to advantageously have the user not touch the wet bag for sanitary purposes.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 26 May 2026
Prosecution Insights