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
The amendment filed 24 September 2025 has been entered.
New Specification objections have been provided in the current Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome every Claim objection. The previous Claim objections have been withdrawn. However, grounds for new Claim objections have been provided in the current Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections. However, new grounds for additional 35 USC 112 rejections have been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 24 September 2025, with respect to claim 66 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 24 September 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 12, 14-16, 20, 27, 33, 35-38, 42, 53-65, and 67-74 have been cancelled. Claim 66 is amended. Claims 75-95 are new.
Claims 66 and 75-95 are pending.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the “positioning and holding mechanism,” (claim 66), the “container assembly” and “dosing container” (claims 66 and 85) as well as the “solid component repository” (claims 81 and 92) are not mentioned in the Specification.
These new objections have been added based on the amended portions of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 66, 75, 81, 84, 86, 92 and 95 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 66 uses the term “designed to.” Consistent with the MPEP 2181.I, recommend using “configured to” instead of “designed to” in order to indicate that functional limitations are required for the claimed assembly.
In claims 75 and 86, recommend reciting “the receiving area” because the “receiving area” is already recited in the independent claims.
In claims 81, 84, 92, and 95, recommend reciting “the at least one solid component.”
These new objections have been added based on the amended portions of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 the following:
In claim 66, “a positioning and holding mechanism that is configured to position and hold the container assembly” where “mechanism” is the generic placeholder and the functional limitation is “configured to position and hold the container assembly.”
Structure used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes the “clamp” (page 57 of the Specification). Claim 75 has sufficient structure such that 112(f) is not invoked for this limitation within the claim.
In claims 66 and 85, “a separate device that is configured use the fluid” where “device” is the generic placeholder and the functional limitation is “configured use the fluid.”
In claims 79 and 90, a “tempering device” where “device” is the generic placeholder and the functional limitation is “tempering.”
Structure used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes the “heating plate” (page 5 of the Specification).
In claim 81 and 92, a “dosing device for dosing at least one solid component” where “device” is the generic placeholder and the functional limitation is “for dosing at least one solid component”
Structure used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes the “screw conveyor” (page 7 of the Specification).
In claims 84 and 95, a “preparation device for preparing the medium from the solid component and the fluid” where “device” is the generic placeholder and for preparing the medium from the solid component and the fluid” is the functional limitation
Structure used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes the “filter and/or funnel” (page 5 of the Specification).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 66 and 75-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 66 and 85 recite “a separate device that is configured use the fluid,” but the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what “a separate device” is or that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing. Although an outlet 219 that is connected to the second container 11 (fig. 18), the Specification does not describe a “separate device” that is connected to the outlet 219.
Claims 75-84 and 86-95 are rejected based on their dependence to the independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
In claims 66 and 85, the limitation “separate device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 66 and 75-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 66 recites “A container assembly….a positioning and holding mechanism that is configured to position and hold the container assembly within a receiving area of a separate device…” The structure of the claimed “container assembly” is unclear. The claim is directed to a “container assembly.” However, the claim also requires a “positioning and holding mechanism” that holds the container assembly in a “separate device.” Although this structure is claimed, it is not clear if the “positioning and holding mechanism” and the “separate device” are within the scope the “container assembly.” As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. Since there is no way of determining the requisite scope of the “container assembly,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 85 recites “A container assembly…. the container assembly is configured to be introduced into a separate device that is configured to use the fluid to prepare a medium.” The structure of the claimed “container assembly” is unclear. The claim is directed to a “container assembly.” However, the claim also requires a a “separate device.” Although this structure is claimed, it is not clear if the “separate device” is within the scope the “container assembly.” As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. Since there is no way of determining the requisite scope of the “container assembly,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claims 75-84 and 86-95 are rejected based on their dependence to the independent claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 66, 75-76, 81, 84-87, 92, and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlack (DE-102016000406-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Sharon et al. (US-20130075287-A1) and Ameye et al. (US-20150088304-A1).
Regarding claim 66, Schlack teaches a container assembly (liquid source 12 and hose 63, fig. 5) for use in dosing a fluid (“water can be dosed,” para 0047),
a positioning and holding mechanism (clamps 18 and 19, fig. 5) that is configured to position and hold the container assembly (liquid source 12 and hose 63, fig. 5) within a receiving area (area in which clamps 18 and 19 move, fig. 5) of a separate device (fig. 5) that is configured to use the fluid to prepare a medium (“supply of water and/or baby milk concentrate can be controlled or regulated,” para 0045), wherein:
the container assembly (liquid source 12 and hose 63, fig. 5) is designed to be introduced into the separate device (fig. 5), and the container assembly is interchangeable and designed as a disposable article (para 0040).
Schlack, fig. 5
PNG
media_image1.png
776
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schlack does not explicitly disclose a fluid reservoir defining an interior portion for holding the fluid; the container assembly comprising: a dosing container comprising: a housing having an interior space for receiving the fluid; a dosing-container inlet, through which fluid can flow from the fluid reservoir into the dosing container, a dosing-container inlet, in communication with the interior space; and a dosing-container outlet, in communication with the interior space, through which a dosage of the fluid can flow out of the dosing container; wherein: the dosing container and fluid reservoir are connected to each other in one piece as a unit and are in fluid communication with each other, the container assembly is deliverable factory-pre-filled with the fluid.
However, in the same field of endeavor of baby formula preparation devices, Sharon teaches a fluid reservoir (second compartment 20, fig. 1d) defining an interior portion for holding the fluid (“the two components may be both liquids,” para 0059); the container assembly comprising: a dosing container (first compartment 18, fig. 1d) comprising: a housing (housing of compartment 18, fig. 1d) having an interior space (interior of compartment 18, fig. 1d) for receiving the fluid (“the two components may be both liquids,” para 0059); a dosing-container inlet (aperture 34, fig. 1b), in communication with the interior space (interior of compartment 18, fig. 1b), through which fluid can flow from the fluid reservoir into the dosing container (para 0062); and a dosing-container outlet (bottom end 36, fig. 1b) through which a dosage of the fluid can flow out of the dosing container (“dispensed,” para 0062); wherein: the dosing container (compartment 18, fig. 1d) and fluid reservoir (compartment 20, fig. 1d) are connected to each other in one piece as a unit (compartments 18 and 20 are construed as being one piece, fig. 1d) and are in fluid communication with each other (“flow communication,” para 0062).
Sharon, fig. 1d
PNG
media_image2.png
476
394
media_image2.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 Schlack, in view of the teachings of Sharon, by using a two-compartment container 10, as taught by Sharon, for the liquid source 12, as taught by Schlack, in order to use a container with two separate compartments for storing two different liquids, because the active ingredient in one liquid may lose its activity due to accelerated oxidation and/or hydrolysis when mixed with another liquid but by keeping the liquids separated into two different compartments, the ingredients can be kept separate until just prior to use (Sharon, paras 0002-0003).
Schlack/Sharon do not explicitly disclose the container assembly is deliverable factory-pre-filled with the fluid.
However, in the same field of endeavor baby formula preparation devices, Ameye teaches the container assembly (container 2, fig. 1; “liquid source,” para 0102) is deliverable factory-pre-filled with the fluid (“sealed preferably at a factory site,” para 0095).
Ameye, fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
652
511
media_image3.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 Schlack/Sharon, in view of the teachings of Ameye, by preparing the two-compartment container 10, as taught by Sharon, at a factory site, as taught by Ameye, in order to maintain sterile conditions for the ingredients in the containers, because the liquid product will be used to create an infant formula that can be administered to infants, who are particularly vulnerable to becoming sick due to infection (Ameye, paras 0102 and 0154).
Regarding claim 75, Schlack teaches wherein: the device (fig. 5) comprises a receiving area (area in which clamps 18 and 19 move, fig. 5) for receiving the container assembly (liquid device 12, fig. 5); and the receiving area comprises at least two clamping elements (clamps 18 and 19, fig. 5) for clamping the container assembly into the device (para 0054).
Regarding claim 76, Schlack teaches wherein the at least two clamping elements (clamps 18 and 19, fig. 5) selectively cooperate to enclose or deliver a dose of the fluid (para 0054).
Regarding claim 81, Schlack teaches wherein the device (fig. 5) further comprises: a solid component repository (concentrate source 11, fig. 5) that is configured to hold at least one solid component (“powder,” para 0033); and a dosing device (“screw conveyor,” para 0033) for dosing the at least one solid component (“different dosing,” para 0033), the dosing device being: connected to or connectable to the solid component repository (located above container 10 for supplying the powder from source 4 which receives powder from source 11, fig. 5; para 0033), and configured to dose the solid component from the solid component repository (para 0033).
Regarding claim 84, Schlack teaches wherein the device (fig. 5) comprises a preparation device (filter 44, fig. 5; combination of filters shown in fig. 4) for preparing the medium from the solid component and the fluid (paras 0042 and 0054).
Regarding claim 85, Schlack teaches a container assembly (liquid source 12 and hose 63, fig. 5) for use in dosing a fluid (“water can be dosed,” para 0047),
wherein: the container assembly (liquid source 12 and hose 63, fig. 5) is designed to be introduced into a separate device (fig. 5) that is configured to use the fluid to prepare a medium (“supply of water and/or baby milk concentrate can be controlled or regulated,” para 0045), and the container assembly is interchangeable and configured as a disposable article (para 0040).
Schlack does not explicitly disclose a fluid reservoir defining an interior portion for holding the fluid; the container assembly comprising: a dosing container comprising: a housing having an interior space for receiving the fluid; a dosing-container inlet, through which fluid can flow from the fluid reservoir into the dosing container, a dosing-container inlet, in communication with the interior space; and a dosing-container outlet, in communication with the interior space, through which a dosage of the fluid can flow out of the dosing container; wherein: the dosing container and fluid reservoir are connected to each other in one piece as a unit and are in fluid communication with each other, the container assembly is deliverable factory-pre-filled with the fluid.
However, in the same field of endeavor of baby formula preparation devices, Sharon teaches a fluid reservoir (second compartment 20, fig. 1d) defining an interior portion for holding the fluid (“the two components may be both liquids,” para 0059); the container assembly comprising: a dosing container (first compartment 18, fig. 1d) comprising: a housing (housing of compartment 18, fig. 1d) having an interior space (interior of compartment 18, fig. 1d) for receiving the fluid (“the two components may be both liquids,” para 0059); a dosing-container inlet (aperture 34, fig. 1b), in communication with the interior space (interior of compartment 18, fig. 1b), through which fluid can flow from the fluid reservoir into the dosing container (para 0062); and a dosing-container outlet (bottom end 36, fig. 1b) through which a dosage of the fluid can flow out of the dosing container (“dispensed,” para 0062); wherein: the dosing container (compartment 18, fig. 1d) and fluid reservoir (compartment 20, fig. 1d) are connected to each other in one piece as a unit (compartments 18 and 20 are construed as being one piece, fig. 1d) and are in fluid communication with each other (“flow communication,” para 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schlack, in view of the teachings of Sharon, by using a two-compartment container 10, as taught by Sharon, for the liquid source 12, as taught by Schlack, in order to use a container with two separate compartments for storing two different liquids, because the active ingredient in one liquid may lose its activity due to accelerated oxidation and/or hydrolysis when mixed with another liquid but by keeping the liquids separated into two different compartments, the ingredients can be kept separate until just prior to use (Sharon, paras 0002-0003).
Schlack/Sharon do not explicitly disclose the container assembly is deliverable factory-pre-filled with the fluid.
However, in the same field of endeavor baby formula preparation devices, Ameye teaches the container assembly (container 2, fig. 1; “liquid source,” para 0102) is deliverable factory-pre-filled with the fluid (“sealed preferably at a factory site,” para 0095).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schlack/Sharon, in view of the teachings of Ameye, by preparing the two-compartment container 10, as taught by Sharon, at a factory site, as taught by Ameye, in order to maintain sterile conditions for the ingredients in the containers, because the liquid product will be used to create an infant formula that can be administered to infants, who are particularly vulnerable to becoming sick due to infection (Ameye, paras 0102 and 0154).
Regarding claim 86, Schlack teaches wherein: the device (fig. 5) comprises a receiving area (area in which clamps 18 and 19 move, fig. 5) for receiving the container assembly (liquid device 12, fig. 5); and the receiving area comprises at least two clamping elements (clamps 18 and 19, fig. 5) for clamping the container assembly into the device (para 0054).
Regarding claim 87, Schlack teaches wherein the at least two clamping elements (clamps 18 and 19, fig. 5) selectively cooperate to enclose or deliver a dose of the fluid (para 0054).
Regarding claim 92, Schlack teaches wherein the device (fig. 5) further comprises: a solid component repository (concentrate source 11, fig. 5) that is configured to hold at least one solid component (“powder,” para 0033); and a dosing device (“screw conveyor,” para 0033) for dosing the at least one solid component (“different dosing,” para 0033), the dosing device being: connected to or connectable to the solid component repository (located above container 10 for supplying the powder from source 4 which receives powder from source 11, fig. 5; para 0033), and configured to dose the solid component from the solid component repository (para 0033).
Regarding claim 95, Schlack teaches wherein the device (fig. 5) comprises a preparation device (filter 44, fig. 5; combination of filters shown in fig. 4) for preparing the medium from the solid component and the fluid (paras 0042 and 0054).
Claims 77-80 and 88-91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlack (DE-102016000406-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Sharon et al. (US-20130075287-A1) and Ameye et al. (US-20150088304-A1) as applied to claims 66, 75-76 and 85-86 above and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US-20180065838-A1).
Regarding claim 77, Schlack teaches wherein the at least two clamping elements (clamps 18 and 19, fig. 5) comprise: a first pair of clamping elements disposed adjacent an outlet of the container assembly (clamp 18 positioned near the bottom of the outlet of hose 63, fig. 5; a “pair of clamping elements” is not explicitly disclosed) so that the first pair of clamping elements can selectively prevent the fluid from exiting the container assembly through the container assembly's outlet (“Clamp 18 is closed, water can be pumped up to this clamp,” para 0054); and a second pair of clamping elements disposed adjacent an inlet of the container assembly (clamp 19 is positioned near the inlet of hose 63, fig. 5; a “pair of clamping elements” is not explicitly disclosed) so that the second pair of clamping elements can selectively prevent the fluid from entering the container assembly through the container assembly's inlet (“Clamp 19 closes when the desired quantity is reached,” para 0054; construed such that when the clamp is closed, water cannot enter through the inlet of hose 63, fig. 5).
Schlack does not explicitly disclose a first pair of clamping elements; a second pair of clamping elements (“pairs of clamping elements” are not explicitly disclosed).
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of dispensing liquids, Suzuki teaches a first pair of clamping elements (members 73, figs. 7A-C); a second pair of clamping elements (members 71, figs. 7A-C).
Suzuki, figs. 7A-C
PNG
media_image4.png
488
726
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 Schlack, in view of the teachings of Suzuki, by using members 71 and 73, as taught by Suzuki, for the clamps 19 and 18, as taught by Schlack, in order to use pushing/pulling members that serve as opening/closing mechanisms, which can be used to control a specific amount of liquid that can be appropriately ejected from container (Suzuki, paras 0157 and 0161).
Regarding claim 78, the combination of Schlack in view of Sharon, Ameye, and Suzuki as set forth above regarding claim 77 partially teaches the invention of claim 78. Specifically, Schlack teaches the first pair of clamping elements is arranged to prevent the fluid from exiting the container assembly through the container assembly's outlet (clamp 18 positioned near the bottom of the outlet of hose 63, fig. 5) in a closed position of the first pair of clamping elements (para 0054); and the second pair of clamping elements is arranged to prevent the fluid from entering the container assembly through the container assembly's inlet (clamp 19 is positioned near the inlet of hose 63, fig. 5) in a closed position of the second pair of clamping elements (para 0054). Additionally, Suzuki teaches the first pair of clamping elements (members 73, figs. 7A-C); the second pair of clamping elements (members 71, figs. 7A-C).
Schlack does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least two clamping elements further comprise: a third pair of clamping elements, disposed between the first and second pairs of clamping elements, that is arranged to selectively apply pressure to side walls of the container assembly to selectively dispense a dosage of the fluid from the container assembly.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of dispensing liquids, Suzuki teaches wherein the at least two clamping elements (members 71 and 73, figs. 7A-C) further comprise: a third pair of clamping elements (members 72, figs. 7A-C), disposed between the first and second pairs of clamping elements, that is arranged to selectively apply pressure to side walls of the container assembly to selectively dispense a dosage of the fluid from the container assembly (para 0160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schlack, in view of the teachings of Suzuki, by using members 72, as taught by Suzuki, between the clamps 19 and 18, as taught by Schlack, in order to use the pushing/pulling members 72 as a pressurizing mechanism to assist with the discharge by closing the members while the liquid is being ejected (Suzuki, para 0160).
Regarding claim 79, Schlack teaches wherein at least one of the pairs of clamping elements (clamps 18 and 19, fig. 5) comprises a tempering device (“The device may comprise a functional unit 30 which has a water heater or the heating device 3,” para 0041; construed such that the clamp 19 comprises the heating device 3, fig. 5 and that a heating device is equivalent to a heating plate).
Regarding claim 80, Schlack teaches wherein the first pair of clamping elements (clamp 19, fig. 5) is adapted to selectively seal the container assembly (“Clamp 19 closes when the desired quantity is Reached,” para 0054) in a sterile manner so that no bacteria or germs can enter the container assembly's outlet opening (para 0012).
Regarding claim 88, Schlack teaches wherein the at least two clamping elements (clamps 18 and 19, fig. 5) comprise: a first pair of clamping elements disposed adjacent an outlet of the container assembly (clamp 18 positioned near the bottom of the outlet of hose 63, fig. 5; a “pair of clamping elements” is not explicitly disclosed) so that the first pair of clamping elements can selectively prevent the fluid from exiting the container assembly through the container assembly's outlet (“Clamp 18 is closed, water can be pumped up to this clamp,” para 0054); and a second pair of clamping elements disposed adjacent an inlet of the container assembly (clamp 19 is positioned near the inlet of hose 63, fig. 5; a “pair of clamping elements” is not explicitly disclosed) so that the second pair of clamping elements can selectively prevent the fluid from entering the container assembly through the container assembly's inlet (“Clamp 19 closes when the desired quantity is reached,” para 0054; construed such that when the clamp is closed, water cannot enter through the inlet of hose 63, fig. 5).
Schlack does not explicitly disclose a first pair of clamping elements; a second pair of clamping elements (“pairs of clamping elements” are not explicitly disclosed).
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of dispensing liquids, Suzuki teaches a first pair of clamping elements (members 73, figs. 7A-C); a second pair of clamping elements (members 71, figs. 7A-C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schlack, in view of the teachings of Suzuki, by using members 71 and 73, as taught by Suzuki, for the clamps 19 and 18, as taught by Schlack, in order to use pushing/pulling members that serve as opening/closing mechanisms, which can be used to control a specific amount of liquid that can be appropriately ejected from container (Suzuki, paras 0157 and 0161).
Regarding claim 89, the combination of Schlack in view of Sharon, Ameye, and Suzuki as set forth above regarding claim 77 partially teaches the invention of claim 78. Specifically, Schlack teaches the first pair of clamping elements is arranged to prevent the fluid from exiting the container assembly through the container assembly's outlet (clamp 18 positioned near the bottom of the outlet of hose 63, fig. 5) in a closed position of the first pair of clamping elements (para 0054); and the second pair of clamping elements is arranged to prevent the fluid from entering the container assembly through the container assembly's inlet (clamp 19 is positioned near the inlet of hose 63, fig. 5) in a closed position of the second pair of clamping elements (para 0054). Additionally, Suzuki teaches the first pair of clamping elements (members 73, figs. 7A-C); the second pair of clamping elements (members 71, figs. 7A-C).
Schlack does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least two clamping elements further comprise: a third pair of clamping elements, disposed between the first and second pairs of clamping elements, that is arranged to selectively apply pressure to side walls of the container assembly to selectively dispense a dosage of the fluid from the container assembly.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of dispensing liquids, Suzuki teaches wherein the at least two clamping elements (members 71 and 73, figs. 7A-C) further comprise: a third pair of clamping elements (members 72, figs. 7A-C), disposed between the first and second pairs of clamping elements, that is arranged to selectively apply pressure to side walls of the container assembly to selectively dispense a dosage of the fluid from the container assembly (para 0160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schlack, in view of the teachings of Suzuki, by using members 72, as taught by Suzuki, between the clamps 19 and 18, as taught by Schlack, in order to use the pushing/pulling members 72 as a pressurizing mechanism to assist with the discharge by closing the members while the liquid is being ejected (Suzuki, para 0160).
Regarding claim 90, Schlack teaches wherein at least one of the pairs of clamping elements (clamps 18 and 19, fig. 5) comprises a tempering device (“The device may comprise a functional unit 30 which has a water heater or the heating device 3,” para 0041; construed such that the clamp 19 comprises the heating device 3, fig. 5 and that a heating device is equivalent to a heating plate).
Regarding claim 91, Schlack teaches wherein the first pair of clamping elements (clamp 19, fig. 5) is adapted to selectively seal the container assembly (“Clamp 19 closes when the desired quantity is Reached,” para 0054) in a sterile manner so that no bacteria or germs can enter the container assembly's outlet opening (para 0012).
Claims 82 and 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlack (DE-102016000406-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Sharon et al. (US-20130075287-A1) and Ameye et al. (US-20150088304-A1) as applied to claims 66, 81, 85, and 92 above and further in view of White et al. (US-20130306672-A1).
Regarding claim 82, Schlack teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the solid component repository and the dosing device are integrated into or combined as a single, selectively replaceable unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor baby formula preparation devices, White teaches wherein the solid component repository (hopper 20, fig. 2) and the dosing device (screw 26, fig. 2) are integrated into or combined as a single, selectively replaceable unit (para 0039).
White, fig. 2
PNG
media_image5.png
906
712
media_image5.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 Schlack, in view of the teachings of White, by using a combined hopper 20 and screw conveyor 26, as taught by White, instead of a separate concentrate source 11 and screw conveyor, as taught by Schlack, in order to easily remove the hopper an screw together for the purpose of cleaning or replacement without risk of damage to delicate components such as the motor for the screw conveyor (White, para 0039).
Regarding claim 93, Schlack teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the solid component repository and the dosing device are integrated into or combined as a single, selectively replaceable unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor baby formula preparation devices, White teaches wherein the solid component repository (hopper 20, fig. 2) and the dosing device (screw 26, fig. 2) are integrated into or combined as a single, selectively replaceable unit (para 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schlack, in view of the teachings of White, by using a combined hopper 20 and screw conveyor 26, as taught by White, instead of a separate concentrate source 11 and screw conveyor, as taught by Schlack, in order to easily remove the hopper an screw together for the purpose of cleaning or replacement without risk of damage to delicate components such as the motor for the screw conveyor (White, para 0039).
Claims 83 and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlack (DE-102016000406-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Sharon et al. (US-20130075287-A1) and Ameye et al. (US-20150088304-A1) as applied to claims 66, 81, 85, and 92 above and further in view of Vuijk (US-20080277512-A1).
Regarding claim 83, Schlack teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the device comprises a grinder for grinding and/or grinding and dosing.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of dispensing liquids, Vuijk teaches wherein the device (fig. 3) comprises a grinder for grinding (grinder 112, fig. 3; para 0036) and/or grinding and dosing (dosing is provided by the second hopper 104, fig. 3).
Vuijk, fig. 3
PNG
media_image6.png
628
670
media_image6.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 Schlack/White, in view of the teachings of Vuijk, by using a second hopper 102 with a grinder 112, as taught by Vuijk, in addition the screw conveyor and hopper, as taught by White, in order to grind coffee beans using the same common screw conveyor mechanism that provides dosing, for the advantage of providing an additional grinding feature, which does not require any additional drive mechanisms (Vuijk, para 0007).
Regarding claim 94, Schlack teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the device comprises a grinder for grinding and/or grinding and dosing.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of dispensing liquids, Vuijk teaches wherein the device (fig. 3) comprises a grinder for grinding (grinder 112, fig. 3; para 0036) and/or grinding and dosing (dosing is provided by the second hopper 104, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schlack/White, in view of the teachings of Vuijk, by using a second hopper 102 with a grinder 112, as taught by Vuijk, in addition the screw conveyor and hopper, as taught by White, in order to grind coffee beans using the same common screw conveyor mechanism that provides dosing, for the advantage of providing an additional grinding feature, which does not require any additional drive mechanisms (Vuijk, para 0007).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 24 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the previous Office action, claim 66 was identified as being allowable over the prior art references. However, in the current claim set, the scope of claim 66 has been broadened. For example, instead of the fluid reservoir being “integrated” into the container, now the fluid reservoir simply has to be “connected… in one piece.” Furthermore, as identified in the reason for allowance (page 69 in the Office action filed 27 March 2025), the limitation “the fluid reservoir is deliverable pre-filled with the fluid from a factory” was an important justification for allowing the claim. Now, the claim recites “the container assembly is deliverable factory-pre-filled with the fluid.” As pointed out in the reason for allowance, the Ameye reference (US20150088304A1) teaches this limitation. Additionally, most of the structure that was previously recited in claim 66 has since been removed from the claim.
Claim 66 can be returned to being in a condition for allowance by reverting back to the previous claim language.
For the above reasons, 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 12/2/2025
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761