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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 11-12, 17, 20-22, 25, and 28-31 are amended. Claims 4, 9-10, 13, 18-19, 23-24, and 27 are as previously presented. Claim 32 is newly added. Claims 2, 6, 14-16, and 26 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 17-25, and 27-32 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment corrects the objection to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-11, filed on 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-13, and 17-31 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant’s amendment regarding helical evaporator coil and hot water configuration and newly found prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in 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, 4, 12, 18, 27, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwald et al. (US 20020130137 A1, hereinafter Greenwald) in view of Kobayashi (WO 2013108702 A1) and Remo (JP 2012503496 A) and Usherovich (US 5724883 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Greenwald discloses an apparatus (Abstract, “…dispenses hot coffee or other beverage by the cup at a selected temperature…”) comprising:
a powered cooling assembly for use with a beverage brewer configured to brew a hot beverage (Para. 0045, “As in the first embodiment described above, the cold reservoir (3) is connected to the holding tank (2) output (17) via a cooling system (15) that cools down the incoming coffee from Th to a temperature near Tc·”), said powered cooling assembly comprising;
a cooling chamber configured and arranged to produce a cooled beverage by receiving and cooling the hot beverage brewed by the beverage brewer (Para. 0053, “The incoming coffee from the output (17) of the holding tank is cooled down to a temperature approximately equal to, or slightly less than Tc by a heat exchanger.”, where the output 17 includes fresh brewed coffee, Para. 0044, “…pipe (17) would be connected to the normal output of the coffee maker.”);
a control circuit configured to control operation of the powered cooling assembly and the beverage brewer (Para. 0054, “The cooler (40) used in this heat exchanger may work in any one of the ways known to the art, under the control of appropriate circuitry and supply (42).”, where the cooling system can be controlled by ‘appropriate circuitry’); and
a valve being configurable in a first position so that the hot beverage from the beverage brewer is directed to an outlet for dispensing the hot beverage into a beverage holder external to the apparatus (Fig. 2 shows that the hot beverage at Th can be dispensed directly or through Tc by the selector 7; Para. 0043, “…rotating the selector handle (18) on a mixing valve (7), which mixes the coffee coming from the cold reservoir (3) with the coffee coming from the hot reservoir ( 4). The mixed coffee is dispensed into the cup (10) from the mixing valve output (8) through a dispensing valve (9).”, where the selector can choose between the two extremes of only hot or cool beverages, Para. 0045, “Instead, a line (26) from the output (17) of the holding tank (2) is connected directly to the hot inlet of the mixing valve (7). As in the first embodiment described above, the cold reservoir (3) is connected to the holding tank (2) output (17) via a cooling system (15) that cools down the incoming coffee from T.sub.h to a temperature near T.sub.c.”).
Greenwald does not disclose:
a compressor, a condenser, and an evaporator for compressing and circulating a phase change refrigerant through a helical evaporator coil;
cooling chamber by operation of the powered cooling assembly, the helical evaporator coil being disposed in the cooling chamber; hot beverage from the beverage brewer is directed through a central portion of the helical evaporator coil without contacting the helical evaporator coil;
the cooling element being able to cool hot brewed beverage;
a valve positioned downstream of the beverage brewer and upstream of the cooling chamber, the valve being further configurable in a second position so that the hot beverage from the beverage brewer contacts the helical evaporator coil within the cooling chamber for cooling the hot beverage by operation of the powered cooling assembly before dispensing the cooled beverage through the outlet into the beverage holder.
However, Kobayashi discloses, in the similar field of beverage cooling devices (Page 2, Para. 1, “…a beverage cooling device…”), where there is a similar cooling assembly with a coil system that includes a compressor and condenser with a phase change refrigerant within an evaporator coil (Page 3, Para. 5, “The ice making pipe 120 is disposed in the liquid tank 110 and cools the cooling liquid 111 contained in the liquid tank 110 (cooling unit), and has a shape in which the pipe is formed in a coil (spiral) shape. And a refrigerant (for example, chlorofluorocarbon) passes through the inside of the pipe… The ice making pipe 120 constitutes an evaporator in the compression refrigerator, and is connected to the compressor 101, the condenser 102, etc., and constitutes a refrigeration cycle.”, where chlorofluorocarbons used within a refrigeration cycle undergo phase changes). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the cold liquid storage tank with evaporator coil in Greenwald to include the features as taught by Kobayashi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing the chilled beverage to be cooled below the temperature of a conventional ice storage cooling device, where the coolant does not freeze at the freezing point of water, as stated by Kobayashi, Page 2, Para. 3 from end, “…there is a beverage that is cooler than a temperature that can be cooled by a conventional ice storage type cooling device (for example, about -2 ° C). As an apparatus for cooling such a beverage to a temperature at which it is drinkable, an antifreeze that freezes at a temperature lower than that of water is used as a beverage coolant…”.
Remo discloses, in the similar field of beverage producing machines (Abstract, “A coffee machine with a boiler 23 for making coffee, a pump 21 and an extraction unit 27”), where a valve is positioned downstream of the beverage brewer and upstream of a cooling chamber (Modified Fig. 3, where the valve is shown downstream of the beverage brewer and upstream of the cooling chamber; Page 4, Para. 2 from end, “boiler 23 is connected to an extraction unit 27, in which an extraction chamber is arranged, which is a coffee capsule, pod or cartridge, or other that is to form a beverage”, and Page 5, Para. 2, “the coffee flows through the cooling cartridge 13 and is fed through the conduit 37 towards the discharge nozzle 5 with the cup T.”), where the valve has a second position so that the hot beverage from the beverage brewer is directed into the cooling chamber for cooling the beverage before being dispensed into through the outlet into the beverage holder (Page 5, Para. 2, “the outlet conduit 29 of the extraction unit 27 is connected through the opening 31B and the opening 31C of the switching valve 31 to the conduit 35 for connection to the discharge nozzle 5. Thus, in the arrangement of FIG. 3, the coffee flows through the cooling cartridge 13 and is fed through the conduit 37 towards the discharge nozzle 5 with the cup T. 3A, the auxiliary circuit 33 is not used, and coffee flows directly from the extraction unit 27 to the cup T through the opening 31B and the opening 31C of the switching valve 31.”, where similar to the primary reference Greenwald, there is a direct path for the hot brewed beverage to exit into the beverage holder; where the valve allows for the hot brewed beverage to also go through channel 33 so that it encounters a cooling chamber to cool the coffee down before exiting into the beverage holder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve/selector position in modified Greenwald to where the valve/selector is located upstream the cooling chamber as taught by Remo, where the cooling element is taught by the teaching of Hosoda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to have the cooling chamber removable so that it can use colder temperatures from a freezer to allow for more efficient thermal transfer, as stated by Remo, Page 5, Para. 2 from end, “In this manner, if the material contained in the volume V is properly cooled, for example by inserting the cartridge 13 into a strong freezer, the coffee flowing through the coil or flow conduit 41 will release heat and become colder”, where the gel material could be added into the cooling chamber along with the coil from Hosoda to allow for faster thermal energy transfer, then a user could benefit from the beverage cooling down faster.
PNG
media_image1.png
841
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3, Remo
Usherovich discloses, in the similar field of beverage apparatuses (Abstract, “A beverage brewing device”), where the cooling chamber includes a cooling assembly with an evaporator (Section 6, lines 28-29, “Air cooling pan 50 represents the first cooling stage of the cooling system of the present invention.”), where the hot beverage can be directed through a central portion of the evaporator coil without contacting an evaporator (Section 6, lines 12-17, “When in this position, the flow aperture 70 in the diverter surface 66 is in alignment with the internal outlet 46, the external outlet 48 (as seen in FIGS. 2 and 3), and with the opening in the carafe cover 72 for the hot carafe 16. Hot brewed beverage flows directly from the filter basket
and into the hot carafe.”), where the hot beverage can be cooled by contacting the evaporator (Section 6, lines 18-28, “When it is desired to produce a cold brewed beverage, the lever 26 of the switching assembly 24 is moved in the direction of arrow 78 so that the lever 26 rotates in the direction of arrow 77 about pivot point 74, as seen in FIG. 7. When the switching assembly is in this position, the hot brewed beverage which passes through filter basket outlet spout 68 impacts against the diverter surface 66 of the lever 26. The wall 64 of the diverter surface 66 contains the hot brewed beverage and directs it to the flow aperture 70, where is passes through the flow aperture onto the air cooling pan 50.”), where a valve can direct the beverage between the two positions of within the evaporator without contact and onto the evaporator (Section 5, lines 58-64, “brewed beverage exits the filter basket at filter basket outlet spout 68, where it passes through the switching assembly 24 and either through the hot brewed beverage outlet 46, 48 and into hot carafe 16, or the brewed beverage may be diverted by the switching assembly 24 to enter the cooling system as will be described below, depending on the position of the lever 26 of switching assembly 24.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the evaporator coil that cools beverages in modified Greenwald to include the valve switching between letting brewed beverage go within the evaporator without contacting and letting the brewed beverage hit the evaporator as taught by Usherovich.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to simultaneously brew a hot and a cool beverage through only brewing a hot beverage, as stated by Usherovich, Section 2, lines 20-23, “The switching assembly also provides for brewing a hot beverage and then switching to a cold beverage during the brewing process to simultaneously brew a hot beverage and a cold beverage.”.
Regarding claim 4, modified Greenwald teaches the apparatus according to claim 30, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein the at least one blade is configured and arranged to move within the central portion of the helical evaporator coil.
However, Kobayashi discloses, in the similar field of beverage cooling devices (Page 2, Para. 1, “…a beverage cooling device…”), where there is a mixer within the cooling chamber that includes blades (Page 3, last Para., “The coolant agitator 140 agitates the coolant 111 contained in the liquid tank 110 (agitator) so that the coolant 111 is uniformly cooled. The coolant agitator 140 includes a stirring fin 141 and a stirring motor 142.”), where the mixer is located in the center of the evaporator coil (Page 3, last Para., “In the present embodiment, the stirring fin 141 is disposed inside the cylinder formed by the beverage cooling pipe 130…”, where the beverage cooling pipe is located within the evaporator tube/ ice making pipe 120, shown in Fig. 1) and drives liquid radially against the loops of the evaporator coil (Page 4, Para. 1, “That is, when the stirring fin 141 rotates, a flow of the cooling liquid is generated in a downward direction inside the cylinder formed by the beverage cooling pipe 130 and an upward flow in the outside of the cylinder formed by the beverage cooling pipe 130.”, where liquid is circulated radially around the evaporator tube/ice making pipe 120 due to the upward flow around the beverage cooling pipe 130). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the cold liquid storage tank with evaporator coil in modified Greenwald to include the agitator for stirring liquid as taught by Kobayashi.
Examiner notes that although Kobayashi discloses the agitator creating circulation of chilled water to lower the temperature of a beverage within a coil, the agitator also allows for the water to contact the evaporator tubes. Thus, when the agitator is combined with Greenwald and placed similarly within the evaporator coil, it would still be able to circulate liquid outwards towards the evaporator coil like with Kobayashi. The difference would just be the liquid being the beverage instead of water.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing the liquid within the tank to have a uniform temperature, as stated by Kobayashi, Page 4, Para. 1, “By forming such a flow of the cooling liquid, the temperature of the cooling liquid 111 in the liquid tank 110 is made uniform.”.
Regarding claim 12, Greenwald discloses a method (Para. 0030, “…a method of operation of the automatic temperature selection mechanism…”), comprising:
operating a powered cooling assembly for use with a beverage brewer configured to brew quantities of a hot beverage (Para. 0045, “As in the first embodiment described above, the cold reservoir (3) is connected to the holding tank (2) output (17) via a cooling system (15) that cools down the incoming coffee from Th to a temperature near Tc·”), said powered cooling assembly comprising a cooling chamber (Para. 0053, “…coffee to flow in a thin layer very close to the outer tube (38), which is cooled by cooler ( 40), in a helical long path.”);
dispensing the cooled beverage through an outlet into a beverage holder (Para. 0045, “Instead, a line (26) from the output (17) of the holding tank (2) is connected directly to the hot inlet of the mixing valve (7). As in the first embodiment described above, the cold reservoir (3) is connected to the holding tank (2) output (17) via a cooling system (15) that cools down the incoming coffee from T.sub.h to a temperature near T.sub.c.”, where Fig. 2 shows that cooled beverage exits through the same outlet 9 into the beverage holder 10);
configuring a valve in a second position so that a second quantity of the hot beverage is directed from the beverage brewer to the outlet without being cooled by operation of the cooling element, thereby dispensing the second quantity of the hot beverage through the outlet (Fig. 2 shows that the hot beverage at Th can be dispensed directly or through Tc by the selector 7; Para. 0043, “…rotating the selector handle (18) on a mixing valve (7), which mixes the coffee coming from the cold reservoir (3) with the coffee coming from the hot reservoir ( 4). The mixed coffee is dispensed into the cup (10) from the mixing valve output (8) through a dispensing valve (9).”, where the selector can choose between the two extremes of only hot or cool beverages, Para. 0045, “Instead, a line (26) from the output (17) of the holding tank (2) is connected directly to the hot inlet of the mixing valve (7). As in the first embodiment described above, the cold reservoir (3) is connected to the holding tank (2) output (17) via a cooling system (15) that cools down the incoming coffee from T.sub.h to a temperature near T.sub.c.”).
Greenwald does not disclose:
a compressor, a condenser, and an evaporator for compressing and circulating a phase change refrigerant through a helical evaporator coil;
cooling chamber by operation of the powered cooling assembly, the helical evaporator coil being disposed in the cooling chamber; hot beverage from the beverage brewer is directed through a central portion of the helical evaporator coil without contacting the helical evaporator coil;
the cooling element associated with a cooling chamber operating to cool the hot brewed beverage;
configuring a valve, which is positioned downstream of the beverage brewer and upstream of the cooling chamber, in a first position so that a first quantity of the hot beverage from the beverage brewer contacts the helical evaporator coil within the cooling chamber to produce a cooled beverage by operation of the powered cooling element.
However, Kobayashi discloses, in the similar field of beverage cooling devices (Page 2, Para. 1, “…a beverage cooling device…”), where there is a similar cooling assembly with a coil system that includes a compressor and condenser with a phase change refrigerant within an evaporator coil (Page 3, Para. 5, “The ice making pipe 120 is disposed in the liquid tank 110 and cools the cooling liquid 111 contained in the liquid tank 110 (cooling unit), and has a shape in which the pipe is formed in a coil (spiral) shape. And a refrigerant (for example, chlorofluorocarbon) passes through the inside of the pipe… The ice making pipe 120 constitutes an evaporator in the compression refrigerator, and is connected to the compressor 101, the condenser 102, etc., and constitutes a refrigeration cycle.”, where chlorofluorocarbons used within a refrigeration cycle undergo phase changes). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the cold liquid storage tank with evaporator coil in Greenwald to include the features as taught by Kobayashi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing the chilled beverage to be cooled below the temperature of a conventional ice storage cooling device, where the coolant does not freeze at the freezing point of water, as stated by Kobayashi, Page 2, Para. 3 from end, “…there is a beverage that is cooler than a temperature that can be cooled by a conventional ice storage type cooling device (for example, about -2 ° C). As an apparatus for cooling such a beverage to a temperature at which it is drinkable, an antifreeze that freezes at a temperature lower than that of water is used as a beverage coolant…”.
Remo discloses, in the similar field of beverage producing machines (Abstract, “A coffee machine with a boiler 23 for making coffee, a pump 21 and an extraction unit 27”), where a valve is positioned downstream of the beverage brewer and upstream of a cooling chamber (Modified Fig. 3, where the valve is shown downstream of the beverage brewer and upstream of the cooling chamber; Page 4, Para. 2 from end, “boiler 23 is connected to an extraction unit 27, in which an extraction chamber is arranged, which is a coffee capsule, pod or cartridge, or other that is to form a beverage”, and Page 5, Para. 2, “the coffee flows through the cooling cartridge 13 and is fed through the conduit 37 towards the discharge nozzle 5 with the cup T.”), where the valve has a second position so that the hot beverage from the beverage brewer is directed into the cooling chamber for cooling the beverage before being dispensed into through the outlet into the beverage holder (Page 5, Para. 2, “the outlet conduit 29 of the extraction unit 27 is connected through the opening 31B and the opening 31C of the switching valve 31 to the conduit 35 for connection to the discharge nozzle 5. Thus, in the arrangement of FIG. 3, the coffee flows through the cooling cartridge 13 and is fed through the conduit 37 towards the discharge nozzle 5 with the cup T. 3A, the auxiliary circuit 33 is not used, and coffee flows directly from the extraction unit 27 to the cup T through the opening 31B and the opening 31C of the switching valve 31.”, where similar to the primary reference Greenwald, there is a direct path for the hot brewed beverage to exit into the beverage holder; where the valve allows for the hot brewed beverage to also go through channel 33 so that it encounters a cooling chamber to cool the coffee down before exiting into the beverage holder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve/selector position in modified Greenwald to where the valve/selector is located upstream the cooling chamber as taught by Remo, where the cooling element is taught by the teaching of Hosoda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to have the cooling chamber removable so that it can use colder temperatures from a freezer to allow for more efficient thermal transfer, as stated by Remo, Page 5, Para. 2 from end, “In this manner, if the material contained in the volume V is properly cooled, for example by inserting the cartridge 13 into a strong freezer, the coffee flowing through the coil or flow conduit 41 will release heat and become colder”, where the gel material could be added into the cooling chamber along with the coil from Hosoda to allow for faster thermal energy transfer, then a user could benefit from the beverage cooling down faster.
Usherovich discloses, in the similar field of beverage apparatuses (Abstract, “A beverage brewing device”), where the cooling chamber includes a cooling assembly with an evaporator (Section 6, lines 28-29, “Air cooling pan 50 represents the first cooling stage of the cooling system of the present invention.”), where the hot beverage can be directed through a central portion of the evaporator coil without contacting an evaporator (Section 6, lines 12-17, “When in this position, the flow aperture 70 in the diverter surface 66 is in alignment with the internal outlet 46, the external outlet 48 (as seen in FIGS. 2 and 3), and with the opening in the carafe cover 72 for the hot carafe 16. Hot brewed beverage flows directly from the filter basket
and into the hot carafe.”), where the hot beverage can be cooled by contacting the evaporator (Section 6, lines 18-28, “When it is desired to produce a cold brewed beverage, the lever 26 of the switching assembly 24 is moved in the direction of arrow 78 so that the lever 26 rotates in the direction of arrow 77 about pivot point 74, as seen in FIG. 7. When the switching assembly is in this position, the hot brewed beverage which passes through filter basket outlet spout 68 impacts against the diverter surface 66 of the lever 26. The wall 64 of the diverter surface 66 contains the hot brewed beverage and directs it to the flow aperture 70, where is passes through the flow aperture onto the air cooling pan 50.”), where a valve can direct the beverage between the two positions of within the evaporator without contact and onto the evaporator (Section 5, lines 58-64, “brewed beverage exits the filter basket at filter basket outlet spout 68, where it passes through the switching assembly 24 and either through the hot brewed beverage outlet 46, 48 and into hot carafe 16, or the brewed beverage may be diverted by the switching assembly 24 to enter the cooling system as will be described below, depending on the position of the lever 26 of switching assembly 24.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the evaporator coil that cools beverages in modified Greenwald to include the valve switching between letting brewed beverage go within the evaporator without contacting and letting the brewed beverage hit the evaporator as taught by Usherovich.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to simultaneously brew a hot and a cool beverage through only brewing a hot beverage, as stated by Usherovich, Section 2, lines 20-23, “The switching assembly also provides for brewing a hot beverage and then switching to a cold beverage during the brewing process to simultaneously brew a hot beverage and a cold beverage.”.
Regarding claim 18, modified Greenwald teaches the method according to claim 31, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein operating the mixer comprises moving at least one blade within a central portion of a helical evaporator coil.
However, Kobayashi discloses, in the similar field of beverage cooling devices (Page 2, Para. 1, “…a beverage cooling device…”), where there is a mixer within the cooling chamber that includes blades (Page 3, last Para., “The coolant agitator 140 agitates the coolant 111 contained in the liquid tank 110 (agitator) so that the coolant 111 is uniformly cooled. The coolant agitator 140 includes a stirring fin 141 and a stirring motor 142.”), where the mixer is located in the center of the evaporator coil (Page 3, last Para., “In the present embodiment, the stirring fin 141 is disposed inside the cylinder formed by the beverage cooling pipe 130…”, where the beverage cooling pipe is located within the evaporator tube/ ice making pipe 120, shown in Fig. 1) and drives liquid radially against the loops of the evaporator coil (Page 4, Para. 1, “That is, when the stirring fin 141 rotates, a flow of the cooling liquid is generated in a downward direction inside the cylinder formed by the beverage cooling pipe 130 and an upward flow in the outside of the cylinder formed by the beverage cooling pipe 130.”, where liquid is circulated radially around the evaporator tube/ice making pipe 120 due to the upward flow around the beverage cooling pipe 130). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the cold liquid storage tank with evaporator coil in modified Greenwald to include the agitator for stirring liquid as taught by Kobayashi.
Examiner notes that although Kobayashi discloses the agitator creating circulation of chilled water to lower the temperature of a beverage within a coil, the agitator also allows for the water to contact the evaporator tubes. Thus, when the agitator is combined with Greenwald and placed similarly within the evaporator coil, it would still be able to circulate liquid outwards towards the evaporator coil like with Kobayashi. The difference would just be the liquid being the beverage instead of water.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing the liquid within the tank to have a uniform temperature, as stated by Kobayashi, Page 4, Para. 1, “By forming such a flow of the cooling liquid, the temperature of the cooling liquid 111 in the liquid tank 110 is made uniform.”.
Regarding claim 27, modified Greenwald teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses in combination with the beverage brewer, wherein the beverage brewer, the powered cooling assembly, the cooling chamber, and the selector are formed as an integrated unit (Greenwald, Para. 0044, “FIG. 2 shows an alternative embodiment of the invention, in which the hot reservoir is replaced by a direct feed line (26) from the holding tank (2). This embodiment can be built as a simpler version of the embodiment of FIG. 1, above, or installed as an add-on module (21) to an existing industrial coffee…”, where the beverage apparatus is one integrated unit that is movable).
Regarding claim 32, modified Greenwald teaches the apparatus according to claim 27, as set forth above, discloses wherein the beverage brewer is configured to brew hot coffee or tea (Greenwald, Abstract, “The present invention dispenses hot coffee or other beverage by the cup at a selected temperature”).
Claims 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwald et al. (US 20020130137 A1, hereinafter Greenwald) in view of Kobayashi (WO 2013108702 A1) and Remo (JP 2012503496 A) and Usherovich (US 5724883 A1) in further view of Hosoda et al. (JP H01312374 A, hereinafter Hosoda).
Regarding claim 28, modified Greenwald teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the control circuit coordinates the operation of the powered cooling assembly with the beverage brewer (Greenwald, Para. 0054, “In such a case, ( 42) would be a power supply for the fan, in a conventional manner in response to operation of the output valve, or by sensing coffee flow in the exchanger, or thermally, or in any other way which might be desired.”, where in response to the output valve signaling the start of the cooling operation, the cooling element can be activated).
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
coordinating to pre-cool the helical evaporator coil to be operation ready when a flow of a hot beverage from the beverage brewer into the cooling chamber commences.
However, Hosoda discloses where the cooling system contains refrigerant that is kept at a pre-cooled temperature, where the activation of the cooling system would result in the circulation of the refrigerant and pre-cooling of the cooling element (Abstract, “The temperature of a refrigerant in the evaporating pipe 10 can be controlled to or below the ice point by appropriately balancing the cycle of the refrigerating unit 12, so that it is possible to obtain a high cooling effect…”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system in modified Greenwald to include the pre-cooling feature as taught by Hosoda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to achieve a high cooling effect with a small heat transfer area and being able to reduce the size and weight of the cooling device, as stated by Hosoda, Abstract, “The temperature of a refrigerant in the evaporating pipe 10 can be controlled to or below the ice point by appropriately balancing the cycle of the refrigerating unit 12, so that it is possible to obtain a high cooling effect with a small heat transfer area and to reduce the size and weight of the title device.”.
Regarding claim 29, modified Greenwald teaches the method according to claim 12, as set forth above, discloses further comprising coordinating the operation of the powered cooling assembly with the beverage brewer (Greenwald, Para. 0054, “In such a case, ( 42) would be a power supply for the fan, in a conventional manner in response to operation of the output valve, or by sensing coffee flow in the exchanger, or thermally, or in any other way which might be desired.”, where in response to the output valve signaling the start of the cooling operation, the cooling element can be activated).
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
coordinating to pre-cool the helical evaporator coil to be operation ready when a flow of a hot beverage from the beverage brewer into the cooling chamber commences.
However, Hosoda discloses where the cooling system contains refrigerant that is kept at a pre-cooled temperature, where the activation of the cooling system would result in the circulation of the refrigerant and pre-cooling of the cooling element (Abstract, “The temperature of a refrigerant in the evaporating pipe 10 can be controlled to or below the ice point by appropriately balancing the cycle of the refrigerating unit 12, so that it is possible to obtain a high cooling effect…”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system in modified Greenwald to include the pre-cooling feature as taught by Hosoda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to achieve a high cooling effect with a small heat transfer area and being able to reduce the size and weight of the cooling device, as stated by Hosoda, Abstract, “The temperature of a refrigerant in the evaporating pipe 10 can be controlled to or below the ice point by appropriately balancing the cycle of the refrigerating unit 12, so that it is possible to obtain a high cooling effect with a small heat transfer area and to reduce the size and weight of the title device.”.
Regarding claim 30, modified Greenwald teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
further comprising a mixer configured to circulate the hot beverage in the cooling chamber against the helical evaporator coil until the hot beverage is cooled to a predetermined temperature.
However, Hosoda discloses where a mixer can circulate the retained beverage against the cooling element until the predetermined temperature has been met (Page 2, Para. 6, “As the amount of the liquid 15' stored at the bottom of the liquid storage tank 11 increases (as a result, the lower part of the evaporation tube 10 becomes immersed in the liquid 15', further cooling the stored liquid 15'. Tank 11 If a stirring device 16 is provided at the bottom of the tank, the cooling effect of the stored liquid 15' will be further enhanced.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling tank in modified Greenwald to include the features as taught by Hosoda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a cooling system that is smaller and lighter while still being able to having proper cooling abilities, as stated by Hosoda, Page 2, Para. 2, “Function: In the structure according to the present invention, the liquid is caused to flow along the surface of the evaporation tube, so that the liquid can be kept in contact with the evaporation tube for a longer period of time. In addition, since the liquid is directly cooled by the evaporator tube, the cooling efficiency is 10,000, and a large cooling capacity can be achieved with a small evaporator tube. Therefore, the device can be made smaller and lighter.”.
Regarding claim 31, modified Greenwald teaches the method according to claim 12, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
further comprising operating a mixer configured to circulate the hot beverage in the cooling chamber against the helical evaporator coil until the hot beverage is cooled to a predetermined temperature.
However, Hosoda discloses where a mixer can circulate the retained beverage against the cooling element until the predetermined temperature has been met (Page 2, Para. 6, “As the amount of the liquid 15' stored at the bottom of the liquid storage tank 11 increases (as a result, the lower part of the evaporation tube 10 becomes immersed in the liquid 15', further cooling the stored liquid 15'. Tank 11 If a stirring device 16 is provided at the bottom of the tank, the cooling effect of the stored liquid 15' will be further enhanced.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling tank in modified Greenwald to include the features as taught by Hosoda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a cooling system that is smaller and lighter while still being able to having proper cooling abilities, as stated by Hosoda, Page 2, Para. 2, “Function: In the structure according to the present invention, the liquid is caused to flow along the surface of the evaporation tube, so that the liquid can be kept in contact with the evaporation tube for a longer period of time. In addition, since the liquid is directly cooled by the evaporator tube, the cooling efficiency is 10,000, and a large cooling capacity can be achieved with a small evaporator tube. Therefore, the device can be made smaller and lighter.”.
Claim 3 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwald et al. (US 20020130137 A1, hereinafter Greenwald) in view of Kobayashi (WO 2013108702 A1) and Remo (JP 2012503496 A) and Usherovich (US 5724883 A1) in further view of Younkle et al. (WO 2007117497 A2, hereinafter Younkle).
Regarding claim 3, modified Greenwald teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein the helical evaporator coil is shaped as a double helix.
Younkle discloses, in the similar field of beverage cooling devices (Para. 0002, “…beverage dispensing system that can cool a beverage to a desired temperature…”), where there is an evaporator coil that is in the shape of a double helix (Para. 0007, “The cold coil provides more surface area to contact the ice bath than the cold plate since the coil itself is immersed in a cold liquid. The coil is often a single helix or double helixes that share the same central axis.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the evaporator coil in modified Greenwald to include the specific double helix shape as taught by Younkle.
Regarding the specific shape of the evaporator coil, it has been held that the mere change in shape is an obvious modification to make. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It is the Examiner’s position that the specific shape of the evaporator coil in Younkle would still allow for beverages to be cooled in Greenwald. Thus, the end result of allowing beverages to be cooled would be the same and the specific shape would be a mere matter of user design choice. Younkle also states that the coil is often a single or double helix, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that multiple shapes of the evaporator coil could work in cooling beverages.
Regarding claim 17, modified Greenwald teaches the method according to claim 12, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein the cooling element comprises a helical evaporator coil shaped as a double helix.
However, Younkle discloses, in the similar field of beverage cooling devices (Para. 0002, “…beverage dispensing system that can cool a beverage to a desired temperature…”), where there is an evaporator coil that is in the shape of a double helix (Para. 0007, “The cold coil provides more surface area to contact the ice bath than the cold plate since the coil itself is immersed in a cold liquid. The coil is often a single helix or double helixes that share the same central axis.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the evaporator coil in modified Greenwald to include the specific double helix shape as taught by Younkle.
Regarding the specific shape of the evaporator coil, it has been held that the mere change in shape is an obvious modification to make. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It is the Examiner’s position that the specific shape of the evaporator coil in Younkle would still allow for beverages to be cooled in Greenwald. Thus, the end result of allowing beverages to be cooled would be the same and the specific shape would be a mere matter of user design choice. Younkle also states that the coil is often a single or double helix, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that multiple shapes of the evaporator coil could work in cooling beverages.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwald et al. (US 20020130137 A1, hereinafter Greenwald) in view of Kobayashi (WO 2013108702 A1) and Remo (JP 2012503496 A) and Usherovich (US 5724883 A1) in further view of Haynes (US 4550651 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Greenwald teaches the method according to claim 12, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein the first quantity of the hot beverage comprises freshly-brewed coffee or tea.
However, Haynes discloses, in the similar field of cooling beverages with coils (Page 3, Section 2, lines 54-58, “Several alternative means of cooling the fresh brewed coffee are shown. FIG. 2 illustrates a heat exchanger 24 which passes fresh, cold water through the pipes on its way to the hot water reservoir 10, inside the holding and cooling tank 16.”), where the beverage brews coffee (Page 3, Section 1, lines 5-6, “Many coffee brewers and systems have been designed to brew coffee in small and large quantities.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the beverage cooling apparatus in modified Greenwald to brew coffee as taught by Haynes.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a cooling system that can prolong the life of the specific beverage, which is coffee, as stated by Haynes, Page 3, Section 1, lines 38-41, “Taste tests have shown that if the coffee is cooled after brewing to an ambient temperature, and then stored in the holding reservoir, and not heated until needed, the storage life is significantly increased.”.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwald et al. (US 20020130137 A1, hereinafter Greenwald) in view of Kobayashi (WO 2013108702 A1) and Remo (JP 2012503496 A) and Usherovich (US 5724883 A1) in further view of Hosoda et al. (JP H01312374 A, hereinafter Hosoda) and Price (US 3060702 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Greenwald teaches the apparatus according to claim 30, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein the mixer comprises at least one blade configured and arranged to move within the cooling chamber and
the at least one blade comprises a plurality of vanes that extend vertically through at least part of the central portion of the helical evaporator coil.
However, Kobayashi discloses, in the similar field of beverage cooling devices (Page 2, Para. 1, “…a beverage cooling device…”), where there is a mixer within the cooling chamber that includes blades (Page 3, last Para., “The coolant agitator 140 agitates the coolant 111 contained in the liquid tank 110 (agitator) so that the coolant 111 is uniformly cooled. The coolant agitator 140 includes a stirring fin 141 and a stirring motor 142.”), where the mixer is located in the center of the evaporator coil (Page 3, last Para., “In the present embodiment, the stirring fin 141 is disposed inside the cylinder formed by the beverage cooling pipe 130…”, where the beverage cooling pipe is located within the evaporator tube/ ice making pipe 120, shown in Fig. 1) and drives liquid radially against the loops of the evaporator coil (Page 4, Para. 1, “That is, when the stirring fin 141 rotates, a flow of the cooling liquid is generated in a downward direction inside the cylinder formed by the beverage cooling pipe 130 and an upward flow in the outside of the cylinder formed by the beverage cooling pipe 130.”, where liquid is circulated radially around the evaporator tube/ice making pipe 120 due to the upward flow around the beverage cooling pipe 130). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the cold liquid storage tank with evaporator coil in modified Greenwald to include the agitator for stirring liquid as taught by Kobayashi.
Examiner notes that although Kobayashi discloses the agitator creating circulation of chilled water to lower the temperature of a beverage within a coil, the agitator also allows for the water to contact the evaporator tubes. Thus, when the agitator is combined with Greenwald and placed similarly within the evaporator coil, it would still be able to circulate liquid outwards towards the evaporator coil like with Kobayashi. The difference would just be the liquid being the beverage instead of water.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing the liquid within the tank to have a uniform temperature, as stated by Kobayashi, Page 4, Para. 1, “By forming such a flow of the cooling liquid, the temperature of the cooling liquid 111 in the liquid tank 110 is made uniform.”.
Further, Price discloses, in an adjacent art area regarding fans or agitators (Page 8, Section 3, lines 70-71, “An impeller 60 is mounted for free revolving about this spindle 50.”), where there are agitators/fans that can have multiple vanes that extend vertically (Page 8, Section 3, lines 71-74, “This impeller 60 is generally cylindrical as at 61 with a plurality of vanes 62 extending from its cylindrical and top end surfaces…”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the agitator located in the center of the evaporator coil in modified Greenwald to include additional vanes as taught by Price.
Regarding the addition of more vanes, it is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try. The agitator design from the teaching of Kobayashi and the from the teaching of Price would both achieve a similar end result of stirring liquid. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that different agitator design provide distinct advantages while still achieving the same end result of stirring liquid and choosing between a design would be a mere matter of user design choice.
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwald et al. (US 20020130137 A1, hereinafter Greenwald) in view of Kobayashi (WO 2013108702 A1) and Remo (JP 2012503496 A) and Usherovich (US 5724883 A1) in further view of Price (US 3060702 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Greenwald teaches the method according to claim 18, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein the at least one blade comprises a plurality of vanes that extend vertically through at least part of the central portion of the helical evaporator coil.
However, Price discloses, in an adjacent art area regarding fans or agitators (Page 8, Section 3, lines 70-71, “An impeller 60 is mounted for free revolving about this spindle 50.”), where there are agitators/fans that can have multiple vanes that extend vertically (Page 8, Section 3, lines 71-74, “This impeller 60 is generally cylindrical as at 61 with a plurality of vanes 62 extending from its cylindrical and top end surfaces…”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the agitator located in the center of the evaporator coil in modified Greenwald to include additional vanes as taught by Price.
Regarding the addition of more vanes, it is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try. The agitator design from the teaching of Kobayashi and the from the teaching of Price would both achieve a similar end result of stirring liquid. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that different agitator design provide distinct advantages while still achieving the same end result of stirring liquid and choosing between a design would be a mere matter of user design choice.
Claims 7 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwald et al. (US 20020130137 A1, hereinafter Greenwald) in view of Kobayashi (WO 2013108702 A1) and Remo (JP 2012503496 A) and Usherovich (US 5724883 A1) in further view of Hosoda et al. (JP H01312374 A, hereinafter Hosoda) and Hansen et al. (US 6188045 B1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Greenwald teaches the apparatus according to claim 30, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein the mixer comprises at least one blade having a plurality of vanes configured and arranged to move circumferentially about the helical evaporator coil.
However, Hansen discloses, in the adjacent art area regarding fans (Page 7, Section 1, lines 18-19, “…motor driven fan is used to circulate air within a cooking chamber…”), where there is a fan that surrounds the perimeter of a coil/tube to circulate liquid (Page 8, Section 4, lines 13-22, “As the atomizer cup 22 and fan 20 are rotated, the impinging water is broken up and directed past the heating elements 16. The atomizer cup 22 and fan 20 act to break up the water in three stages. First, water leaving the water line 64 impinges on the inside surface of the atomizer cup walls 48. The rotating rectilinear walls 48 disrupt and agitate the impinging water to a greater extent than smooth curvilinear surfaces. Second, the centrifugal force generated by rotation directs the water within the cup volume 52 radially outward to the edge slots 60…”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified blades of the agitator and the evaporator coil in modified Greenwald to have the blades of the agitator be located and arranged to move around the perimeter of the coil as taught by Hansen, where the fan rotates circumferentially around an atomizer cup that is fed by a tube, construed to function similarly as a coil.
Regarding the specific configuration of the blades with the evaporator coil, it has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification to make. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It is the Examiner’s position that having the blades of the agitator be located within the coil or outside the coil still allow for liquid to be circulated radially as the entire system is a closed system located within a rigid liquid tank. Hansen shows that other configurations for fan blades are known and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that fan location would be a mere matter of user design choice.
Regarding claim 20, modified Greenwald teaches the method according to claim 31, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein operating the mixer comprises moving the at least one blade around a perimeter of the helical evaporator coil.
However, Hansen discloses, in the adjacent art area regarding fans (Page 7, Section 1, lines 18-19, “…motor driven fan is used to circulate air within a cooking chamber…”), where there is a fan that surrounds the perimeter of a coil/tube to circulate liquid (Page 8, Section 4, lines 13-22, “As the atomizer cup 22 and fan 20 are rotated, the impinging water is broken up and directed past the heating elements 16. The atomizer cup 22 and fan 20 act to break up the water in three stages. First, water leaving the water line 64 impinges on the inside surface of the atomizer cup walls 48. The rotating rectilinear walls 48 disrupt and agitate the impinging water to a greater extent than smooth curvilinear surfaces. Second, the centrifugal force generated by rotation directs the water within the cup volume 52 radially outward to the edge slots 60…”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified blades of the agitator and the evaporator coil in modified Greenwald to have the blades of the agitator be located and arranged to move around the perimeter of the coil as taught by Hansen.
Regarding the specific configuration of the blades with the evaporator coil, it has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification to make. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It is the Examiner’s position that having the blades of the agitator be located within the coil or outside the coil still allow for liquid to be circulated radially as the entire system is a closed system located within a rigid liquid tank. Hansen shows that other configurations for fan blades are known and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that fan location would be a mere matter of user design choice.
Regarding claim 21, modified Greenwald teaches the method according to claim 20, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein the at least one blade comprises a plurality of vanes configured and arranged to move circumferentially about helical evaporator coil.
However, Hansen discloses, in the adjacent art area regarding fans (Page 7, Section 1, lines 18-19, “…motor driven fan is used to circulate air within a cooking chamber…”), where there is a fan that surrounds the perimeter of a coil/tube to circulate liquid (Page 8, Section 4, lines 13-22, “As the atomizer cup 22 and fan 20 are rotated, the impinging water is broken up and directed past the heating elements 16. The atomizer cup 22 and fan 20 act to break up the water in three stages. First, water leaving the water line 64 impinges on the inside surface of the atomizer cup walls 48. The rotating rectilinear walls 48 disrupt and agitate the impinging water to a greater extent than smooth curvilinear surfaces. Second, the centrifugal force generated by rotation directs the water within the cup volume 52 radially outward to the edge slots 60…”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified blades of the agitator and the evaporator coil in modified Greenwald to have the blades of the agitator be located and arranged to move around the perimeter of the coil as taught by Hansen, where the fan rotates circumferentially around an atomizer cup that is fed by a tube, construed to function similarly as a coil.
Regarding the specific configuration of the blades with the evaporator coil, it has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification to make. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It is the Examiner’s position that having the blades of the agitator be located within the coil or outside the coil still allow for liquid to be circulated radially as the entire system is a closed system located within a rigid liquid tank. Hansen shows that other configurations for fan blades are known and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that fan location would be a mere matter of user design choice.
Claim 8 and 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwald et al. (US 20020130137 A1, hereinafter Greenwald) in view of Kobayashi (WO 2013108702 A1) and Remo (JP 2012503496 A) and Usherovich (US 5724883 A1) in further view of Shima et al. (WO 2015019988 A1, hereinafter Shima) and Heczko (US 20150245421 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Greenwald teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein a ratio of a heat transfer surface area of the helical evaporator coil to a volume of the cooling chamber is at least 0.02916 square feet per fluid ounce.
However, Shima discloses, in the similar field of agitators (Abstract, “…an agitating blade (2D) that agitates a fluid…”), where 300 cc of liquid is stirred by the agitator (Page 5, Para. 1, “The stirring blade 2 of this size is effective for a liquid having a capacity of 300 cc or less. If it is 300 cc or less, sufficient foaming can be achieved.”).
Further, Heczko discloses, in the similar field of coils (Para. 0133, “…heatable element from the coil…”), where different sizes for the coil are possible (Para. 0133, “For example, if the power generator is set to a given notional power setting (e.g., 1500 Watts), then a 20 square inch inductively heatable element might draw the entire 1500 Watts (12.5 Amps at 120 Volts). However, a 10 square inch inductively heatable element might draw only 1000 Watts (8.3 Amps at 120 Volts).”).
Shima discloses a liquid capacity could potentially be 300 cc which is 10.144 ounces. Heczko discloses a potential 10 square inch coil which is 0.833 square feet. Thus, the ratio of square feet per fluid ounce would be (0.8333/ 10.144) = 0.08215 sq ft/ fl.oz, which would satisfy applicant’s requirement. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the evaporator coil and cooling chamber in modified Greenwald to include the specific dimensions as taught by Shima and Heczko.
Regarding the claimed ratio of heat transfer, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, through routine experimentation, to selectively choose or optimize a specific heat transfer value, from the evaporator coil and cooling chamber dimensions. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II A and B. Routine optimization would have been desired to one of ordinary skill in the art to find dimensional values for the evaporator coil and cooling chamber that provide for the most efficiency when operating the cooling device.
Regarding claim 22, modified Greenwald teaches the method according to claim 12, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein a ratio of a heat transfer surface area of the helical evaporator coil to a volume of the cooling chamber is at least 0.02916 square feet per fluid ounce.
However, Shima discloses, in the similar field of agitators (Abstract, “…an agitating blade (2D) that agitates a fluid…”), where 300 cc of liquid is stirred by the agitator (Page 5, Para. 1, “The stirring blade 2 of this size is effective for a liquid having a capacity of 300 cc or less. If it is 300 cc or less, sufficient foaming can be achieved.”).
Further, Heczko discloses, in the similar field of coils (Para. 0133, “…heatable element from the coil…”), where different sizes for the coil are possible (Para. 0133, “For example, if the power generator is set to a given notional power setting (e.g., 1500 Watts), then a 20 square inch inductively heatable element might draw the entire 1500 Watts (12.5 Amps at 120 Volts). However, a 10 square inch inductively heatable element might draw only 1000 Watts (8.3 Amps at 120 Volts).”).
Shima discloses a liquid capacity could potentially be 300 cc which is 10.144 ounces. Heczko discloses a potential 10 square inch coil which is 0.833 square feet. Thus, the ratio of square feet per fluid ounce would be (0.8333/ 10.144) = 0.08215 sq ft/ fl.oz, which would satisfy applicant’s requirement. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the evaporator coil and cooling chamber in modified Greenwald to include the specific dimensions as taught by Shima and Heczko.
Regarding the claimed ratio of heat transfer, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, through routine experimentation, to selectively choose or optimize a specific heat transfer value, from the evaporator coil and cooling chamber dimensions. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II A and B. Routine optimization would have been desired to one of ordinary skill in the art to find dimensional values for the evaporator coil and cooling chamber that provide for the most efficiency when operating the cooling device.
Claims 11 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwald et al. (US 20020130137 A1, hereinafter Greenwald) in view of Kobayashi (WO 2013108702 A1) and Remo (JP 2012503496 A) and Usherovich (US 5724883 A1) in further view of Heczko (US 20150245421 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Greenwald teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein a ratio of a heat transfer surface area of the helical evaporator coil to a power consumed by the compressor is at least 0.00096 square feet per Watt.
Heczko discloses, in the similar field of coils (Para. 0133, “…heatable element from the coil…”), where different sizes for the coil are possible (Para. 0133, “For example, if the power generator is set to a given notional power setting (e.g., 1500 Watts), then a 20 square inch inductively heatable element might draw the entire 1500 Watts (12.5 Amps at 120 Volts). However, a 10 square inch inductively heatable element might draw only 1000 Watts (8.3 Amps at 120 Volts).”), where the power used by a 20 square inch coil would be (1.666 sq ft/ 1500 watt) = 0.0011 sq ft/ watt, which would satisfy applicant’s requirements. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the evaporator coil in modified Greenwald to include the specific dimensions as taught by Heczko.
Regarding the claimed power consumption, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, through routine experimentation, to selectively choose or optimize a specific power consumption value, from the evaporator coil dimensions. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II A and B. Routine optimization would have been desired to one of ordinary skill in the art to find dimensional values for the evaporator coil that provide for the most efficiency when operating the cooling device.
Regarding claim 25, modified Greenwald teaches the method according to claim 12, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein a ratio of a heat transfer surface area of the helical evaporator coil to a power consumed by the compressor is at least 0.00096 square feet per Watt.
Heczko discloses, in the similar field of coils (Para. 0133, “…heatable element from the coil…”), where different sizes for the coil are possible (Para. 0133, “For example, if the power generator is set to a given notional power setting (e.g., 1500 Watts), then a 20 square inch inductively heatable element might draw the entire 1500 Watts (12.5 Amps at 120 Volts). However, a 10 square inch inductively heatable element might draw only 1000 Watts (8.3 Amps at 120 Volts).”), where the power used by a 20 square inch coil would be (1.666 sq ft/ 1500 watt) = 0.0011 sq ft/ watt, which would satisfy applicant’s requirements. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the evaporator coil in modified Greenwald to include the specific dimensions as taught by Heczko.
Regarding the claimed power consumption, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, through routine experimentation, to selectively choose or optimize a specific power consumption value, from the evaporator coil dimensions. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II A and B. Routine optimization would have been desired to one of ordinary skill in the art to find dimensional values for the evaporator coil that provide for the most efficiency when operating the cooling device.
Claims 9-10 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwald et al. (US 20020130137 A1, hereinafter Greenwald) in view of Kobayashi (WO 2013108702 A1) and Remo (JP 2012503496 A) and Usherovich (US 5724883 A1) in further view of Shima et al. (WO 2015019988 A1, hereinafter Shima).
Regarding claim 9, modified Greenwald teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein the mixer is configured to rotate the at least one blade at 290 or more revolutions per minute.
However, Shima discloses where an agitator can have different revolutions per minute (Page 4, last Para., “By setting the rotation speed of the stirring blade 2 of the present embodiment having the above dimensions to 1200 rpm to 3000 rpm (no load) or 600 rpm to 1300 rpm (loading), the tip (upper end) of the stirring blade 2 has a liquid surface S.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the agitator in modified Greenwald to include different revolutions per minute speeds as taught by Shima.
Regarding the claimed rpm speeds, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, through routine experimentation, to selectively choose or optimize a specific rpm value, from adjusting the fan and motor design. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II A and B. Routine optimization would have been desired to one of ordinary skill in the art to find different rpm speeds so allow for greater control over the circulating rate of fluid within the cooling chamber.
Regarding claim 10, modified Greenwald teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein the mixer is configured to rotate the at least one blade at 440 or fewer revolutions per minute.
However, Shima discloses where an agitator can have different revolutions per minute (Page 4, last Para., “By setting the rotation speed of the stirring blade 2 of the present embodiment having the above dimensions to 1200 rpm to 3000 rpm (no load) or 600 rpm to 1300 rpm (loading), the tip (upper end) of the stirring blade 2 has a liquid surface S.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the agitator in modified Greenwald to include different revolutions per minute speeds as taught by Shima. Although the rpm values of Shima are greater than 440, it is the Examiner’s position that Shima discloses how rpm speeds can be adjusted under different loads and one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to creating other rpm speeds outside of Shima through adjusting the load, fan, and motors.
Regarding the claimed rpm speeds, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, through routine experimentation, to selectively choose or optimize a specific rpm value, from adjusting the fan and motor design. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II A and B. Routine optimization would have been desired to one of ordinary skill in the art to find different rpm speeds so allow for greater control over the circulating rate of fluid within the cooling chamber.
Regarding claim 23, modified Greenwald teaches the method according to claim 18, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein operating the mixer comprises rotating the at least one blade at 290 or more revolutions per minute.
However, Shima discloses where an agitator can have different revolutions per minute (Page 4, last Para., “By setting the rotation speed of the stirring blade 2 of the present embodiment having the above dimensions to 1200 rpm to 3000 rpm (no load) or 600 rpm to 1300 rpm (loading), the tip (upper end) of the stirring blade 2 has a liquid surface S.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the agitator in modified Greenwald to include different revolutions per minute speeds as taught by Shima.
Regarding the claimed rpm speeds, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, through routine experimentation, to selectively choose or optimize a specific rpm value, from adjusting the fan and motor design. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II A and B. Routine optimization would have been desired to one of ordinary skill in the art to find different rpm speeds so allow for greater control over the circulating rate of fluid within the cooling chamber.
Regarding claim 24, modified Greenwald teaches the method according to claim 23, as set forth above.
Modified Greenwald does not disclose:
wherein operating the mixer comprises rotating the at least one blade at 440 or fewer revolutions per minute.
However, Shima discloses where an agitator can have different revolutions per minute (Page 4, last Para., “By setting the rotation speed of the stirring blade 2 of the present embodiment having the above dimensions to 1200 rpm to 3000 rpm (no load) or 600 rpm to 1300 rpm (loading), the tip (upper end) of the stirring blade 2 has a liquid surface S.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the agitator in modified Greenwald to include different revolutions per minute speeds as taught by Shima. Although the rpm values of Shima are greater than 440, it is the Examiner’s position that Shima discloses how rpm speeds can be adjusted under different loads and one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to creating other rpm speeds outside of Shima through adjusting the load, fan, and motors.
Regarding the claimed rpm speeds, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, through routine experimentation, to selectively choose or optimize a specific rpm value, from adjusting the fan and motor design. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II A and B. Routine optimization would have been desired to one of ordinary skill in the art to find different rpm speeds so allow for greater control over the circulating rate of fluid within the cooling chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
05/13/2026
Prosecution Insights