DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the pre-appeal brief conference decision of 03/02/26. Claims 1, 2, and 4-18 are presently pending in this application.
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 as detailed herafter:
“motion device”: “The motion device 20 is capable of moving the dispensing outlet 14. For example, the motion device 20 is instructed to move the dispensing outlet 14 according to at least one brewing pattern. As shown in FIG. 3A, in one embodiment, the motion device 20 may include a frame 21, two longitudinal transmission assemblies 22 and a lateral transmission assembly 23. Each longitudinal transmission assembly 22 is disposed on the frame 21 and includes two drive wheels 221 and a longitudinal pulley 222, and the drive wheels 221 are rotatably mounted on the frame 21. The longitudinal pulley 222 is coupled to two drive wheels 221 and driven by the drive wheels 221. The longitudinal transmission assemblies 22 move the lateral transmission assembly 23 in a longitudinal direction. The lateral transmission assembly 23 is disposed on the longitudinal transmission assemblies 22 and includes a movable seat 231, two drive wheels 232 and a lateral pulley 233. The movable seat 231 is disposed on the longitudinal pulley 222 and moves along with the longitudinal pulley 222, and the drive wheels 232 are rotatably mounted on the movable seat 231. The lateral pulley 233 is coupled to the drive wheels 232 and driven by the two wheels 232. The dispensing outlet 14 is disposed on the lateral pulley 233 and moves along with the lateral pulley 233, and the lateral transmission assembly 23 moves the dispensing outlet 14 in a lateral direction. In other embodiment, as shown in FIG. 3B, the motion device 20 may be simplified to have only one longitudinal transmission assembly 22, and the lateral transmission assembly 23 is directly disposed on the longitudinal transmission assembly 22 to thus omit the frame 21 shown in FIG. 3A. Moreover, the pulley may be replaced by a threaded rod without limitation. In the above embodiments, the motion device 20 in the form of an X-Y Table has a first transmission mechanism (longitudinal transmission assembly 22) and a second transmission mechanism (lateral transmission assembly 23). The first transmission mechanism (longitudinal transmission assembly 22) may move the second transmission mechanism (lateral transmission assembly 23) to allow the second transmission mechanism (lateral transmission assembly 23) to move linearly and thus have a line-shaped motion trajectory, and the second transmission mechanism (lateral transmission assembly 23) may linearly move the dispensing outlet 14 to allow the dispensing outlet 14 to similarly have a line-shaped motion trajectory. Therefore, the motion device 20 may move the dispensing outlet 14 to any position of the plane S1 shown in FIG. 4 to simulate the dispensation mode and pouring path in brewing pour-over coffee or other beverages. In this embodiment, the area of the plane S1 (area that the dispensing outlet 14 may scan) is allowed to sufficiently cover a drip coffee pouch or a filter paper/filter paper cup containing coffee beans. The longitudinal transmission assembly 22 is preferably perpendicular to the lateral transmission assembly 23, but the invention is not limited thereto. Specifically, a non-parallel arrangement for the longitudinal transmission assembly 22 and the lateral transmission assembly 23 is sufficient to arbitrarily move the dispensing outlet 14 along to different axes.”, para. [0032]-[0034].
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 1, 2, and 4-14 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. The claimed motion device fails to detail corresponding structure in the written description for performing the claimed function related to the first drive shaft rotates the second drive shaft, the second drive shaft rotating the dispensing outlet.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-14 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 1 recites “the first drive shaft rotates the second drive shaft … an extending line of the second drive shaft is apart from and extends in a different direction than an extending line of the first drive shaft”, it is unclear structurally how a first drive shaft could rotate a second drive shaft from a rotational movement perspective when the extending line of the second drive shaft is different than the first drive shaft without additional intervening structure. Claim 11 includes somewhat similar limitations and is accordingly rejected for the same reason. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the first drive shaft rotates the second drive shaft, the second drive shaft rotates the dispensing outlet”, it is unclear structurally how the second drive shaft could rotate the dispensing outlet from a rotational movement perspective without additional intervening structure. Claim 11 includes somewhat similar limitations and is accordingly rejected for the same reason. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights