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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 5-6, 9 and 12 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 1 recites the limitation "filter assembly" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "cylinder lip" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "lower step" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "upper step" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "upper surface" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "support ring handle" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "skirt" in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,3-6, 8,10-12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Adler (WO 2006/124180).
Regarding claim 1, Adler teaches a coffee or tea brewing apparatus comprising (0001): A hollow cylinder having top and bottom openings (0002); A removable permeable filter (0009); A removable filter retaining ring which encloses the bottom opening of said hollow cylinder with said permeable filter (0002); A removable support ring which supports said filter assembly on top of said open vessel (0008); and a removable flexible lid, when installed on the top opening of said filter assembly and force is exerted on the lid, seals against said cylinder lip and creates positive air pressure within said filter assembly (0003).
Regarding claim 3, Adler teaches the brewing apparatus of claim I (0001) wherein said filter retaining ring and said hollow cylinder are formed with matching screw thread to allow said retaining ring to attach to the bottom opening of said hollow cylinder (0019).
Regarding claim 4, Adler teaches the brewing apparatus of claim I (0001) wherein said filter retaining ring and said hollow cylinder are formed to retain said permeable filter against the bottom surface of said hollow cylinder once assembled together (0011).
Regarding claim 5, Alder teaches the brewing apparatus of claim I (0001) wherein said support ring (0008) is formed with said lower step which extends below the opening of said open vessel to prevent said support ring from slipping off of said open vessel (0017).
Regarding claim 6, Adler teaches the brewing apparatus of claim 5 (0001) wherein said support ring (0008) is formed with said upper step extending below the upper surface of said support ring to prevent said filter assembly from slipping off of said support ring (0017).
Regarding claim 10, Adler teaches the brewing apparatus of claim I (0001) wherein said hollow cylinder (0002) is formed with said cylinder lip extending radially outward from the top opening which supports said filter assembly on the opening of said open vessel when said filter assembly is inserted into said open vessel (0016).
Regarding claim 11, Adler teaches the brewing apparatus of claim IO (0001) wherein said hollow cylinder (0002) is formed with said cylinder handle to allow for handling of said hollow cylinder (0002).
Regarding claim 12, Adler teaches the brewing apparatus of claim I (0001) wherein said flexible lid (0003) is formed with said skirt along the outside perimeter to wrap around the top opening of said open vessel (0014).
Regarding claim 16, Adler teaches A coffee or tea brewing apparatus comprising (0001): A hollow cylinder having top and bottom openings (0002); A removable permeable filter (0009); and A removable filter retaining ring which encloses the bottom opening of said hollow cylinder with said permeable filter (0002).
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.
Claims 2, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler (WO 2006/124180) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gray (UK 2566342).
Regarding claim 2, Adler discloses the elements of the brewing apparatus of claim I (0001) wherein said filter retaining ring is formed with top and bottom openings to allow said filter retaining ring to install around the bottom of said hollow cylinder (0009) and allow for liquids to flow out the bottom opening of said filter retaining ring (0011).
Except wherein, Adler does not teach the filter retaining ring is formed with top and bottom openings.
Gray teaches the brewing apparatus of claim I wherein said filter retaining ring is formed with top and bottom openings (page 3 lines 28-31) to allow said filter retaining ring to install around the bottom of said hollow cylinder and allow for liquids to flow out the bottom opening of said filter retaining ring. It would be obvious to add this element to the Adler invention to improve the invention’s ability to hold the hollow cylinder in place. Adding this retaining ring did not create any unpredictable results in making the apparatus more stable and is an obvious improvement.
Regarding claim 13 Adler discloses the brewing apparatus of claim 12 (0001) wherein said flexible lid (0003) is formed with said handle penetration to allow said hollow cylinder handle and said support ring handle to protrude through said flexible lid.
Except wherein, Adler does not teach how the flexible lid is formed with said handle penetration to allow said hollow cylinder handle and said support ring handle to protrude through said flexible lid.
Gray teaches the brewing apparatus of claim 12 wherein said flexible lid is formed with said handle penetration to allow said hollow cylinder handle and said support ring handle to protrude through said flexible lid (page 3 lines 23-26). It would be obvious to add this handle to the Adler invention to ensure that the hollow cylinder can screw itself via threads and be able to extend laterally. This addition to this element did not create any unpredictable results in the apparatus by combining a handle to the hollow cylinder.
Regarding claim 14, Adler discloses the brewing apparatus of claim 13 (0001) wherein said flexible lid (0003) is formed with said lid lip to seal against said cylinder lip (0003).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler (WO 2006/124180) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferrara (US 2009/0229472).
Regarding claim 7, Adler discloses the brewing apparatus of claim 6 (0001) wherein said support ring (0008) is removable to allow said filter assembly to be inserted into said open vessel.
Except wherein, Adler does not teach that the support ring is removable to allow said filter assembly to be inserted into said open vessel.
Ferrara teaches the brewing apparatus of claim 6 wherein said support ring is removable to allow said filter assembly to be inserted into said open vessel (0072). It would be obvious to add the element of making the support ring removable to Adler’s invention because this allows the filter assembly to the option to change or clean the filter when necessary. Explicitly making adding this element to Adler’s invention would be an obvious improvement to ensure that the filter is clean and accessible to change.
Regarding claim 8, Adler discloses the brewing apparatus of claim 7 (0001) wherein said support ring is formed with said support ring opening to permit air to escape out of said open vessel (0003).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adler (WO 2006/124180) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferrara (US 2009/0229472) and Gray (UK 2566342).
Regarding claim 9, Adler discloses the brewing apparatus of claim 8 (0001) wherein said support ring (0008) is formed with said support ring handle to allow for handling of said support ring.
Except wherein, Adler does not teach that the support ring is formed with said support ring handle to allow for handling of said support ring.
Gray teaches the brewing apparatus of claim 8 wherein said support ring is formed with said support ring handle to allow for handling of said support ring (page 3 lines 28-31). It would be obvious to had this element of a handle to Adler’s invention since it would make it easier to hold the hollow cylinder in place by using a handle.
Regarding claim 15, Alder teaches the brewing apparatus of claim 14 (0001) wherein said flexible lid (0003) is made of a flexible material allowing it to deform when force is applied to it.
Except wherein, Adler does not teach that the flexible lid is made of a flexible material allowing it to deform when force is applied to it.
Ferrara teaches the brewing apparatus of claim 14 wherein said flexible lid is made of a flexible material allowing it to deform when force is applied to it (0054). It would be obvious to make sure that the material used does not deform since it is dealing with hot liquids and is removable. The lid also needs to keep its shape in order to maintain its utility and therefore it would be obvious for the material that makes this lid to not deform due to it being removable or touching hot liquids.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bowers (CA 2246849) teaches a disposable beverage brewing system which uses 2 cups to brew beverages with rings that support those cups. Addy (CN 110150979) teaches a beverage brewing device with has a support ring that prevents the cup from tipping over.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURISA DOREEN MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fridays off).
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, Nicole Lavert can be reached on 571-270-5040. 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.
/MAURISA D MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 4163
/NICOLE F LAVERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796