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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-13 and 16-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 US 20150344285 A1 - Joseph. Joseph does teach the new limitation of claim 1 and 13, see the updated rejection below.
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 1-13 and 16-22 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.
In claims 1 and 13, the limitation of “the beverage processing unit is assemblable to and disassemblable from a base along an upright direction of assembly and disassembly, having a downward direction of assembly and an upward direction of disassembly.” seems unclear. the wording applies that an upward direction does the assembly and disassembly and a downward direction does the assembly and disassembly. The examiner suggest “the beverage processing unit be moved in a upward direction to assemble to a base and in an downward direction to disassemble from a base.”
While the specification discloses “Beverage processing unit 10,20 may be disassemblable by a user from supporting structure 70 (when present) and assemblable by a user to supporting structure 70. Processing unit 10,20 can be: assemblable to and disassemblable from supporting structure 70 as a unit; and/or assemblable to and disassemblable from supporting structure 70 along an upright direction 71' of assembly and disassembly, such as a downward direction of assembly and an upward direction of disassembly.” The examiner will use interpret this with the help of the figures 1-11, as the beverage processing unit be moved in a upward direction to assemble to a base and in an downward direction to disassemble from a base.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 13, 17-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170127872 A1 – Dumur in view of US 20150344285 A1 - Joseph.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Dumur is directed towards an brewing device. Dumur does teach a beverage processing unit ([0060] a detachable brewing unit 3) formed of a first processing unit member and a second processing unit member ([0079] the brewing unit 3 comprises an upper cavity part 14 and a lower cavity part 15.) that delimit a chamber and that are movable between a distant configuration in which the flavouring ingredient is received in the chamber (Figures 4A - 4c), and a proximate configuration in which the flavouring ingredient is held and mixed with the water in the chamber during beverage preparation ([0053] The detachable brewing unit according to the invention is suitable for use with any kind of ingredient package, but in the following description, it is considered that the ingredient package is an ingredient capsule, made of a semi-rigid or rigid material, which is closed during storage but pierceable to inject an ingredient extracting fluid (e.g. water) therein, and openable to dispense the beverage product prepared by mixing said ingredient and said fluid.), a water source for delivering the water towards the beverage processing unit ([0063] The machine base 2 comprises a fluid reservoir (not shown in the drawing)), a water guide for guiding the water between the water source and the chamber ([0068] a central channel 7 that extends from the upper surface 8 of the protrusion 6) and a supporting structure which has a base that is stationary during beverage preparation and that supports the beverage processing unit during beverage preparation ([0063] The machine base 2), the beverage processing unit is disassemblable by a user from the supporting structure and assemblable by the user to the supporting structure ([0009] when said brewing unit is functionally attached to the beverage machine base, but also when said brewing unit is detached from the machine base. In other words, opening of the brewing unit must be performed only by the user.).
Dumur does not expressly teach the beverage processing unit is assemblable to and disassemblable from a base along an upright direction of assembly and disassembly, having a downward direction of assembly and an upward direction of disassembly.
Joesph is directed towards an beverage dispenser. Joesph does teach the beverage processing unit be moved in a upward direction to assemble to a base and in an downward direction to disassemble from a base (Figure 11, [0089] a refillable proprietary beverage medium cup 15, [0072] beverage medium compartment 14). It can be seen in figure 11 that the medium cup 15 and compartment 14 are assembled due to downward pressure and disassembled due to upwards pressure. Further, replacing the connection of the base of Dumur (first and second processing unit connecting in the upward direction) with the connection base of Joseph (first and second processing unit connecting in the downward direction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dumur to include the beverage processing unit be moved in a upward direction to assemble to a base and in an downward direction to disassemble from a base because the medium cup and compartment taught by Joesph with the base of Dumur allows the user to have easier access to the brewing material.
Regarding claim 2, Dumur and Joesph teaches the limitations of claim 1. Dumur does teach a fluid module that includes the water guide and the first processing unit member of the beverage processing unit, the fluid module being assemblable by the user as a unit to the water source and to the second processing unit member and being disassemblable by the user as a unit from the water source and from the second processing unit member (Figure 6 and [0081] In the first embodiment of the invention, the upper cavity part 14 comprises an injection plate 16 wherein the water injection means are embedded, as illustrated in FIG. 6. The injection means comprise a water injection needle 13, and are suitable for injecting fluid under pressure into a capsule C for mixing with said ingredient to form a food product.)
Regarding claim 3, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 2. Dumur does teach wherein the fluid module and the second processing unit member are assemblable to and disassemblable from the supporting structure as a unit (Figure 1, it can be seen that the brewing device (3) can be removed from the base, the brewing device includes the fluid module and second processing unit.)
Regarding claim 4, Dumur does teach the limitations of claim 2. Dumur does teach wherein the water guide and the first processing unit member are integrally formed and/or non-separable by the user ([0081] In the first embodiment of the invention, the upper cavity part 14 comprises an injection plate 16 wherein the water injection means are embedded).
Regarding claim 5, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 1. Dumur does teach wherein the supporting structure comprises a connector by which the beverage processing unit is disassemblable by the user from the supporting structure (Figure 1 and [0059] The connection of the brewing unit to said base, according to the invention, makes a whole functional beverage preparation machine.).
Regarding claim 6, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 5. Dumur does teach wherein the connector is rotatably mounted to the base (figure 1), the connector being driven by an actuator, to rotate the beverage processing unit so as to prepare the beverage by centrifugation ([0113] the upper cavity part 14 rotates as well at the same speed around a rotation axis RA shown in FIG. 13 that coincides with the symmetry axis of the brewing cavity and that of the capsule. A centrifugal force is created within the capsule C which creates an extraction of the coffee ingredient contained therein by the water that is injected through the central water injection needle 13.).
Regarding claim 7, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 1. Dumur does teach wherein one of the first processing unit member or the second processing unit member is provided with a cavity delimiting the chamber, the first and second processing unit members in their distant configuration being configured for direct manual insertion into, the cavity of the flavouring ingredient ([0060] As illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2, the beverage preparation machine 1 comprises a main machine base 2, a detachable brewing unit 3, and an ingredient capsule C (not shown in FIG. 1).).
Regarding claim 17, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 1. Dumur does teach
wherein the water guide is free of a water pump (Figures 6 and 7 show that there is no pump located within the brewing unit.).
Regarding claim 18, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 7. Dumur does teach wherein the first and second processing unit members in the distant configuration are further configured for direct manual removal out of the cavity of the flavouring ingredient (Figures 5A-5C, show that the capsule (C) is manually removed from the brewing device.).
Regarding claim 20, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 6. Dumur does teach the connector and the beverage processing unit are rotatable about a direction of assembly and disassembly of the connector and the beverage processing unit (Figure 1 and 6-7).
Regarding claim 21, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 1. Dumur does teach the water source comprises a connector to be connected to a water supply line external to the machine ([0063] The reservoir is detachable and can be plugged in a reservoir port 4 that is built-in with the machine main base, as shown in FIG. 1.).
Regarding claim 22, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 1. Dumur does teach the water source comprises a water supply tank that has an outside opening for water filling external to the machine ([0008] a fluid source (reservoir or connection to an external fluid source such as tap water for instance)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170127872 A1 – Dumur and US 20150344285 A1 - Joseph as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20170360247 A1 - Byun.
Regarding claim 8, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 1, Dumur does not expressly teach the water source is configured to contain a limited amount of the water that corresponds to a maximum amount needed for a serving.
Byun is directed towards an liquid dispensing machine. Byun does teach the water source is configured to contain a limited amount of the water that corresponds to a maximum amount needed for a serving ([0013] A carrier or diluents liquid, e.g. water, may be mixed with such ingredient to form the beverage. Typically, a predetermined amount of beverage is formed and dispensed on user-request, which corresponds to a serving. The volume of such a serving may be in the range of 25 to 200 ml and even up to 300 or 400 ml, e.g. the volume for filling a cup).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to the water source is configured to contain a limited amount of the water that corresponds to a maximum amount needed for a serving by Byun in the system of Dumur, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the water source is configured to contain a limited amount of the water that corresponds to a maximum amount needed for a serving of Byun could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Dumur in a manner which would have predictably allow the unit to have enough liquid for a single serving. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the water source is configured to contain a limited amount of the water that corresponds to a maximum amount needed for a serving of Byun with the well-known system of Dumur.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170127872 A1 – Dumur and US 20150344285 A1 - Joseph as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20190231115 A1 - Kennedy.
Regarding claim 9, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 2, Dumur does not expressly teach to prepare the beverage: without thermally conditioning the water delivered from the water source into the chamber.
Kennedy does teach to prepare the beverage: without thermally conditioning the water (4) delivered from the water source into the chamber. ([0003] During preparation, water (either hot or cold) is typically introduced into the container via an opening, and caused to mix with the powder or liquid, before a dissolved drink, or in some cases a dispersion, exits the container via another opening. In this way, the drink ingredients are combined with the water inside the capsule, before being dispensed into a drinking vessel.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to prepare the beverage: without thermally conditioning the water delivered from the water source into the chamber by Kennedy in the system of Dumur, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the to prepare the beverage: without thermally conditioning the water (4) delivered from the water source into the chamber of Kennedy could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Dumur in a manner which would have predictably allow the unit to prepare hot as well as cool beverages. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the to prepare the beverage: without thermally conditioning the water (4) delivered from the water source into the chamber of Kennedy with the well-known system of Dumur.
Regarding claim 10, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 1, Dumur does not expressly teach to deliver the beverage at a temperature below 30°C.
Kennedy does teach to deliver the beverage at a temperature below 30°C (See figure 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to deliver the beverage at a temperature below 30°C by Kennedy in the system of Dumur, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the to deliver the beverage at a temperature below 30°C of Kennedy could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Dumur in a manner which would have predictably keep the beverage within a specific range for the proper taste. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the to deliver the beverage at a temperature below 30°C of Kennedy with the well-known system of Dumur.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170127872 A1 – Dumur and US 20150344285 A1 - Joseph as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20220061584 A1 - Tibbe.
Regarding claim 11, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 1, Dumur does not expressly teach to deliver the water from the water source into the chamber at an average rate for a beverage serving in the range of 10 to 300 ml/min.
Tibbe is directed towards a coffee machine. Tibbe does teach to deliver the water from the water source into the chamber at an average rate for a beverage serving in the range of 10 to 300 ml/min. ([0100] The water delivery may be continuous or pulsed. A pulsed delivery of water may be of interest because the pump has a particular function of water flow output versus counter pressure. The pump is chosen to deliver a good flow rate for espresso counter pressures, such as 3-5 ml/s (more generally above 3 ml/s) at a counter pressure (gauge pressure) of 8 bar (1 bar=100 kPa).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to deliver the water from the water source into the chamber at an average rate for a beverage serving in the range of 10 to 300 ml/min by Tibbe in the system of Dumur, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the to deliver the water from the water source into the chamber at an average rate for a beverage serving in the range of 10 to 300 ml/min of Tibbe could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Dumur in a manner which would have predictably allow a proper flow rate to provide enough liquid for the infusion process. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the to deliver the water from the water source into the chamber at an average rate for a beverage serving in the range of 10 to 300 ml/min of Tibbe with the well-known system of Dumur.
Claims 12 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170127872 A1 – Dumur and US 20150344285 A1 - Joseph as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20150327710 A1 - Bachmann.
Regarding claim 12, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 1, Dumur does not expressly teach wherein the processing unit is arranged in order to rotate the chamber at a speed in a range of 500 to 10000 RPM.
Bachmann is directed towards an receptacle holder. Bachmann does teach the processing unit is arranged in order to rotate the chamber at a speed in a range of 500 to 10000 RPM. ([0014] Hence, such a receptacle holding unit may be static or dynamic during beverage preparation. For instance, the receptacle holding unit is arranged to rotate, in particular at elevated speed, e.g. above 1000 or 2000 RPM, to enhance processing of the ingredient in the receptacle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to the processing unit is arranged in order to rotate the chamber at a speed in a range of 500 to 10000 RPM by Bachmann in the system of Dumur, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the processing unit is arranged in order to rotate the chamber at a speed in a range of 500 to 10000 RPM of Bachmann could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Dumur in a manner which would have predictably properly mixing the liquid with the brewing material. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the processing unit is arranged in order to rotate the chamber at a speed in a range of 500 to 10000 RPM of Bachmann with the well-known system of Dumur.
Regarding claim 19, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 6, Dumur does not expressly teach wherein the connector is rotatably mounted to the base via a bearing selected from the group consisting of a sliding bearing, a magnetic bearing, a roller bearing, and a ball bearing.
Bachmann does teach the connector is rotatably mounted to the base via a roller bearing ([0006] The holding part is generally mounted on a frame part via at least one roller bearing. The liquid interfacing part is also generally part of a frame part also mounted along at least one roller bearing.)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of roller bearing of Bachmann for the undisclosed attachment method of Dumur. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the connector is rotatably mounted to the base via a roller bearing of Bachmann could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Dumur in a manner which would have predictably connect the brewing device a base. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the connector is rotatably mounted to the base via a roller bearing of Bachmann with the well-known system of Dumur.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170127872 A1 – Dumur and US 20150344285 A1 - Joseph as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20170319000 A1 - Yoakim.
Regarding claim 16, Dumur and Joesph does teach the limitations of claim 1, Dumur does not expressly teach wherein the water guide comprises a water pump selected from the group consisting of a gear, a peristaltic pump, and a piston.
Yoakim is directed towards a brewing device. Yoakim does teach the water guide comprises a peristaltic pump ([0039] Alternatively, for a higher flow consistency, hot water can be introduced using a low pressure pump such as a peristaltic pump or a diaphragm pump and the like.).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of a peristaltic pump of Yoakim for the undisclosed water pump of Dumur. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the water guide comprises a peristaltic pump of Yoakim could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Dumur in a manner which would have predictably for providing a low pressure flow. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the water guide comprises a peristaltic pump of Yoakim with the well-known system of Dumur.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights