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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "internal face slopes downwards away from the surface" of claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently, the figures show the internal face of the openable base sloping downward from the right side of the internal diameter of the brewing chamber towards the left side of the same internal diameter. The internal diameter of the brewing chamber is considered “the surface” of claim 14 because it is apparently the surface where friction fit 10 is located. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) if the applicant chooses to amend the drawings. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by French (US Patent No. 790,626).
Regarding claim 1, French discloses the following:
A beverage brewing device (teamaking device, Fig. 1-5) comprising:
a brew chamber (tubular casing A, Fig. 1) comprising at least one water permeable portion (region of casing A with perforations, Fig. 1) and an openable base; (open end with cap A2, Fig. 2) and
a plunger, (plunger B, Fig. 1) comprising a plunger face (plunger B has a lower face, shown in Fig. 4, which is a section view of plunger B within casing A) corresponding to an internal shape of the brew chamber; (plunger B is "provided at its inner end with an annular flange B', adapted to fit snugly against the inner wall of the casing A", lines 47-48)
wherein the openable base is openable by action of the plunger (Examiner interprets that the cap A2 is openable by the action of plunger B, as plunger B is longer than tubular casing A. Plunger B can be pushed into the space cap A2 occupies when closed, thus forcing the cap into an opened position).
Regarding claim 2, French discloses all elements of claim 1, and further discloses “wherein the brew chamber is cylindrical” (tubular casing A is cylindrical, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, French discloses all elements of claim 1, and further discloses “wherein the at least one water permeable portion is formed from openings” (tubular casing A is perforated, Fig. 1, and perforations can be considered openings).
Regarding claim 6, French discloses all elements of claim 5, and further discloses “wherein the openings are pores, perforations, holes, or a combination thereof” (tubular casing A is perforated, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, French discloses all elements of claim 1, and further discloses “wherein a length of the plunger (length of plunger B, Fig. 3) is greater than a length of the brew chamber” (length of plunger B exceeds length of tubular casing A, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, French discloses all elements of claim 1, and further discloses “wherein the openable base (lower end of tubular casing A, Fig. 1 and 3) comprises a door” (cap A2 of tubular casing A, Fig. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, French discloses all elements of claim 9, and further discloses the following:
wherein the door is held closed by means of a friction fit (cap A2 is "held in a closed position by a suitable friction… device", lines 43, 44) along a surface (Examiner interprets that the friction fit between cap A2 and casing A is between the annular boss of A2 and the inner diameter of casing A, as shown in Fig. 2 and 3, making the inner diameter of casing A the surface along which there is a friction fit).
Examiner provides the following annotated portions of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 of French. The annotated portion of the section view Fig. 2 shows the segments of the drawing that the examiner considers to be part of cap A2, including the annular boss of cap A2, highlighted in red. The segments of the drawing that the examiner considers to be the walls of casing A, including the rolled bead at the bottom of casing A, are highlighted in green.
The annotated portion of Fig. 3 shows the top surface of the annular boss of cap A2 highlighted in red. The rolled bead at the bottom of casing A is highlighted in green. The blue lines are provided to show that the annular boss of cap A2 has an outer diameter equal to or greater than the internal diameter of casing A, resulting in a friction fit when the annular boss of cap A2 is inserted into casing A when the cap A2 is in the closed position.
PNG
media_image1.png
747
1121
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated portion of French Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
716
495
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated portion of French Fig. 3
Regarding claim 11, French discloses all elements of claim 10, and further discloses the following:
wherein the openable base (cap A2 of tubular casing A, Fig. 1 and 3) further comprises a hinge (cap A2 has a hinge, Fig. 1, 3, and 5) that is coupled to the door (cap A2 is "hinged to the casing", line 42).
Regarding claim 12, French discloses all elements of claim 11, and further discloses “wherein the hinge is positioned opposite the surface” (Examiner interprets that hinge is located on the outer diameter of casing A, as hinge is shown in Fig. 5 to be on the outer diameter of cap A2, and the outer diameter of cap A2 is as large as the outer diameter of the casing A, Fig. 1. Examiner interprets that a hinge on the outer diameter of casing A is on a surface opposite the inner diameter of casing A).
Regarding claim 13, French discloses all elements of claim 10, and further discloses “wherein an internal face of the openable base (concave surface of cap A2, oriented towards the interior of casing A in Fig. 2) is sloped” (concave surface of cap A2 slopes from the inner diameter of casing A to the center of cap A2, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, French discloses all elements of claim 13, and further discloses “wherein the internal face slopes downwards away from the surface” (concave surface of cap A2 slopes downward from the inner diameter of casing A to the center of cap A2, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, French discloses all elements of claim 1, and further discloses “wherein the openable base comprises openings” (cap A2 is perforated, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, French discloses the following:
A beverage brewing device (teamaking device, Fig. 1-4) comprising:
a brew chamber (tubular casing A, Fig. 1) having a first length, (length of tubular casing A, Fig. 1) the brew chamber comprising:
a first end (top end of tubular casing A, Fig. 3) having a first opening, (top end of tubular casing A has an opening, Fig. 2 and 3)
a second end (bottom end of tubular casing A, Fig. 3) having a second opening, (bottom end of tubular casing A has an opening, Fig. 2 and 3)
a hinge located at the second end, (bottom end of tubular casing A has a hinge, Fig. 1, 3, and 5)
a door pivotably coupled to the hinge, (cap A2 of tubular casing A, Fig. 1 and 3) the door operable between a first position where the door is not positioned in the second opening (cap A2 as shown in Fig. 3) and a second position where the door is positioned in the second opening, (cap A2 as shown in Fig. 1 and 2) the door comprising a plurality of holes (cap A2 is perforated, Fig. 3) that are each configured to facilitate fluid passage out of the brew chamber ("[liquid] readily passes through... perforations of the cap A2 to the inside of the casing A" lines 64-65, and the liquid "contained in the casing is allowed to drain out of the same", lines 70-71) when the door is in the second position, (Examiner interprets that liquid can pass through the perforations of cap A2 when cap A2 is in the closed position) and
a water permeable portion (tubular casing A has a perforated region, Fig. 1) located between the first end and the second end, (perforations of casing A are located between the top and bottom end, Fig. 1) the water permeable portion configured to facilitate fluid passage through the brew chamber; ("[liquid] readily passes through the perforations in the end A'… to the inside of the casing A", lines 70-71) and a plunger (plunger B, Fig. 1 and 3) having a second length (length of plunger B, Fig. 3) greater than the first length, (length of plunger B is longer than length of tubular casing A, Fig. 3) the plunger configured to be received within the first opening (plunger B received in top end of casing A, Fig. 1, 2, and 3) and selectively repositioned within the brew chamber (plunger B shown in upper position within casing A in Fig. 1 and repositioned to lower position within casing A in Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French (US Patent No. 790,626) in view of Adler (US Patent No. 7,849,784 B2).
Regarding claim 3, French discloses all elements of claim 1.
French is silent whether “the brew chamber has a length of from 5-20 cm”.
Adler teaches a brewing device (coffee or tea filtering press 1, Fig. 2) with a brewing chamber (hollow cylinder 2, Fig. 2) “wherein the brew chamber has a length of from 5-20 cm” (cylinder 2, Fig. 2, which can be considered a brew chamber, can have "a length of approximately 5 inches", col. 2 line 46, which is a length of approximately 12.7 cm)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brew chamber of the teamaking device of French so that it is approximately 5 inches, or 12.7 cm, long, as taught by Adler. The courts have held that where the general conditions of the claim is disposed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, varying the size of the brew chamber of French so that it has a length that is the same as the optimum length taught by Adler (“a cylinder having… a length of approximately 5 inches has been found to perform very well”, Adler col. 2 lines 45-47) would have been a matter of routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French (US Patent No. 790,626) in view of Kruger et al. (WO 2007/080461 A1).
Regarding claim 4, French discloses all elements of claim 1, and further discloses “wherein the at least one water permeable portion is formed by apertures or windows (tubular casing A is perforated, Fig. 1) in at least one wall of the brew chamber” (tubular casing A is perforated on at least one wall, Fig. 1).
French does not disclose that the apertures are “covered with foraminous material”
Kruger teaches a brewing device with apertures or windows where the apertures are “covered with foraminous material” ("The device may then include a mesh receivable inside the cage to cover apertures of the cage", pg. 2 lines 1-3, and "The mesh may have openings which are smaller than the apertures of the cage", pg. 2 lines 3-4.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teamaking device of French so that mesh covers the apertures, as taught by Kruger, for the purpose of brewing other types of beverages with smaller particles, such as brewing coffee from coffee grounds. This is preferable because it allows the user to make a larger variety of beverages with the same device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French (US Patent No. 790,626) with Long et al. (US Patent No. 7,279,660 B2) as an evidentiary reference for a motivation.
Regarding claim 7, French discloses all elements of claim 1, and further discloses “a length of the at least one water permeable portion“ (length of portion of casing A covered by apertures, shown Fig. 1) and “a length of the brew chamber” (length of casing A, shown Fig. 1).
French is not specific whether the length of the water permeable portion “is from 10-75%” of the length of the brew chamber.
However, the courts have held that where the general condition of the claims is disposed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In this case, French teaches a water permeable portion with a length that is a certain percentage of the length of the brewing chamber. Having a water permeable portion with a length that is 10-75% of the length of the brew chamber is not inventive according to the courts, as the length of the water permeable is a result effective variable, and varying the length of the water permeable portion is a matter of routine experimentation.
In this case, changing the length of the water permeable portion has the result of changing the flavor of a brewed beverage. Examiner interprets that changing the length of the water permeable portion is one manner of changing the total area of the openings in the brew chamber. Long teaches that the total area of the openings affects the conditions and flavor of a brewed beverage (“If the open area is large the extraction will result in a flavorant mixture that approaches that obtained by simply pouring the coffee or tea into the heated water. If the total area open for flow of water or steam is small, the conditions and flavor will approach that of a samovar where the tea is confined in only a small volume of water as the extraction occurs”, Long col. 4 lines 55-61).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger et al. (WO 2007/080461 A1) in view of French (US Patent No. 790,626) with Adler (US Patent No. 7,849,784 B2) applied as an evidentiary reference for a motivation.
Regarding claim 16, Kruger discloses the following:
A beverage brewing device (device 10, Fig. 1 and 2) comprising:
a brew chamber (foraminous body 12, Fig. 1 and 2) having a first length, (length of foraminous body 12, Fig. 1) the brew chamber comprising:
a first end (foraminous body 12 has an upper end, Fig. 2) having a first opening, ("The foraminous body may have an open or openable end in the upper portion through which the plunger can be removed" pg. 3 lines 2-4, not shown in Fig. 2)
a second end (foraminous body 12 has a lower end, Fig. 2) having a second opening, (lower end of foraminous body 12 has an opening covered by closure 22, Fig. 2) [and]a door (closure member 22, Fig. 2) … the door operable between a first position where the door is not positioned in the second opening ("closure member 22 is removably engageable with the wall 20", pg. 4 line 19. Examiner interprets that when the closure is not engaged with wall 20, it can be considered in a first position where the door is not positioned in the lower) and a second position (closure member 22 covers opening of foraminous body 12, shown in Fig. 2) …, the door comprising a plurality of holes (closure 22 is an "apertured closure member", pg. 4 line 17) that are each configured to facilitate fluid passage out of the brew chamber when the door is in the second position, (Examiner interprets that apertures of closure member 20 can facilitate passage of fluid out of foraminous body 12 when closure 22 is present over the bottom end of foraminous body 12, as shown in Fig. 2) and
a water permeable portion (portion of foraminous body 12 with apertures 20, Fig. 2) located between the first end and the second end, (portion of foraminous body 12 with apertures is located between upper and lower end, Fig. 2) the water permeable portion configured to facilitate fluid passage through the brew chamber; (liquid is expressed "through the foraminous body 12", pg. 5 line 7. Examiner interprets that apertures facilitate liquid being expressed through body 12) and
a plunger (plunger 18, Fig. 2) the plunger configured to be received within the first opening ("The foraminous body may have an open or openable end in the upper portion through which the plunger can be removed" pg. 3 lines 2-4, not shown in Fig. 2) and selectively repositioned within the brew chamber ("the plunger 18 is displaced along the passage 14", pg. 5 lines 4-5).
Kruger does not teach “a hinge located at the second end, [the door] pivotably coupled to the hinge” and does not teach that “the door is positioned in the second opening” when in the second position.
French teaches a brewing device (teamaking device, Fig. 1-5) with a brew chamber (tubular casing A, Fig. 1) with the following features:
a hinge located at the second end [of the brew chamber], (hinge is located at bottom end of tubular casing A, Fig. 1, 3 and 5)
a door pivotably coupled to the hinge, (cap A2 pivotally coupled to hinge, Fig. 1, 2, and 3) and a second position where the door is positioned in the second opening (cap A2 as shown in Fig. 2, with boss of A2 inside opening to hold cap A2 in a closed position by “a suitable friction… device", lines 43, 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure of Kruger with the hinge and friction fit boss of French, so that the closure in the closed position is a door in the second position, for the purpose of preventing a user from completely separating the closure from the brewing device. This is preferable because it reduces the likelihood that the closure is misplaced, making the brewing device unusable.
Kruger is silent whether the plunger is “having a second length greater than the first length”
French teaches a plunger with a second length (plunger B, Fig. 3, which is "provided at its inner end with an annular flange B', adapted to fit snugly against the inner wall of the casing A", lines 47-48) and a brew chamber with a first length (tubular casing A, Fig. 3) where the plunger is “having a second length greater than the first length” (length of plunger B is longer than length of tubular casing A, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brewing device of Kruger so that it has a plunger with a flange that fits snugly against the inner wall of a brewing chamber and that is longer than the brewing chamber which receives it, as taught by French, for the purpose of "wip[ing] clean the inside of the cylinder when the maximum diameter is pushed fully through the cylinder with the cap removed during ejection of the spent puck [of coffee or tea]", as taught by Adler, col. 2 lines 3-6. It is preferable to have the plunger with a flange wipe the cylinder clean to reduce further cleaning the user has to do later.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger et al. (WO 2007/080461 A1) in view of French (US Patent No. 790,626) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Adler (US Patent No. 7,849,784 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Kruger as modified by French as applied to claim 16 teaches all elements of claim 16. Kruger as modified by French further teaches the following:
the brew chamber is cylindrical; (foraminous body 12 is cylindrical, Kruger Fig. 1)
the water permeable portion comprises:
a window, (Examiner interprets that apertures shown on wall 20, Kruger Fig. 2, can be considered at least one window) and
a filter material ("mesh 121 or a similar mesh may also be used with the device 10", Kruger pg. 7 lines 1-2) positioned over the window; (mesh 121 is "in the form… to cover apertures" Kruger pg. 5 lines 21-22)
and the plunger comprises an annular seal (plunger B is "provided at its inner end with an annular flange B', adapted to fit snugly against the inner wall of the casing A", French lines 47-48) that is configured to form a seal with the brew chamber (Examiner interprets that annular flange B’ of French can be considered to form a seal with the brew chamber, as both a seal and the flange B’ fit snugly against the inner wall of the brew chamber) when the plunger is received within the first opening, (plunger B positioned within top opening of brew chamber and annular flange B’ positioned against the brew chamber, French Fig. 3) the annular seal configured to facilitate repositioning of the plunger within the brew chamber (plunger B shown in upper position within casing A in Fig. 1 and repositioned to lower position within casing A in French Fig. 2).
Kruger as modified by French is silent whether “the plunger is tubular”.Adler teaches a plunger (removable piston 4 with seal 12, Fig. 2. Examiner interprets that a removable piston 4 with seal 12 can be considered a plunger) where the plunger is tubular; (removable piston 4 with seal 12 is tubular, Adler Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the plunger of French with the tubular piston of Adler because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of pressing used beverage material out of the bottom of a brew chamber (French lines 84-86, Adler col. 1 lines 66-67).Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger et al. (WO 2007/080461 A1) in view of French (US Patent No. 790,626) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Patterson (US Patent No. 6,038,963).
Regarding claim 18, Kruger in view of French as applied to claim 16 teaches all elements of claim 16. Kruger in view of French further teaches the following:
wherein: the plunger comprises a plunger face (plunger B has a bottom face, French Fig. 2 and 3) that is brought into confronting relation with the door when the door is in the second position and the plunger is received within the first opening and repositioned towards the door, (Examiner interprets that plunger Bmust be able to be brought into confronting relation with the closure of Kruger in view of French, because French teaches that plunger Bis longer than the body it slides within) the plunger face disposed along a first plane; (bottom face of plunger B is flat, French Fig. 2 and 3) and the door comprises a door face (closure 22 has flat face defining closed end 16, Fig. 2 of Kruger) and is configured such that the door face is disposed along a second plane when the door is in the second position, (flat face of closure 22 is disposed along a flat plane when closure is in the closed position, Fig. 2 of Kruger).
Kruger in view of French does not teach that “the second plane [is] angled relative to the first plane”
Patterson teaches a brewing device (filter press device, Fig. 14B) with coffee grounds are pressed between a surface on a first plane (flat bottom of first cup 170, Fig. 14B) and surface on a second plane which facilitates flow (filter 174 on bottom of second cup 172, Fig. 14B), where “the second plane [is] angled relative to the first plane” (filter 174 is inclined compared to bottom of cup 170, Fig. 14B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure of Kruger in view of Adler and French to have an angled surface, as taught by Patterson, for the purpose of "providing a slight increase in flow through capability for the brewed beverage", col. 11 lines 18-19. This is preferable because it allows the user to press the beverage out of the brewing device faster.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger et al. (WO 2007/080461 A1) in view of Adler (US Patent No. 7,849,784 B2).
Regarding claim 19, Kruger discloses the following:
A beverage brewing device (device 10, Fig. 1 and 2) comprising:
a brew chamber (foraminous body 12, Fig. 1 and 2) being cylindrical (foraminous body 12 is cylindrical, Fig. 1) and having a first length, (length of foraminous body 12, Fig. 1) the brew chamber comprising:
a first end (foraminous body 12 has an upper end, Fig. 2) having a first opening, ("The foraminous body may have an open or openable end in the upper portion through which the plunger can be removed" pg. 3 lines 2-4, not shown in Fig. 2)
a second end (foraminous body 12 has a lower end, Fig. 2) having a second opening, (lower end of foraminous body 12 has an opening covered by closure 22, Fig. 2) and
a water permeable portion (portion of foraminous body 12 with apertures 20, Fig. 2) located between the first end and the second end, (portion of foraminous body 12 with apertures is located between upper and lower end, Fig. 2) the water permeable portion comprising:
a window (Examiner interprets that apertures shown on wall 20, Fig. 2, can be considered at least one window, as the definition of a window is “a means for entrance or access” per Merriam Webster, and the apertures on wall 20 allow water to enter and/or access the brew chamber. Definition accessed online [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/window] on April 29, 2025) configured to facilitate fluid passage through the brew chamber, (liquid is expressed "through the foraminous body 12", pg. 5 line 7. Examiner interprets that apertures facilitate liquid being expressed through body 12) and a filter material ("mesh 121 or a similar mesh may also be used with the device 10", page 7 lines 1-2) positioned over the window; (mesh 121 is "in the form… to cover apertures" pg. 5 lines 21-22) and
a plunger (plunger 18, Fig. 2) the plunger configured to be received within the first opening ("The foraminous body may have an open or openable end in the upper portion through which the plunger can be removed" pg. 3 lines 2-4, not shown in Fig. 2) and selectively repositioned within the brew chamber ("the plunger 18 is displaced along the passage 14", pg. 5 lines 4-5).
Kruger does not teach that the plunger is “being tubular and having a second length greater than the first length” and “the plunger comprising an annular seal configured to form a seal with the brew chamber when the plunger is received within the first opening, the annular seal configured to facilitate repositioning of the plunger within the brew chamber”.
Adler teaches a brewing device (coffee or tea filtering press 1, Fig. 2) with a brewing chamber (hollow cylinder 2, Fig. 2) and a plunger (removable piston 4 with seal 12, Fig. 2) where the plunger meets the following limitations:
being tubular (removable piston 4 with seal 12 is tubular, Fig. 2. Examiner interprets that a removable piston 4 with seal 12 can be considered a plunger) and having a second length greater than the first length, (Examiner interprets that removable piston 4 with seal 12 is longer than cylinder 2, as seal 12 can "extend beyond the bottom opening of the cylinder with the cap removed", col. 2 lines 9-10) [and] the plunger comprising an annular seal (seal 12, Fig. 2) configured to form a seal with the brew chamber (flexible seal 12 "engage[s] the inside of the cylinder", col. 2 lines 1-2) when the plunger is received within the first opening, (removable piston 4 with seal 12 is received with top opening of cylinder 2, Fig. 2) the annular seal configured to facilitate repositioning of the plunger within the brew chamber (removable piston 4 with seal 12 is "pushed fully through the cylinder" col. 2 lines 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brewing device of Kruger so that it has a plunger that is longer than the brewing chamber which receives it, as taught by Adler, for the purpose of "wip[ing] clean the inside of the cylinder when the maximum diameter is pushed fully through the cylinder with the cap removed during ejection of the spent puck [of coffe or tea]", col. 2 lines 3-6. It is preferable to have the piston and seal wipe the cylinder clean to reduce further cleaning the user has to do later.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger et al. (WO 2007/080461 A1) in view of Adler (US Patent No. 7,849,784 B2) with Long et al. (US Patent No. 7,279,660 B2) as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 20, Kruger in view of Adler as applied to claim 19 teaches all elements of claim 19. Kruger further teaches the following:
the water permeable portion has a third length (length of portion of foraminous body 12 covered by apertures, Fig. 1) a first portion of the brew chamber (portion of foraminous body 12 without apertures near the top of the body 12, shown Fig. 2) extends between the first end and the water permeable portion; (portion of foraminous body 12 without apertures extends from top of body 12 to the apertures, Fig. 2) and a second portion of the brew chamber (portion of foraminous body 12 without apertures near the bottom of the body 12, shown Fig. 2) extends between the second end and the water permeable portion (portion of foraminous body 12 without apertures extends from the apertures to the bottom of body 12, Fig. 2).
Kruger is not specific whether the third length, which is the length of the water permeable portion “is from 20-50%” of the first length, which is the of the brew chamber.
However, the courts have held that where the general condition of the claims is disposed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In this case, French teaches a water permeable portion that is a certain percentage of the length of the brewing chamber. Having a water permeable portion with a length that is 20-50% of the length of the brew chamber is not inventive according to the courts, as the length of the water permeable is a result effective variable, and varying the length of the water permeable portion is a matter of routine experimentation.
In this case, changing the length of the water permeable portion has the result of changing the flavor of a brewed beverage. Examiner interprets that changing the length of the water permeable portion is one manner of changing the total area of the openings in the brew chamber. Long teaches that the total area of the openings affects the conditions and flavor of a brewed beverage (“If the open area is large the extraction will result in a flavorant mixture that approaches that obtained by simply pouring the coffee or tea into the heated water. If the total area open for flow of water or steam is small, the conditions and flavor will approach that of a samovar where the tea is confined in only a small volume of water as the extraction occurs”, Long col. 4 lines 55-61).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENNETT GALLUP BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0417. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/BENNETT GALLUP BOWERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 3761