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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledge. Group II (claims 12-15) are withdrawn from consideration.
Status of claims: As directed, claims 1-11 are pending in this application, claims 12-15 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/12/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inventorship
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “8”, “9”, “10”, “x0”, “xf”, “x1”, “x2”, and “Pt”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 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. 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.
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, “a respective driving sleeve” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “said electric motor” is legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“Respective actuation device (3)” (Pg. 13, line 14), should read “respective actuation disposition (3)”.
“The gear box (32)” (Pg. 17, line 7), should read “the gear set (32)”.
“The gear box (32)” (Pg. 17, line 10), should read “the gear set (32)”.
“The clockwork direction” (Pg. 17, line 20), should read “the clockwise direction”.
“The clockwork direction” (Pg. 18, line 21), should read “the clockwise direction”.
“The beverage preparation device (3)” (Pg. 19, line 16), should read “the beverage preparation device (2)”.
“A beverage preparation device (1)” (Pg. 19, line 26), should read “the beverage preparation device (2)”.
“The beverage preparation device (3)” (Pg. 21, line 13), should read “the beverage preparation device (2)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “open position” in line 4 of the claim. Should read “an open position.”
Claim 1 recites “closed position” in line 5 of the claim. Should read “a closed position.”
Claim 1 recites “whereby the control means are configured so that can identify the movement path” in lines 10-11 of the claim. Should read “whereby the control means are configured so that the control means can identify the movement path” or “whereby the control means are configured so that they can identify the movement path.”
Claim 1 recites “the data of movement parameter” in lines 12-13 of the claim. Should read “the data of the at least one movement parameter.”
Claims 1-6 and 10-11 recite the limitation “driving came.” Based on the drawings it appears the applicant means to refer to a driving cam. Should read “driving cam”, if the applicant intends to describe a driving cam, or something related to a driving cam.
Claims 2-11 recite “Apparatus” in line 1 of the claims. Should read “The apparatus.”
Claim 2 recites “open and closed positions” in line 7 of the claim. Should read “the opened and closed positions.”
Claim 2 recites “in angular extension of at most 110°” in line 9 of the claim. Should read “in the angular extension of at most 110°.”
Claim 2 recites “the clockwork direction and reverse” in line lines 9-10 of the claim. Should read “the clockwise direction and reverse.”
Claim 3 recites “the actuation monitoring means are configured so that can monitor” in line 1 of the claim. Should read “the actuation monitoring means are configured so that the actuation monitoring means can monitor” or “the actuation monitoring means are configured so that they can monitor.”
Claim 3 recites “at least one of, preferentially at least two parameters” in lines 2-3 of the claims. Should read “the at least one movement parameter, or preferentially at least two movement parameters.”
Claim 4 recites “edges of movement path” in line 4 of the claim. Should read “edges of the movement path.”
Claim 5 recites “electric motor” in line 4 of the claim. Should read “the electric motor.”
Claim 5 recites “the gear set” in line 5 of the claim. Should read “the single gear set.”
Claim 5 recites “of driving came” in lines 5-6 of the claim. Should read “of the driving came.”
Claim 5 recites “at least one mobile part” in line 6 of the claim. Should read “the at least one mobile part.”
Claim 5 recites “a transmission exit of gear set” in line 12 of the claim. Should read “a transmission exit of the single gear set.”
Claim 5 recites “the whole width of the actuation disposition” in line 14 of the claim. Should read “a whole width of the actuation disposition.”
Claim 6 recites “in the infrared’ in lines 6-7 of the claim. Should read “in an infrared wavelength.”
Claim 6 recites “said beam being oriented so that intersects said angular alignment” in line 7. Should read “said beam being oriented so that the beam intersects said angular alignment.”
Claim 6 recites “the mobile part” in line 8 of the claim. Should read “the first monitoring mobile part.”
Claim 6 recites “position monitoring means adapted so that can detect at least one end of path” in lines 9-10 of the claim. Should read “position monitoring means adapted so that the position monitoring means can detect at least one end of path” or “position monitoring means adapted so that they can detect at least one end of path.”
Claim 6 recites “an electro-mechanic switch, or similar, including” in lines 10-11 of the claim. Should read “an electro-mechanic switch, or similarly, including.”
Claim 6 recites “the end of path” in line 11 of the claim. Should read “the at least one end of path.”
Claim 7 recites “on one side only of the gear box” in line 6 of the claim. Should read “on only one side of the gear box.”
Claim 8 recites “the control means are configured so that can regulate” in line 3 of the claims. Should read “the control means are configured so that the control means can regulate” or “the control means are configured so that they can regulate.”
Claim 8 recites “said flow pressurization device” in line 4 of the claim. Should read “a flow pressurization device.”
Claim 8 recites “display of operative conditions to user” in lines 4-5 of the claim. Should read “display operative conditions to user.”
Claim 8 recites “at the entry of the beverage preparation device” in line 7 of the claim. Should read “at an entry of the beverage preparation device.”
Claim 8 recites “the positions of start and end” in line 8 of the claim. Should read “positions of start and end.”
Claim 9 recites “the control means are configured so that can regulate” in line 3 of the claim. Should read “the control means are configured so that the control means can regulate” or “the control means are configured so that they can regulate.”
Claim 9 recites “the operation” in line 3 of the claim. Should read “an operation.”
Claim 9 recites “cannot be initiated in case of not being detected placement of a drinking recipient” in line 5 of the claim. Should read “cannot be initiated, in case of not detecting placement of a drinking recipient.”
Claim 9 recites “in case that the beverage preparation device” in line 6 of the claim. Should read “in case the beverage preparation device.”
Claim 9 recites “the completely closed position” in line 7 of the claim. Should read “a completely closed position.”
Claim 9 recites “even in case that there is detected and/or inferred the presence of an individual portion” lines 7-8. Should read “even in case there is a detected and/or inferred presence.”
Claim 9 recites “can be initiated even in case that there is not detected or inferred the present” in line 9. Should read “can be initiated, even in case there is not the detected or inferred presence.
Claim 9 recites “drinking recipient” in line 11 of the claim. Should read “the drinking recipient.”
Claim 10 recites “the control means are configured so that can regulate” in line 3 of the claim. Should read “the control means are configured so that the control means can regulate” or “the control means are configured so that they can regulate.”
Claim 10 recites “the operation” in line 3 of the claim. Should read “an operation.”
Claim 10 recites “the relative position of the individual portion” in line 4 of the claim. Should read “a relative position of the individual portion.”
Claim 10 recites “the relative position of the actuation disposition” in lines 5-6 of the claims. Should read “a relative position of the actuation disposition.”
Claim 10 recites “the positions of start and end” in lines 6-7 of the claim. Should read “positions of start and end.”
Claim 10 recites “the control means are configured so that can infer” in line 8 of the claim. Should read “the control means are configured so that the control means can infer” or “the control means are configured so that they can infer.”
Claim 10 recites “the determination” in line10 of the claim. Should read “a determination.”
Claim 10 recites “the displacement speed” in line 11 of the claim. Should read “a displacement speed.”
Claim 11 recites “the control means are configured so that can infer the following events” in line 3 of the claim. Should read “the control means are configured so that the control means can infer the following events” or “the control means are configured so that they can infer the following events.”
Claim 11 recites “the actuation” in line 5 of the claim. Should read “an actuation.”
Claim 11 recites “the total opening and total closure” in line 11 of the claim. Should read “a total opening and a total closure.”
Claim 11 recites “the displacement velocity” in line 14 of the claim. Should read “a displacement velocity.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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/are:
“Control means” in claims 1, 8, 9, 10, and 11. This limitation uses the generic placeholder “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “control” (Prong B); and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “control means” will be interpreted as any element that can control, and equivalents.
“Actuation monitoring means” in claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7. This limitation uses the generic placeholder “means’” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “actuation monitoring” (Prong B); and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “actuation monitoring means” will be interpreted as a first mobile part and a second stationary part and equivalents, as indicated by: “actuation monitoring means (3d) adapted so that can provide monitoring of at least one movement parameter associated with the circular movement of a driving came…data of movement parameter apprehended by said actuation monitoring means“ (Claim 1) and “actuation monitoring means (34) can include a first mobile part (341) including a plurality of observation references, for example in the form of openings or windows, and a second stationary part (342) that includes a sender of electromagnetic radiation, for example an infrared beam” (Pg. 19).
“Movement generating device” in claim 2 (line 2 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “device” (Prong A); the term “device” is modified by functional language “movement generating” (Prong B); and the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “movement generating device” will be interpreted as an electric motor and equivalents, as indicated by: “a single movement generating device - an electric motor” (Pg. 5).
“Velocity and torque conversion device” in claim 2 (line 2 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “device” (Prong A); the term “device” is modified by functional language “velocity and torque conversion” (Prong B); and the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “velocity and torque conversion device” will be interpreted as a gear set and equivalents and equivalents, as indicated by: “a single velocity and torque conversion device - a gear set” (Pgs. 5-6).
“Means of direct movement transmission” in claim 5 (line 3 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “direct movement transmission” (Prong B); and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “means of direct movement transmission” will be interpreted as any element that directly transmits movement, and equivalents.
“Components of the movement transmission” in claim 5 (line 7 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “components” (Prong A); the term “components” is modified by functional language “movement transmission” (Prong B); and the term “components” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “components of the movement transmission” will be interpreted as an actuation disposition or a gear box or a driving cam, and equivalents, as indicated by: “an actuation disposition that provides a more efficient movement transmission” (Pg. 5, lines 34-35), “the movement transmission between the gear box (32) and the beverage preparation device (2) is driven only by said driving came (33)” (Pg. 17, lines 10-12), and “The actuation disposition (3) is devoid of other movement transmission elements, including devoid of isolated gears, elements of lever type, and similar” (Pg. 17, lines 13-15).
“Position monitoring means” in claim 6 (line 9). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “position monitoring” (Prong B); and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “position monitoring means” will be interpreted as any element that monitors position and equivalents.
“Flow pressurization device” in claims 8 and 9. This limitation uses the generic placeholder “device” (Prong A); the term “device” is modified by functional language “flow pressurization” (Prong B); and the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “flow pressurization device” will be interpreted as “a hydraulic pump” and equivalents, as indicated by: “a flow pressurization device (5), for example a hydraulic pump” (Pg. 15).
“Portion detection means” in claim 11. This limitation uses the generic placeholder “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “portion detection” (Prong B); and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “portion detection means” will be interpreted as any element that detects a portion and equivalents.
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 1-11 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “control means” in lines 3 and 11 of the claim. There is insufficient description for “control means” and what it encompasses. “Control means” is being interpreted as any element that can control, and equivalents. This term invokes 112f and the specification fails to set forth sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions. Examiner acknowledges that the specification sets forth the following about the control means, “Said control means (4) are adapted so that can apprehend data of a plurality of operation parameters, including: data relating to the presence of the individual portion (7) in the apparatus (1), as well as to the position of the actuation disposition (3), in particular on the edges of the movement path, thereby inferring the corresponding position of the beverage preparation device (2), in particular completely closed and open” [Pg. 16, lines 7-14]. However, throughout the specification there is no mention of a microcontroller, processor, or the like, thus, the specification fails to set forth the structure that is performing the claimed functions.
Claim 5 recites “means of direct movement transmission” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient description for “means of direct movement transmission” and what it encompasses. “Means of direct movement transmission” is being interpreted as any element that directly transmits movement. This term invokes 112f and the specification fails to set forth sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions. Examiner acknowledges that the specification sets forth the following “The actuation disposition (3) is devoid of other movement transmission elements, including devoid of isolated gears, elements of lever type, and similar” [Pg. 17, lines 13-15]. It is not clear whether the “other movement transmission elements” here are the same as “means of direct movement transmission, and the specification never discloses the term “means of direct movement transmission.” Thus, the specification fails to set forth the structure that is performing the claimed functions.
Claim 6 recites “position monitoring means” in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient description for “position monitoring means” and what it encompasses. “Position monitoring means” is being interpreted as any element that monitors position. This term invokes 112f and the specification fails to set forth sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions. The specification does not set forth any structure related to the “positioning monitoring means” or disclose the term “position monitoring means.” Thus, the specification fails to set forth the structure that is performing the claimed functions.
Claim 11 recites “portion detection means” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient description for “portion detection means” and what it encompasses. “Portion detection means” is being interpreted as any element that detects a portion. This term invokes 112f and the specification fails to set forth sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions. Examiner acknowledges that the specification sets forth the following about the portion detection means, “there is advantageously provided the possibility of detecting an eventual jam, or incorrect positioning of the individual portion in the beverage preparation device” [Pg. 9, lines 34-36]. However, throughout the specification there is no mention of a sensor, monitor, or the like, thus, the specification fails to set forth the structure that is performing the claimed functions.
Claims 2-11 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim limitations “control means” (Claim 1), “means of direct movement transmission” (Claim 5), “position monitoring means” (Claim 6), “portion detection means” (Claim 11) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-11 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 “Apparatus comprising a beverage preparation device presenting at least one mobile part adapted so that can be driven by an actuation disposition” in lines 1-2 of the claim. It is unclear which claim limitation (the beverage preparation device or the at least one mobile part) is intended to be driven by the actuation disposition, thus the scope of the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting the at least one mobile part to be driven by the actuation disposition.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reverse movement path" in lines 5-6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the actuation disposition includes actuation monitoring means adapted so that can provide monitoring of at least one movement parameter” in lines 8-9 of the claim. It is unclear which claim limitation (the actuation disposition or the actuation monitoring means) is intended to monitor the at least one movement parameter, thus the scope of the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting the actuation monitoring means to monitor the at least one movement parameter.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the circular parameter" in lines 9-10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operation of the electric motor" in lines 11-12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the data of the movement parameter" in lines 12-13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "in particular" (line 2 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "an electric motor" in line 3 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another electric motor.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferentially" (line 3 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a mobile part" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another mobile part.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferentially" (line 6 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the linear movement path" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferentially" (line 9 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the clockwork direction and reverse” in lines 9-10 of the claim. It is unclear what applicant means by “reverse” here, and whether “reverse” is in regards to direction the rotation movement, or another aspect of the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferentially" (line 3 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites “a quadrant interval associated with the movement quadrant thereof, along an angular extension of at least 110°, preferentially of at least 100°, particularly preferentially comprised between 90° and 100°.” It is unclear what applicant means by “a quadrant interval” and “the movement quadrant,” as the plain English meaning of quadrant is typically, an arc of 90 degrees that is one quarter of a circle. Additionally, the specification does not provide any additional clarity as to the meaning of “a quadrant interval” or “the movement quadrant,” rather the specification just reiterates the desired angle of the quadrant: “The driving came (33) can be actuated in each movement path in rotation movement in the clockwork direction and in the opposite direction, in an angular extension that corresponds approximately to a quadrant, that is, of up to at most 1100, preferentially of up to 95°” (Pg. 17). For the purposes of examination, “movement quadrant” will be interpreted as anything that could be divisible by 4.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the movement quadrant" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "an angular extension of at least 110°, preferentially of at least 100°, particularly preferentially comprised between 90° and 100°" in lines 4-6 of the claim. There is a lack of clarity here as to what applicant means by “at least.” Applicant initially establishes an angular extension of at least 110° (i.e. 110° ≤), but then proceeds to further decrease the established angular extension to 100°, then to between 90° to 100°. Applicants use of the phrase “at least” does not seem to coincide with the plain English meaning. Thus, examiner is interpreting ideal range to be anywhere between 90° to 110°. It is suggested that applicant rephrase to “at most 110°, preferentially of at most 100°, particularly preferentially comprised between 90° and 100°."
Claim 3 recites the limitation "an angular extension of at least 110°" in lines 4-5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another angular extension, or just intends to further limit the angular extension already established in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferentially" (line 5 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "particularly preferentially" (line 5 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the edges" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "an electric motor" in line 2 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another electric motor.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferentially" (line 4 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the rotation movement" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the movement transmission" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another movement transmission or if they are referring back to the “direct movement transmission” in line 3 of the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferentially" (line 9 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a driving came" in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another driving came.
Claim 5 recites “the actuation disposition includes a driving came adapted so that provides direct movement transmission” in lines 11-12 of the claim. It is unclear which claim limitation (the actuation disposition or the driving came) is intended to provide direct movement transmission, thus the scope of the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting the driving came to provide direct movement transmission.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferentially" (line 13 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites “the actuation monitoring means include a first monitoring mobile part provided so that can be moved together with the driving came” in lines 3-4 of the claim. It is unclear which claim limitation (the actuation monitoring means or the first monitoring mobile part) is intended to be moved together with the driving came, thus the scope of the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting the first monitoring mobile part to be moved together with the driving came.
Claim 6 recites “a second monitoring fixed part provided so that can emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation” in lines 5-6 of the claim. It is unclear which claim limitation (the actuation monitoring means or the second monitoring mobile part) is intended to emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation, thus the scope of the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, examiner is interpreting the second monitoring mobile part to emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "for example" (line 6 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said angular alignment of openings of the mobile part" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim other openings of the mobile part or if they are referring back to the “plurality of openings” in lines 4-5 of the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "for example" (line 10 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the gear box" in lines 4-5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if applicant intends to refer to the “gear set”, previously established in claim 2, the “respective gear box”, previously established in claim 5, or the “single gear set”, previously established in claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferentially" (line 5 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferentially" (line 7 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferentially" (line 10 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said actuation device" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if applicant intends to refer to the “actuation disposition”, previously established in claim 1, or if applicant is trying to establish a new claim limitation of “an actuation disposition”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "in particular" (line 6 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "movement path" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another movement path.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said flow pressurization device" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim is unclear because “flow pressurization device” is established in claim 8, and claim 9 depends on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "an individual portion" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another individual potion.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "an individual portion" in lines 9-10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another individual potion.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a drinking recipient" in line 13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another drinking recipient.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a respective placement disposition" in line 13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another respective placement disposition.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "movement path" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another movement path.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the entry of the beverage preparation device" in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim is unclear because “entry of the beverage preparation device” is established in claim 8, and claim 10 depends on claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "in particular" (line 11 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "individual portion" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another individual portion.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "preferentially" (line 6 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "for example" (line 9 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "movement path" in line 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of clarity here because it is unclear if applicant intends to claim another movement path.
Claims 2-11 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite 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)(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.
(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.
Claim 1, 5, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori (U.S. 20130152797).
PNG
media_image1.png
437
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Mori)
PNG
media_image2.png
432
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Mori)
PNG
media_image3.png
525
775
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 (Mori)
Regarding claim 1, Mori discloses an apparatus comprising a beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]) presenting at least one mobile part (Annotated fig. 3, “movable assembly 14” [0074]) adapted so that can be driven by an actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) that includes an electric motor (Mori’s Fig. 1, “electric motor 3” [0073]) and that can be regulated by control means (Mori’s Fig. 1, “control means 10” [0069]) in a movement path (“opening” [0077]) between open position (“open position” [0074]), where the beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]) can collect an individual portion of edible substance (“ingredient capsule 30” [0013]), and closed position (“closed position” [0074]), and in the reverse movement path (“closure” [0077]),
wherein the actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) includes actuation monitoring means (“means for measuring at least one electrical parameter representative of a consumption of power by the motor; means for comparing to a set reference an evolution of this measured parameter as a function of time during the transfer of the assembly from the open to the closed position;” [0035-0036]) adapted so that can provide monitoring (“means for measuring” [0035]) of at least one movement parameter (“parameter as a function of time during the transfer of the assembly from the open to the closed position” [0036]) associated with the circular movement (“the motor is controlled to produce an output movement, e.g. rotation of rotor” [0041]) of a driving came (Annotated Fig. 3, inner groove of “gear segment 28” [0079]; Examiner note: the inner groove of “gear segment 28,” in which the “cam follower 23” sits and rotates along, works functionally the same as a driving cam here, as it guides the movement of “cam follower 23”) along an angular extension smaller than 360° (Examiner note: “gear segment 28” is only a segment of a whole gear, thus it is not capable of rotating 360°, thus “gear segment 28” has an angular extension smaller than 360°) whereby the control means (Mori’s Fig. 1, “control means 10” [0069]) are configured so that can identify the movement path (“opening” [0077]) and regulate the operation of the electric motor (Mori’s Fig. 1, “electric motor 3” [0073]) in each movement path (“closure and opening” [0077]), based upon the data of movement parameter (“an evolution” [0036]) apprehended by said actuation monitoring means (“means for measuring at least one electrical parameter representative of a consumption of power by the motor; means for comparing to a set reference an evolution of this measured parameter as a function of time during the transfer of the assembly from the open to the closed position;” [0035-0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Mori further discloses wherein
the actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) includes an electric motor (Mori’s Fig. 1, “electric motor 3” [0073]) operatively connected by means of direct movement transmission to a single gear set (Annotated Fig. 3, “gear assembly 20” [0079]) that presents a movement exit (Annotated Fig. 3, “movement exit”) preferentially oriented in an orthogonal direction relative to the driving axis of electric motor (Mori’s Fig. 1, “electric motor 3” [0073]), whereby the gear set (“gear assembly 20” [0079]) is adapted for direct transmission of the rotation movement of driving came (Annotated Fig. 3, inner groove of “gear segment 28” [0079]) that drives at least one mobile part (Annotated Fig. 3, “movable assembly 14” [0074]) of the beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]), and whereby all components of the movement transmission of the actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) are provided encapsulated (Annotated Fig. 3, “casing 17” [0079]) so that they are not exposed to dusts or corrosive agents, whereby the single gear set (Annotated Fig. 3, “gear assembly 20” [0079]) is preferentially provided inside of a respective gear box (Annotated Fig. 3, “gear box”) and the driving came (Annotated Fig. 3, inner groove of “gear segment 28” [0079]) is provided inside of a respective driving sleeve (Annotated Fig. 3, driving sleeve”), and
the actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) includes a driving came (Annotated Fig. 3, inner groove of “gear segment 28” [0079]) adapted so that provides direct movement transmission between a transmission exit (Annotated Fig. 3, “movement exit”) of gear set (Annotated Fig. 3, “gear assembly 20” [0079]) and an actuation part (Annotated Fig. 3, “worm drive 21” [0079]) of the beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]), whereby the driving came (Annotated Fig. 3, inner groove of “gear segment 28” [0079]) preferentially extends along the whole width of the actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) and along at least most part of a transversal extension (Annotated Fig. 3, “transversal extension”) of the beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]).
Regarding claim 8, Mori further discloses wherein
the control means (Mori’s Fig. 1, “control means 10” [0069]) are configured so that can regulate at least one of: actuation of said actuation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) and actuation of said flow pressurization device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “water supply means 5” [0068]), as well as display of operative conditions (“user interface” [0068]) to the user (“Control unit 10 includes processor(s), memories and programs enabling to provide appropriate inputs to and receive outputs from the different activation means of the machine in particular, the pump, heater and motor” [0068]), based upon at least one of:
the correct entry and exit of the individual portion, in particular an eventual jamming of the individual portion at the entry of the beverage preparation device (“The reaching of an obstacle at the end position can be nearly instantaneously identified by monitoring the power consumption of the motor the powering of which can be stopped” [0023]; “a safety mode may be provided, e.g. to stop closure or reopen the assemblies when an undesired obstacle is caught between the assemblies, or stop the motor when the brewing unit is jammed” [0041]);
the positions of start and end (“open and closed positions” [0074]) of movement path (“closure and opening” [0077]) of said actuation disposition, thereby inferring the condition of total opening or total closure of the beverage preparation device (“the control means may include at least one end position sensor, e.g. two end position sensors in particular for detecting the open position and/or the closed position” [0056]).
Regarding claim 10, Mori further discloses wherein
the control means (Mori’s Fig. 1, “control means 10” [0069]) are configured so that can regulate the operation of said actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) based upon the relative position of the individual portion (“ingredient capsule 30” [0013]) in relation to the beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]), and based upon the relative position of the actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) with relation to the movement path (“opening” [0077]), including based upon the positions of start and end of movement thereof (“closure” [0061]), and
the control means (Mori’s Fig. 1, “control means 10” [0069]) are configured so that can infer the relative position of the individual portion (“ingredient capsule 30” [0013]) and eventual jamming (“obstacle” [0041]) thereof at the entry of the beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]) based upon the determination of a previously defined reduction of rate of reduction of the displacement speed (“speed” [0041]; Examiner note: power can be regulated to achieve full closure) associated with the actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]), in particular the driving came (Annotated Fig. 3, inner groove of “gear segment 28” [0079]), or stop thereof (“For example, the motor is controlled to produce an output movement, e.g. rotation of a rotor, at a predetermined speed and/or to operate at a predetermined input voltage for example at constant voltage. To maintain the predetermined speed and/or voltage, the input powering of the motor may be adjusted in line with the needed output powering, e.g. angular speed and torque (depending on the constraints under which the motor has to operate in a given circumstance). In particular, the power supply of the motor may be arranged to control the motor's input voltage and the motor can be arranged to draw the required amount of current needed to maintain the input voltage. By measuring the required motor input powering to maintain the desired motor output speed and/or the input voltage, the mechanical constraints exercised against the motor output can be determined. Such constraints may correspond to normal operation of the motorized machine, e.g. opening or closing the brewing unit assemblies with or without a capsule ingredient, or to an abnormal operation, e.g. an interference with an obstacle preventing normal opening or closing, such as a human body part e.g. a finger, caught in between the assemblies or inhibiting reopening of the assemblies, e.g. jamming of the brewing unit. In the former case (normal operation), the motorized beverage machine may be configured to allow a corresponding operation, e.g. beverage preparation or cleaning, or to carry it out automatically. In the latter case (abnormal operation), a safety mode may be provided, e.g. to stop closure or reopen the assemblies when an undesired obstacle is caught between the assemblies, or stop the motor when the brewing unit is jammed e.g. to prevent undesired stress in the machine and allow for example manual unjamming by a user and/or service person, as appropriate” [0041]).
Regarding claim 11, Mori further discloses wherein
the control means (Mori’s Fig. 1, “control means 10” [0069]; “Control means 10 include a control unit 11, sensors (not represented) and a user interface 12” [0068]) are configured so that can infer the following events based upon the following respective means:
presence of individual portion (“ingredient capsule 30” [0013]): based upon the actuation of portion detection means (“safety mode” during “abnormal operation” [0041]), preferentially a first and a second portion sensors (“sensors” [0068]) associated with said beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]),
position of the beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]): based upon the actuation of position sensors (“position sensor” [0056]), for example of optical type and of electro mechanic switch type, associated with at least one of the edges of movement path (“open and closed positions” [0074]) of said actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) and corresponding to the total opening and total closure (“closure and opening “ [0077]) of said beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]);
an eventual jamming (“obstacle” [0041]) of the individual portion (“ingredient capsule 30” [0013]) on the beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]): based upon a variation of the displacement velocity (“speed” [0041]) of driving came (Annotated Fig. 3, inner groove of “gear segment 28” [0079]). (Examiner note: the control means can infer the eventual jamming based upon variation in output speed of the motor, the motor is connected to the driving cam and causes the driving cam to rotate, thus the control means can infer the eventual jamming based upon the displacement velocity of the driving cam [0041] and [0079]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (U.S. 20130152797) in view of Fukushima (U.S. 5992300).
Regarding claim 2, Mori further discloses wherein
the actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) includes a movement generating device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “electric motor 3” [0073]), in particular in the form of an electric motor (Mori’s Fig. 1, “electric motor 3” [0073]), a velocity and torque conversion device (“gear assembly 20” [0079]), preferentially in the form of a gear set (“gear assembly 20” [0079]), and a driving transmission disposition (“worm drive 21” [0079]) of final rotation movement to a mobile part of linear movement (“large gear 24” [0079]) of the beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]), whereby the actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) is preferentially adapted so that the linear movement path (“closure and opening” [0077]) between initial and destination positions (“open and closed positions” [0074]), that is, between open and closed positions (“open and closed positions” [0074]) of the beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]), and vice-versa, only requires a rotation movement by the driving came (Annotated Fig. 3, inner groove of “gear segment 28” [0079]) in angular extension.
Mori does not explicitly teach a rotation movement by the driving came in angular extension of at most 110°, preferentially at most 95°, in the clockwork direction and reverse.
PNG
media_image4.png
615
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 (Fukushima)
However, Fukushima discloses a beverage preparation device (Fukushima’s Fig. 3, “beverage extraction apparatus 1” [Col. 7, line 45]) wherein, a rotation movement by the driving came (Fukushima’s Fig. 3, “pressing cam 48” [Col. 12, lines 8-12]) in angular extension of at most 110°, preferentially at most 95°, in the clockwork direction and reverse (“Control unit 6 drives waste processing motor 40 to rotate in the reversed direction, whereby pressing cam 48 rotates in the reversed direction by about 60 degrees” [Col. 12, lines 8-12]; “The driving torque of waste processing motor 40 is transmitted through reducing unit 41 to output axis 41a, which is rotated 60 degrees in normal direction (anticlockwise in FIG. 6) whereby protrusion 48a of pressing cam 48 presses pressure plate 46” [Col. 10, lines 46-51]).
Additionally, it is noted that much of the claim centers on the manner in which the system is used. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04-II. In this case, the system is being defined in the claim by the manner in which it operates as opposed to any specific structural or cooperative relationship. As no additional structure is required by the claim, the claim is understood to refer to the system having the necessary structure allowing the beverage system to perform the claimed functions. See MPEP 2112 and 2114.
Mori does disclose a rotation movement by the driving came in angular extension (Annotated Fig. 3, inner groove of “gear segment 28” [0079]) being, necessarily, of some angular value, in either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Mori, by replacing the the angular extension, being inherently of some value, in the clockwise direction since the angular extension in a clockwise direction is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result. In this case the recognized result would be a rotational movement by the driving cam. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that rotating the driving cam would result in some form of angular extension in a clockwise direction, as the rotation direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) depends on the perspective from which the driving cam is viewed. As such, selecting the specific values of these parameters refers to merely the optimum or workable ranges during use. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05-ll-A and MPEP 2144.05-ll-B.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (U.S. 20130152797) in view of Park (U.S. 20040177761).
Regarding claim 3, Mori further discloses wherein
the actuation monitoring means (“means for measuring at least one electrical parameter representative of a consumption of power by the motor; means for comparing to a set reference an evolution of this measured parameter as a function of time during the transfer of the assembly from the open to the closed position;” [0035-0036]) are configured so that can monitor at least one of (“consumption of power” [0035]), preferentially at least two parameters (“consumption of power” and “time during the transfer of the assembly from the open to the closed position” [0035-0036]) associated with the circular movement (“the motor is controlled to produce an output movement, e.g. rotation of rotor” [0041]) of the driving came (Annotated Fig. 3, inner groove of “gear segment 28” [0079]), in a quadrant interval associated with the movement quadrant thereof (Annotated Fig. 3, interval in which the “gear segment 28” rotates [0079]).
Mori does not explicitly teach along an angular extension of at least 110°, preferentially of at least 100°, particularly preferentially comprised between 90° and 100°.
However, Park discloses a beverage preparation device (“coffee machine [Abstract]) along an angular extension of at least 110°, preferentially of at least 100°, particularly preferentially comprised between 90° and 100° (“when the first cam member 210 is further rotated counterclockwise by an angle of 100.degree” [0073]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mori to incorporate the teachings of Park, since Park shows the overlap with the claimed angular extension (at least 110°, preferentially of at least 100°, particularly preferentially comprised between 90° and 100°). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case angular extension of the prior art is (100 degrees) which overlaps with the claimed angular extension (at least 110°, preferentially of at least 100°, particularly preferentially comprised between 90° and 100°) and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (U.S. 20130152797) in view of Maruyama et al. (U.S. 20010010317), hereinafter Maruyama.
Regarding claim 4, Mori further discloses the actuation monitoring means (“means for measuring at least one electrical parameter representative of a consumption of power by the motor; means for comparing to a set reference an evolution of this measured parameter as a function of time during the transfer of the assembly from the open to the closed position;” [0035-0036]).
Mori does not explicitly teach wherein the actuation monitoring means are configured so that, in each movement path, can apprehend at least one of the following movement parameters: rotation direction, number of rotations between the edges of movement path, and rotation velocity of the driving came.
However, Maruyama discloses a beverage preparation device (“beverage dispenser” [0001]) wherein monitoring means (“detector” [0061]) are configured so that, in each movement path (“forward movement position” and “backward movement position” [0061]), can apprehend at least one of the following movement parameters: rotation direction (“a direction of rotation” [0061]), number of rotations (“the number of revolution “ [0061]) between the edges of movement path, and rotation velocity of the driving came (“A pulse from the detector is output to the control substrate 58, and the control substrate 58 is constructed such that the number of revolution and a direction of rotation of the motor 71 are monitored” [0061]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori to incorporate the teachings of Maruyama to have monitoring means that can apprehend the following movement parameters: rotation direction, number of rotations between the edges of movement path. Doing so allows for more precise control of the beverage preparation device. When the rotation direction and number of rotations are known the beverage preparation device is able to compare to predetermined values or directions with the controls, and then control the beverage preparation device to be in the open or closed position, as recognized by Maruyama. (“By rotation-controlling the motor 71 by the number of pulse preset forward and backward with reference to the standby position of the slider 34, the beer server is set such that the slider 34 is moved to the forward movement position and the backward movement position. That is, when the number of pulses of the motor 71, which moves the slider 34 from the standby position to the forward movement position reaches a forward set value with reference to the standby position, the motor 71 is stopped and is rotated in the reverse direction after the passage of a predetermined pouring time, and then the slider 34 is again returned back to the standby position once from the forward movement position. After that, when the number of pulses of the motor 71, which moves the slider 34 to the backward movement position reaches a backward set value with reference to the standby position, the motor 71 is stopped and is rotated in the reverse direction after the passage of a predetermined pouring time” [0061]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (U.S. 20130152797) in view of Ayoub et al. (U.S. 10799061), hereinafter Ayoub, further in view of Moore et al. (C.N. 103792973), hereinafter Moore.
Regarding claim 6, Mori further discloses wherein the actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) includes position monitoring means (“two end position sensors” [0056]) adapted so that can detect at least one end of path (“end positions” [0023]), for example in the form of an electro-mechanic switch, or similar, including the end of path corresponding to the beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]) in the open position (“open position” [0056]).
Mori does not explicitly teach the actuation monitoring means include a first monitoring mobile part provided so that can be moved together with the driving came and that presents a plurality of openings arranged along an angular alignment, as well as a second monitoring fixed part provided so that can emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation, for example in the infrared, said beam being oriented so that intersects said angular alignment of openings of the mobile part, and
PNG
media_image5.png
441
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Ayoub)
PNG
media_image6.png
565
504
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 (Ayoub)
However, Ayoub discloses a beverage preparation device (Ayoub’s Fig. 1, “a beverage preparation machine 1” [Abstract]) wherein the actuation monitoring means (Annotated Fig. 8, “encoder wheel 36” and “sensor 37” [Col. 10, lines 15-16]) include a first monitoring mobile part (Annotated Fig. 8, “encoder wheel 36” [Col. 10, lines 15-16]) provided so that can be moved together with the driving came (Examiner note: driving cam is taught by Mori, and because Ayoub’s first monitoring mobile part is a wheel, it is capable of moving together with a driving cam) and that presents a plurality of openings (Annotated Fig. 8, “plurality of openings”) arranged along an angular alignment, as well as a second monitoring fixed part (Annotated Fig. 3, “sensor 37” [Col. 10, lines 15-16]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori to incorporate the teachings of Ayoub to have the actuation monitoring means include a first monitoring mobile part provided so that can be moved together with the driving came and that presents a plurality of openings arranged along an angular alignment, as well as a second monitoring fixed part. Doing so allows for finely determining the position of the different movable parts of the brewing unit, as recognized by Ayoub (“the brewing unit further comprises an encoder wheel 36 and a sensor 37 mechanically linked to the output shaft 17 of the motor 16, for detecting the exact angular position of the screw nut 22 along the screw shaft 18. Such a mechanism allows to finely determine the position of the different movable parts of the brewing unit, in particular the position of the screw nut across the screw shaft” [Col. 10, lines 15-24]).
Mori in view of Ayoub does not explicitly teach a second monitoring fixed part provided so that can emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation, for example in the infrared, said beam being oriented so that intersects said angular alignment of openings of the mobile part.
PNG
media_image7.png
631
489
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 21 (Moore)
However, Moore discloses a beverage preparation device (“kettle” [0054]) wherein a second monitoring fixed part (Moore’s Fig. 21, “transmitter 48” and “detector 49” [0248]) provided so that can emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation (“ transmitter 48 is located at the bottom of the water reservoir 5 and is configured to emit electromagnetic radiation” [0248]), for example in the infrared (“Radiation can be light or near-light, such as infrared radiation” [0250]), said beam being oriented so that intersects said angular alignment of openings of the mobile part (Examiner note: Ayoub teaches the current position of the second monitoring fixed part (Annotated Fig. 8, “sensor 37” [Col. 10, lines 15-16]) being able to intersect the angular alignment of openings (Annotated Fig. 8, “plurality of openings”) of the first mobile part (Annotated Fig. 8, “encoder wheel 36” [Col. 10, lines 15-16]), thus the current structure is capable of intersecting said angular alignment of openings of the mobile part. Additionally, the beam being able to do so is a functional limitation, see below).
In addition to structural limitations, claim 6 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “said beam being oriented so that intersects said angular alignment of openings of the mobile part” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the Ayoub’s sensor with the transmitter and detector disclosed in Moore, because the substitution of one known sensor for another would have yielded predictable results of measuring distance or determining position. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (U.S. 20130152797) in view of Bonacci et al. (U.S. 20170007066), hereinafter Bonacci.
Regarding claim 7, Mori further discloses wherein
the actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]) includes a first fixation support (Annotated Fig. 3, “first fixation support”) arranged laterally with relation to the movement path (“opening” [0077]) associated with the actuation disposition (Mori’s Fig. 1, “transmission means 4” [0073]), whereby only the gear box (Annotated Fig. 3, “gear box”) is fixed to said first fixation support (Annotated Fig. 3, “first fixation support”), preferentially by fixation means of mechanic type provided on one side only of the gear box (Annotated Fig. 3, “gear box”), and whereby the beverage preparation device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “motorized beverage machine 1” [0068]) is preferentially supported by a structural support (Annotated Fig. 3, “frame 18” [0072]) different from the first fixation support (Annotated Fig. 3, “first fixation support”).
Mori does not explicitly teach wherein the actuation disposition includes a second fixation support, whereby said actuation monitoring means are preferentially fixed directly to said second fixation support.
PNG
media_image8.png
410
657
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 8a (Bonacci)
However, Bonacci discloses a beverage preparation device wherein the actuation disposition (Bonacci’s Fig. 8a, “actuator 30,300” [Abstract]) includes a second fixation support (Bonacci’s Fig. 8a, “support 11” [0118]), whereby said actuation monitoring means (“frame 1′ supports a control unit 3… When present, a motor 30 (FIGS. 9 and 10) is typically connected to control unit 3. Control unit 3 may also be connected to position or motion sensors associated with any movable part 10,20-21b,30-33b of machine 1” [0101]) are preferentially fixed directly to said second fixation support (Bonacci’s Fig. 8a, “support 11” [0118]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori to incorporate the teachings of Bonacci to have a second fixation support, whereby said actuation monitoring means are preferentially fixed directly to said second fixation support. Doing so allows for the actuation monitoring means to be supported on the device, which allows for up close monitoring of the motor, driving cam, or any other moveable parts, as recognized by Bonacci (“a motor 30 (FIGS. 9 and 10) is typically connected to control unit 3. Control unit 3 may also be connected to position or motion sensors associated with any movable part 10,20-21b,30-33b of machine” [0101]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (U.S. 20130152797) in view of White et al. (U.S. 20140102306), hereinafter White.
Regarding claim 9, Mori further discloses wherein
the control means (Mori’s Fig. 1, “control means 10” [0069]) are configured so that can regulate the operation of said flow pressurization device (Mori’s Fig. 1, “water supply means 5” [0068]).
Mori does not explicitly teach wherein the control means are configured so that can regulate the operation of said flow pressurization device according to at least one of the following conditions:
cannot be initiated in case of not being detected placement of a drinking recipient on a respective placement disposition, and/or in case that the beverage preparation device is not in the completely closed position, even in case that there is detected and/or inferred the presence of an individual portion inside thereof, and
can be initiated even in case that there is not detected or inferred the present of an individual portion inside of the closed beverage preparation device;
can be interrupted and/or terminated in case of detection of a removal of drinking recipient from said placement disposition, and can be suspended in case of detection of manipulation of a drinking recipient on a respective placement disposition.
However, White discloses a beverage preparation device (“coffee maker” [Abstract]) wherein the control means (“control panel” [0021]) are configured so that can regulate the operation of said flow pressurization device (“motor driven valve” [Abstract]) according to at least one of the following conditions:
cannot be initiated in case of not being detected placement of a drinking recipient on a respective placement disposition, and/or in case that the beverage preparation device is not in the completely closed position, even in case that there is detected and/or inferred the presence of an individual portion inside thereof, and
can be initiated even in case that there is not detected or inferred the present of an individual portion inside of the closed beverage preparation device;
can be interrupted and/or terminated in case of detection of a removal of drinking recipient (“carafe” [Abstract]) from said placement disposition (“The actuator stops coffee from dispensing when the carafe is removed” [Abstract]), and can be suspended in case of detection of manipulation of a drinking recipient on a respective placement disposition (“but can be defeated by the user to dispense into a cup or mug when the carafe is absent” [Abstract]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori to incorporate the teachings of White to have the control means interrupt the operation of said flow pressurization device if there’s removal of drinking recipient and suspend in case of detection of manipulation of a drinking recipient on a respective placement disposition. Doing so allows for prevention of a mess, as recognized by White (“Dispensing when the carafe is not in place can create household mess. Therefore, a feature providing an interruption in coffee dispensing, when the carafe is not in place, is desirable” [0002]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 1, De Nicolo et al. (US 20200268194), hereinafter De Nicolo, discloses:
PNG
media_image9.png
624
533
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (De Nicolo)
PNG
media_image10.png
397
611
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figure 12 (De Nicolo)
an apparatus comprising a beverage preparation device (“A brewing device for a machine for preparing beverages” [Abstract]) presenting at least one mobile part (De Nicolo’s Fig. 1, “a closing body 26, which is movable” [0028]) adapted so that can be driven by an actuation disposition (De Nicolo’s Fig. 1, “actuating device 32” [0031]) that includes an electric motor (De Nicolo’s Fig. 1, “electric motor 32a” [0033]) and that can be regulated by control means (De Nicolo’s Fig. 1, “control device 33” [0031]) in a movement path (“opening” [0044]) between open position (“opening position” [0032]), where the beverage preparation device (“A brewing device for a machine for preparing beverages” [Abstract]) can collect an individual portion of edible substance (“a known single-serve pod or capsule” [0021]), and closed position (“closing position” [0032]), and in the reverse movement path (“closing” [0044]),
wherein the actuation disposition (De Nicolo’s Fig. 1, “actuating device 32” [0031]) includes actuation monitoring means (De Nicolo’s Fig. 12, “sensory system 72” [0072]) of at least one movement parameter (“a sensory system 72 configured to output electrical signals such as to allow reaching, by the closing body 26, of the opening, closing and ejection positions to be sensed” [0072]) associated with the circular movement (“the motor is controlled to produce an output movement, e.g. rotation of rotor” [0041]) of a driving came (De Nicolo’s Fig. 1, “a cam drive 35” [0035]) whereby the control means (De Nicolo’s Fig. 1, “control device 33” [0031]) are configured so that can identify the movement path (“opening” [0044]) and regulate the operation of the electric motor (De Nicolo’s Fig. 1, “electric motor 32a” [0033]) in each movement path (“opening” and “closing” [0044]), based upon the data of movement parameter (“output data indicative of the electric power absorbed” [0094]) apprehended by said actuation monitoring means (De Nicolo’s Fig. 12, “sensory system 72” [0072]).
De Nicolo does not explicitly disclose:
adapted so that can provide monitoring
along an angular extension smaller than 360°
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA ELIZABETH ULATOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3322. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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 at (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.
/E.E.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 08/14/2026
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights