DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 1, 2, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 1278224 (Lange) in view of DE 3435441 (Steckermeier).
There is disclosed in Lange a coffee maker comprising: a top pot (upper chamber, fig. 1); a bottom pot 2 (lower chamber) opposing the top pot; a funnel 10 disposed between the top pot and the bottom pot; a base 1 disposed about the bottom pot; and a heating element 4 mounted within the base.
Steckermeier discloses, in a fluid cooking apparatus, a lifting means in the form of a pneumatically actuated piston 60, 62 or memory alloy 20, for lifting a pot 26 away from a base 10 and heating element 14 (figs. 4, 5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the coffee maker of Lange with the lifting means disclosed in Steckermeier, in order to prevent overheating fluid in the lower pot.
In regards to claim 16, it can be argued that element 20 has a higher thermal expansion coefficient than the material of the base.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-14 and 17-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art references to Jung, Andreozzi, Morgandi, Bezold and Malcamp are cited for their disclosure of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD L. ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1395. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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.
/REGINALD ALEXANDER/
Examiner
Art Unit 3761