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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 27 April 2026. As directed by application, claims 1, 8, 17, and 20 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled and claim 23 is added. Thus, claims 1, 3-20, and 23 are pending. This is a Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
[Examiner’s note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not disclose that limitation.]
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mulder (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0298776) in view of Quah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/ 0312879).
Regarding claim 1, Mulder discloses a flow separation device (Mulder, Fig. 1) comprising
a first delivery line (Mulder, 21) to drain water from a buffer tank (Mulder, 20),
a branching section (Mulder, at valve 60) provided downstream the first delivery line, wherein the branching section branches the first delivery line into a second delivery line (Mulder, 24) and a third delivery line (23), each of the second and third delivery line leading to a respective discharge outlet, ,
a flow rate control device (40) for delivering water through the flow separation device and for adjusting the flow rate of the water,
wherein each of the second delivery line and third delivery line comprises a respective section (Mulder fig. 1), wherein said sections are arranged such that
if water is delivered by the flow rate control device at a flow rate below a defined threshold value the water is delivered beyond the section of the second delivery line (24) but not beyond the section of the third delivery line (23), thereby discharging the water via the discharge outlet of the second delivery line (into the tank 20; ¶0008), and
if water is delivered by the flow rate control device at a flow rate at or above the defined threshold value the water is at least partially delivered beyond the section of the third delivery line (along line 23), thereby discharging the water at least partially via the discharge outlet of the third delivery line (into 50, the beverage maker; see ¶¶0008; when the flow rate is increased past a threshold, the valve switches and the pressure blocks off the return line 24 and allows passage of the extracting fluid to move out through 23 to the brew chamber (50), but if the rate is below the switching point, then liquid moves to the tank (20) via 24),
However, Mulder does not disclose wherein the branching section and the second delivery line and the third delivery line form a passive arrangement without a valve, nor wherein, compared to the second delivery line, the third delivery line extends longer or, with respect to the vertical, reaches higher.
Regarding the length and height of the lines, it can be seen in Mulder, fig. 1, that line 23 extends vertically higher, although that teaching is not taught in the Specification. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder and even have the third deliver line extend longer than the second deliver line, depending on the needs of the machine and how it is laid out, depending on whether there are other processes to move through before the extraction chamber, such as adding flavors or additives, and this would be an obvious to try configuration, given that the length or height or dimensions of these lines are not given within the Specification or Drawings of Mulder, given that there are only limited configurations, that the second deliver line extends longer and/or is higher than the third deliver line, or the third deliver line extends longer and/or may be higher than the second deliver line, and the configuration of the beverage machine and the operators preference would help decide which one obviously applies.
However, Quah does teach wherein the branching section and the second delivery line and the third delivery line form a passive arrangement without a valve (70, it is called a “three-way valve”, but valve here only means that it is a “component having one inlet and two outlets”, and is passive), and wherein, compared to the second delivery line, the third delivery line extends longer or, with respect to the vertical, reaches higher (fig. 1, it can be seen that 73 to brewing unit is higher/longer than 72 which is the return conduit, ¶0029, “It depends on the flow rate and the pressure which outlet is used for letting out liquid of the boiler. One of the outlets may be used for the purpose of returning liquid to the boiler or another container for containing liquid, whereas another of the outlets may be used for letting out liquid to a duct for transporting liquid further through the device. When the flow rate is relatively low, the first outlet is used, and when the flow rate is relatively high, which is the case when the liquid is forced to flow out of the boiler under the influence of a pumping action, the second outlet is used.”, ¶0057). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder with the teachings of Quah, to have only the flow rate and the pressure be used to decide where the liquid is forced, based on the power of the pump, which would ensure that only if the pump and the heater are correctly working would the pressure be high enough to moving into the brew chamber, so that if coffee is brewed, it would be proper, and the device would not rely on valves opening or closing, but simply on mechanical principles requiring high enough water pressure, so as not to waste coffee on heat or pressure, and this would be substituting a known way of ensuring proper heat and pressure to the brew chamber in a conventional way achieving the expected result of proper brewing.
Regarding claim 3, Mulder in view of Quah teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a flow separation device wherein, compared to the second delivery line (24), the third delivery line (23) reaches further with respect to a direction that is oblique to the horizontal (the third line moves off the horizontal more, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Mulder in view of Quah teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a flow separation device wherein an orifice (opening to 30) is provided between the first delivery line and the branching section (between 22 and 60).
Regarding claim 6, Mulder in view of Quah teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a flow separation device wherein the flow rate control device (40) is provided in the first delivery line (Mulder, elements 21 & 22).
Regarding claim 7, Mulder in view of Quah teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a flow separation device wherein the flow rate control device is a pump (pump 40).
Regarding claim 8, Mulder discloses a beverage preparation device (fig. 1) comprising a flow separation device (100) comprising
a first delivery line (21) to drain water from a buffer tank,
a branching section (60) provided downstream the first delivery line, wherein the branching section branches the first delivery line into a second delivery line (24) and a third delivery line (23), each of the second and third delivery line leading to a respective discharge outlet, ,
a flow rate control device (pump 40) for delivering water through the flow separation device and for adjusting the flow rate of the water,
wherein each of the second delivery line and third delivery line comprises a respective section (fig. 1; each side), wherein said sections are arranged such that
if water is delivered by the flow rate control device at a flow rate below a defined threshold value the water is delivered beyond the section of the second delivery line but not beyond the section of the third delivery line, thereby discharging the water via the discharge outlet of the second delivery line ((into tank 20; see ¶¶0008; when the flow rate is increased past a threshold, the valve switches and the pressure blocks off the return line 24 and allows passage of the extracting fluid to move out through 23 to the brew chamber (50), but if the rate is below the switching point, then liquid moves to the tank (20) via 24), and
if water is delivered by the flow rate control device at a flow rate at or above the defined threshold value the water is at least partially delivered beyond the section of the third delivery line, thereby discharging the water at least partially via the discharge outlet of the third delivery line (into chamber 50, ¶0008),
However, Mulder does not disclose wherein the branching section and the second delivery line and the third delivery line form a passive arrangement without a valve, nor wherein, compared to the second delivery line, the third delivery line extends longer or, with respect to the vertical, reaches higher.
Regarding the length and height of the lines, it can be seen in Mulder, fig. 1, that line 23 extends vertically higher, although that teaching is not taught in the Specification. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder and even have the third deliver line extend longer than the second deliver line, depending on the needs of the machine and how it is laid out, depending on whether there are other processes to move through before the extraction chamber, such as adding flavors or additives, and this would be an obvious to try configuration, given that the length or height or dimensions of these lines are not given within the Specification or Drawings of Mulder, given that there are only limited configurations, that the second deliver line extends longer and/or is higher than the third deliver line, or the third deliver line extends longer and/or may be higher than the second deliver line, and the configuration of the beverage machine and the operators preference would help decide which one obviously applies.
However, Quah does teach wherein the branching section and the second delivery line and the third delivery line form a passive arrangement without a valve (70, it is called a “three-way valve”, but valve here only means that it is a “component having one inlet and two outlets”, and is passive), nor wherein, compared to the second delivery line, the third delivery line extends longer or, with respect to the vertical, reaches higher (fig. 1, ¶0029, “It depends on the flow rate and the pressure which outlet is used for letting out liquid of the boiler. One of the outlets may be used for the purpose of returning liquid to the boiler or another container for containing liquid, whereas another of the outlets may be used for letting out liquid to a duct for transporting liquid further through the device. When the flow rate is relatively low, the first outlet is used, and when the flow rate is relatively high, which is the case when the liquid is forced to flow out of the boiler under the influence of a pumping action, the second outlet is used.”, ¶0057). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder with the teachings of Quah, to have only the flow rate and the pressure be used to decide where the liquid is forced, based on the power of the pump, which would ensure that only if the pump and the heater are correctly working would the pressure be high enough to moving into the brew chamber, so that if coffee is brewed, it would be proper, and the device would not rely on valves opening or closing, but simply on mechanical principles requiring high enough water pressure, so as not to waste coffee on heat or pressure, and this would be substituting a known way of ensuring proper heat and pressure to the brew chamber in a conventional way achieving the expected result of proper brewing.
Regarding claim 17, Mulder discloses a method for separating a flow via a branching section (Mulder, fig. 1, 60), for preparing a beverage via the branching section (Mulder, 60), wherein the branching section branches a first delivery line (21/22) into a second delivery line (24) and a third delivery line (23), the method comprising the steps of:
delivering the water at a first flow rate via the first delivery line, the branching section and the second delivery line (24), thereby discharging the water via a discharge outlet (Mulder, outlet of 24 into reservoir 20) of the second delivery line but not beyond a section of the third delivery line (23), and
increasing the flow rate of the water to a second flow rate at or above a defined threshold value so that the water is forced at the branching section (60) along the third delivery line (23) and beyond said section of the third delivery line (23) to discharge the water at least partially via a discharge outlet (discharging end of 23 into 50) of the third delivery line (Mulder, 23, ¶0008, when the flow rate is increased past a threshold, the valve switches and the pressure blocks off the return line 24 and allows passage of the extracting fluid to move out through 23 to the brew chamber (50), but if the rate is below the switching point, then liquid moves to the tank 20 via 24),
However, Mulder does not disclose wherein the branching section and the second delivery line and the third delivery line form a passive arrangement without a valve, nor wherein, compared to the second delivery line, the third delivery line extends longer or, with respect to the vertical, reaches higher.
Regarding the length and height of the lines, it can be seen in Mulder, fig. 1, that line 23 extends vertically higher, although that teaching is not taught in the Specification. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder and even have the third deliver line extend longer than the second deliver line, depending on the needs of the machine and how it is laid out, depending on whether there are other processes to move through before the extraction chamber, such as adding flavors or additives, and this would be an obvious to try configuration, given that the length or height or dimensions of these lines are not given within the Specification or Drawings of Mulder, given that there are only limited configurations, that the second deliver line extends longer and/or is higher than the third deliver line, or the third deliver line extends longer and/or may be higher than the second deliver line, and the configuration of the beverage machine and the operators preference would help decide which one obviously applies.
However, Quah does teach wherein the branching section and the second delivery line and the third delivery line form a passive arrangement without a valve (70, it is called a “three-way valve”, but valve here only means that it is a “component having one inlet and two outlets”, and is passive), nor wherein, compared to the second delivery line, the third delivery line extends longer or, with respect to the vertical, reaches higher (fig. 1, ¶0029, “It depends on the flow rate and the pressure which outlet is used for letting out liquid of the boiler. One of the outlets may be used for the purpose of returning liquid to the boiler or another container for containing liquid, whereas another of the outlets may be used for letting out liquid to a duct for transporting liquid further through the device. When the flow rate is relatively low, the first outlet is used, and when the flow rate is relatively high, which is the case when the liquid is forced to flow out of the boiler under the influence of a pumping action, the second outlet is used.”, ¶0057). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder with the teachings of Quah, to have only the flow rate and the pressure be used to decide where the liquid is forced, based on the power of the pump, which would ensure that only if the pump and the heater are correctly working would the pressure be high enough to moving into the brew chamber, so that if coffee is brewed, it would be proper, and the device would not rely on valves opening or closing, but simply on mechanical principles requiring high enough water pressure, so as not to waste coffee on heat or pressure, and this would be substituting a known way of ensuring proper heat and pressure to the brew chamber in a conventional way achieving the expected result of proper brewing.
Regarding claim 18, Mulder in view of Quah teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, and further teaches a method comprising
filling water into a buffer tank (¶0037, “Naturally, the water reservoir 20 should be filled”), and
circulating the water at the first flow rate in a closed loop from the buffer tank (20) via the first delivery line (21/22), the branching section (29) and the second delivery line (24) back into the buffer tank (20; ¶0043).
Regarding claim 20, Mulder in view of Quah teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, but does not further disclose a method wherein the buffer tank is supplied with water automatically or on demand, via a supply line. However, Mulder does teach that the tank should be supplied, but he does not say how (Mulder, ¶0037, “naturally, the water reservoir 20 should be filled”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder, given his teachings, to supply the tank with water, to have a supply line into the tank, in order to ensure that there is enough water in the tank to form a beverage, and having a supply line would allow for continuous or at least easy filling, so that the tank never runs out of water because there is a water supply line connected to the tank.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulder (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0298776) in view of Quah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/ 0312879) and further in view of Burrows (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0360919).
Regarding claim 4, Mulder in view of Quah teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a flow separation device wherein the first delivery line, the second delivery line, are arranged such that, when the flow rate control device does not deliver water, the residual water remaining in the respective delivery line flows by gravity out of the respective delivery line.
However, Mulder does teach that once water is not needed to be delivered to the chamber, it is given less pressure, and it again flows and is redirected to the tank (Mulder, 20, ¶43). However, Burrows teaches that “residual water remaining in the respective delivery line flows by gravity out of the respective delivery line (Burrow, ¶167 “any residual water in the third conduit 118 falls back into the heater tank 16 due to gravity because there is insufficient pressure to open the brew head check valve 122”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder with the teachings of Burrow, to make sure that all the liquid that is not being used for the beverage flows away and back to the reservoir, in order to be used again and that there is an efficient use of energy, and using gravity, saves on energy, to move the water back to the reservoir rather than moving it around with the pump, to just let it slide back, in order to be energy efficient, but to also have the water prepared to be used in a further process, as it is back within the tank.
Claims 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulder (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0298776) in view of Quah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/ 0312879) and further in view of Roberson (U.S. Patent 6,118,933).
Regarding claim 9, Mulder in view of Quah teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as above, and further teaches a beverage preparation device comprising
a buffer tank (Mulder, 20) having a tank body for storing an amount of water, wherein the first delivery line (21/22) is arranged to drain water from the buffer tank (20), and wherein the second delivery line (Mulder, 24) leads via its discharge outlet (end of 24 leading back into tank 20) back into the buffer tank (20) thus forming a closed loop, and
wherein the flow rate control device (60) is arranged to deliver water through the beverage preparation device (through 60 and 23).
but does not further teach
a UV lamp for UV light treatment of water within the closed loop.
However, Roberson, in his beverage making apparatus, teaches a UV light treatment of the water for the tank (Roberson, column 11 lines 10-20, figs. 9- 11, filter device 200, filtering element 220 “The apparatus further comprises means for disinfecting including an ultra-violet (UV) lamp disposed within the reservoir or means for filtering the bacteria from the water within the flow path”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder in view or Roberson, to use a filter or UV light, to sanitize the liquid in the reservoir, to make sure that it is healthy and ready to drink, as perhaps it may be sitting a little bit and gathering infectants, so this method would provide a way of neutralizing contaminants
Regarding claim 10, Mulder in view of Quah and Roberson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, and further teaches a beverage preparation device wherein the UV lamp is arranged to irradiate UV light into the buffer tank and/or into the first delivery line and/or into the second delivery line (Roberson, affects the buffer tank figs. 9- 11, in the combination above).
Regarding claim 11, Mulder in view of Quah and Roberson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, and further teaches a beverage preparation device comprising a cooling unit (Mulder, heating/cooling means 30, Abstract) for cooling the water within the buffer tank (20).
Regarding claim 13, Mulder in view of Quah and Roberson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, but does not further teach, in the combination so far, a beverage preparation device wherein the supply line comprises a water filter for filtering water passing through the supply line from the water supply to the buffer tank, wherein the water filter comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of a particle filter, an ultrafiltration device, a nano-filtration device, an active carbon device, and a reverse osmosis device. However, Roberson teaches “wherein the water filter comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of a particle filter (Roberson, element 200, 220, column 11 lines 10-15 “membrane for filtering small particles”), an ultrafiltration device, a nano-filtration device, an active carbon device, and a reverse osmosis device”. The advantage would be to have the water further filtered so that contaminants are removed so that the water is healthier and more hygienic to create a beverage from. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder in view of Quah and Roberson, with a further teachings of Roberson, to have a filter that removes particle contaminants, in order to have the water further filtered so that contaminants are removed so that the water is healthier and more hygienic to create a beverage from.
Regarding claim 14, Mulder in view of Quah and Roberson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, and further teaches a beverage preparation device comprising a beverage additive section (50) for dispensing additives, via the discharge outlet (end of 23) of the third delivery line (23) (allows for the dispensing and adding of coffee, adding flavor, receives coffee pads, ¶0032).
Regarding claim 19, Mulder in view of Quah teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, but does not further teach a method comprising
sanitizing the water flowing in one or more of the first delivery line, the second delivery line and the third delivery line by UV light irradiated by a UV lamp (40), and
after the water has been sanitized, increasing the flow rate of the water to the second flow rate at or above the defined threshold value.
However Roberson, in his beverage making apparatus, teaches sanitizing the water flowing with a filter (Roberson, element 200, column 10 lines 29-30, removes “contaminates”) and a UV lamp (( Roberson, column 11 lines 10-20, figs. 9- 11, filter device 200, filtering element 220 “The apparatus further comprises means for disinfecting including an ultra-violet (UV) lamp disposed within the reservoir or means for filtering the bacteria from the water within the flow path”). The advantage would be to remove contaminants and sanitize the water before a beverage is made from it. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder with the teachings of Roberson, to have a filter and UV lamp in line by the pump, in order to sanitize the liquid before consumption and to make certain it is safe from contaminants, and only then to increase the flow rate to above the threshold, and have the liquid be then delivered to the extraction chamber rather than recycling to the reservoir.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulder (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0298776) in view of in view of Quah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/ 0312879), and Roberson (U.S. Patent 6,118,933) and further in view of Moon (U.S. Patent Application Publication (U.S. 2020/ 0054164)
Regarding claim 12, Mulder in view of Quah and Roberson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, but does not further teach a beverage preparation device comprising a water supply being connected with the buffer tank by a supply line for supplying water into the buffer tank, wherein the water supply is a primary water tank. Mulder does teach that the tank (20), needs to be filled ((¶0037, “Naturally, the water reservoir 20 should be filled”). Such primary and secondary tanks are conventional, such as in Moon, teaching “a supply line (Moon, 22, ¶20) for supplying water into the buffer tank (Moon, 16), wherein the water supply is a primary water tank” (12). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder in view of Quah and Roberson with the teachings of Moon, to have the buffer tank supplied by a primary tank, even as Mulder teaches to have the buffer tank filled, in order to have the water on hand in the beverage making machine, and to make the device mobile, to have further water available to fill the buffer tank, as the buffer tank is the water immediately available for use, and this water has to be easily pumpable and movable and heatable as it is being circulated through the device, and the primary tank is only a water source, not being circulated, and this would be using a conventional method to achieve only the expected result of a source for filling a buffer tank.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulder (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0298776) in view of Quah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/ 0312879) and Roberson (U.S. Patent 6,118,933) and further in view of McHugh (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0235242).
Regarding claim 15, Mulder in view of Quah and Roberson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, but does not further teach a beverage preparation device comprising an in-line carbonation device for entering CO2 into the circulating water. However, McHugh teaches that such a device in his beverage making invention (McHugh, ¶0012). Adding such a device would allow for versatility in the beverage maker and allow for carbonation of the end beverage, which may be desirable for a user, and is conventional in the art, using a conventional method to achieve not unexpected results of carbonated beverages out of a beverage maker. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder in view of Roberson with the teachings of McHugh, to have an in-line carbonation device in the beverage maker, in order to allow for versatility in the beverage maker and allow for carbonation of the end beverage, which may be desirable for a user, and is conventional in the art, using a conventional method to achieve the not unexpected result of carbonated beverages out of a beverage maker.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulder (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0298776) in view of in view of Quah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/ 0312879) and Roberson (U.S. Patent 6,118,933) and further in view of Hestekin (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/ 0160153).
Regarding claim 16, Mulder in view of Quah and Roberson teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, but does not further teach a method for separating flow via a branching section comprising an insulation housing encapsulating the buffer tank, the first delivery line, the second delivery line, the branching section and the UV lamp. However, such an insulation housing is known in the art, such as in Hestekin (¶40, element 60, figs. 2 & 3), for best keeping and not losing the heat within the beverage making machine as the water is in the tank or lines, and also to make the machine quieter and less disturbing to the people around it. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder in view of Roberson, with the teachings of Hestekin, to have an insulation housing around the components of the beverage making device, in order to best keep and not lose the heat within the beverage making machine as the water is in the tank or lines, and also to make the machine quieter and less disturbing to the people around it.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulder (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0298776) in view of in view of Quah (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/ 0312879) and further in view of Greenwald (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 005712).
Regarding claim 23, Mulder in view of Quah teaches all the limitations of claim 20, as above, but they do not further teach wherein the water supply passing through the supply line is filtered by a water filter in the supply line. However, Greenwald, in his beverage maker, teaches wherein the water supply passing through the supply line is filtered by a water filter (2) in the supply line (fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Mulder in view of Quah with the teachings of Greenwald, to filter the supply water, in order to create a better tasting beverage without all the impurities of the source water, to filter the water before or as it comes into the beverage maker.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights