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 .
Amendment filed January 20, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-3 and 5-16 remain pending in the application.
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) 1-3 and 5-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunicki (WO2015022692A2) in view of Makino et al. (20170313566) and Sevcik (WO2006036353A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brunicki discloses a method for preparation of a beverage by dispensing a defined amount of a beverage product over a defined time (page. 32, lines 29-31; page 48, lines 13-21; Fig. 9B), wherein the defined amount of the beverage product dispensed in the defined time includes water, at least one flavor, and at least one additive (Fig. 9B), the method comprising at least:
starting the dispensing of the beverage product by dispensing water at the start of the defined time and during the defined time such that a defined amount of water is dispensed over the defined time and until the end of the defined time (Fig. 9B),
at a start of the dispensing of the water, starting dispensing the at least one flavor (sugar; Fig. 9B) within a defined adjunction time equal to the defined time (Fig. 9B), to reach a defined amount of the at least one flavor by an end of the defined adjunction time (Fig. 9B), and
after an initial period from the starting of dispensing the water and during the dispensing of the water, starting dispensing the at least one additive (922) within the defined adjunction time equal to the defined time, to reach a defined amount of the at least one additive at the end of the defined adjunction time (Fig. 9B).
Brunicki DIFFERS in that it does not disclose dispensing the water intermittently and the defined time is determined by the defined amount of the beverage product.
Regarding the intermittent dispensing, attention is directed to the Makino reference, which discloses dispensing water intermittently (par. 0127) to create a weak carbonated, flavor-added beverage (par. 0116-0119 and 0131).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Brunicki reference in view of the teachings of the Makino reference by dispensing the water intermittently for the purpose of creating a weak carbonated, flavor-added beverage (par. 0116-0119 and 0131 of Maniko).
Regarding the time, attention is directed to the Sevcik reference, which discloses a defined time is determined by a defined amount of beverage product (page 9, lines 10-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Brunicki reference in view of the teachings of the Sevcik reference such that the defined time is determined by the defined amount of the beverage product for the purpose of dispensing the correct volume of beverage (page 9, lines 10-12 of Sevcik).
Regarding claim 2, the method further comprising, during the dispensing of the water, starting dispensing at least one additional additive, to reach a defined amount of the at least one additional additive by the end of the defined adjunction time (Fig. 9B of Brunicki).
Regarding claim 3, the dispensing of the at least one additional additive is started after the defined amount of the at least one flavor product has been dispensed (page 24, lines 21-22 of Brunicki).
Regarding claim 5, at the end of the dispensing of the at least one flavor and at the end of the dispensing of the additive (for example, 50-100% on page 25, lines 3-5 of Brunicki; 70-100% on page 9, line 6 of Brunicki; 922 in Fig. 9B of Brunicki), the remaining amount of the water to be dispensed is at least 2 to 15% of the defined amount of the water to be dispensed thereby defining a rinsing step (for example, 0-50% on page 25, lines 3-5 of Brunicki; 0-30% on page 9, line 6 of Brunicki; Fig. 9B of Brunicki).
Regarding claim 6, the additional additive is selected from the group consisting of: minerals, mineral solution, mineral liquid concentrate, fruit juice, fruit extract, plant, vegetable juice, extract, vitamins and any combinations thereof (page 35, lines 4-20 of Brunicki).
Regarding claim 7, the additive is selected from the group consisting of: caffeine, green tea extract, taurine, plant, vegetable ingredients, plant or vegetable extracts, probiotics, prebiotics, vitamins, and any combination thereof (page 35, lines 4-20 of Brunicki).
Regarding claims 8-10, Brunicki as modified by Maniko discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed flow rates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select suitable flow rates within the claimed ranges for the purpose of achieving a desired mixing ratio. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Brunicki discloses a device for preparation of a beverage by dispensing a defined amount of a beverage product over a defined time, wherein the defined amount of beverage product dispensed in the defined time includes water, at least one flavor and at least one additive, the device comprising:
a dispensing section (Fig. 5E) for dispensing a beverage product,
a water supply (page 21, lines 4-5) for supplying water to the dispensing section,
a flavor supply (page 21, lines 25-32) for dispensing a flavor product to the dispensing section,
an additive supply (page 21, lines 25-32) for dispensing an additive to the dispensing section, and
a control unit (180) configured: to start the dispensing of the beverage product by dispensing the water at the start of the defined time and during the defined time such that a defined amount of the water is dispensed over the defined time and until the end of the defined time (Fig. 9B), during the dispensing of the water, to start dispensing at least one flavor (sugar) within a defined adjunction time equal to the defined time, to reach a defined amount of the at least one flavor product by an end of the defined adjunction time (Fig. 9B), and after an initial period from the starting of dispensing the water and during the dispensing of the water, to start dispensing the at least one additive (922) within the defined adjunction time equal to the defined time, to reach a defined amount of the at least one additive by the end of the defined adjunction time (Fig. 9B).
Brunicki DIFFERS in that it does not disclose dispensing the water intermittently and wherein the defined time is determined by the defined amount of the beverage product.
Regarding the intermittent dispensing, attention is directed to the Makino reference, which discloses dispensing water intermittently (par. 0127) to create a weak carbonated, flavor-added beverage (par. 0116-0119 and 0131).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Brunicki reference in view of the teachings of the Makino reference by dispensing the water intermittently for the purpose of creating a weak carbonated, flavor-added beverage (par. 0116-0119 and 0131 of Maniko).
Regarding the time, attention is directed to the Sevcik reference, which discloses a defined time is determined by a defined amount of beverage product (page 9, lines 10-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Brunicki reference in view of the teachings of the Sevcik reference such that the defined time is determined by the defined amount of the beverage product for the purpose of dispensing the correct volume of beverage (page 9, lines 10-12 of Sevcik).
Regarding claim 12, the control unit is further configured to, during the dispensing of the water, start dispensing at least one additional additive, to reach a defined amount of the additional additive by the end of the defined adjunction time (Fig. 9B of Brunicki).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the at least one additional additive is not subject to a disclaimer (for example, vitamins; page 35, line 8 of Brunicki), and wherein the at least one additive is subject to a disclaimer (for example, caffeine; page 35, line 14 of Brunicki).
Regarding claim 14, the device further comprising at least one pump for delivering to the dispensing section the water, the at least one flavor, and the at least one additive (page 6, lines 19-22 of Brunicki).
Regarding claim 15, the at least one flavor and the at least one additive are stored in containers (page 21, lines 25-32 of Brunicki).
Regarding claim 16, the containers carry readable data, and wherein the device comprises a reader, the control unit is configured to receive and use the readable data read for controlling that the container is positioned in a correct dispensing slot and is accurate for the preparation of a beverage and for controlling that the preparation of a beverage can be authorized (page 51, lines 8-21 of Brunicki).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The well-known principle of basing the dispensing time on the dispensed volume is disclosed in Sevcik.
Applicant’s argument that Examiner has failed to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation is not persuasive because the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dispensing both still water and carbonated water; pressing a button) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is also noted that Applicant’s specification discloses that the water supply may supply still water and carbonated water. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Applicant’s specification includes dispensing only still water intermittently, dispensing only carbonated water intermittently, and dispensing both still water and carbonated water intermittently, which is taught by Makino (Figs. 6A and 6B of Makino show still water and carbonated water being dispensed intermittently during the dispensing operation, including periods where both water valves are closed for a duration followed by one or more valves opening for a duration).
Conclusion
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 DONNELL ALAN LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, PAUL DURAND can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/DONNELL A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights