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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2022 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“describe” should read as “described” on pg. 13, line 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 26-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“steps (i) and (ii)” in claim 26, line 2 should read as “steps (a) and (b)”.
“a filter assembly” in claim 27, line 3 should read as “the filter assembly”.
“a solid material” in claim 27, line 4 should read as “the solid material”.
“a brewing chamber” in claim 27, line 5 should read as “the brewing chamber”.
“a serving chamber” in claim 27, line 8 should read as “the serving chamber”.
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 limitations are:
pressure regulating system in claim 1, line 5
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, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
pressure regulating system corresponding to “a circuit having a first leg connected between the brewing chamber and an inlet side of the pneumatic pump and a second leg connected between the brewing chamber and an outlet side of the pneumatic pump, and a first 3-way solenoid valve in the first leg and a second 3-way solenoid valve in the second leg” on pg. 4 lines 3-7.
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 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.
Claims 3, 6-7, and 13-14 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.
The term “substantially centrally” in claim 3, line 2 renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially centrally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, “substantially centrally” will be construed as “centrally”.
The term “substantially imperforate” in claim 6, line 1 renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially imperforate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, “substantially imperforate” will be construed as “having only one outlet”.
Claim 7 is similarly rejected for depending on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 6.
The term “small metered air flow” in claim 13, line 2 renders the claim indefinite. The term “small metered air flow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, “small” will be construed as met if an air flow is “controllable” and “metered” will be construed as “temporally controlled”.
Claim 14 is similarly rejected for depending on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 13-14, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (WO 2020125644 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches an appliance (“coffee cold brew device” [0036], Fig. 1) for dissolving components of a solid material (“coffee powder” [0060]) in water (“water” [0060]) to make a beverage (“coffee” [0060]), comprising: a serving chamber (first container 1, Fig. 1) adapted to hold a beverage serving (“coffee liquid… into the first container 1” [0066]), the serving chamber having a base (“bottom of the inner cavity of the first container 1” on which “connecting sleeve 11 is provided” [0053], Fig. 1); a brewing chamber (second container 2 [0052], Fig. 1) adapted to hold the beverage serving (“coffee liquid in the second container 2” [0060]); a pressure regulating system (air pump 4, Fig. 2) for depressurizing (“air pump 4 that can vacuum the second container 2” [0026]) and pressurizing the brewing chamber with air (“air pump 4 that can… applying air pressure to the second container 2 to reversely press the water pumped into the second container 2 back into the first container 1” [0036]); a channel (space within connecting piece 5 and third container 3, Fig. 2) providing fluid communication between the brewing chamber and the base of the brewing chamber (“connect the first container 1 and the second container 2 through the connecting piece 5, and connect the second container 2 to the air pump 4; fill the required coffee powder into the third container 3, cover it with the top cover 31, place the third container 3 into the second container 2, and cover it with the sealing cover 21; fill the first container 1 with water in the corresponding proportion to the coffee. Open the tube clamp 53 or valve and use the air pump 4 to pump air from the second container 2, creating a negative pressure in the second container 2. Under the action of atmospheric pressure, the water in the first container 1 is completely poured into the second container 2, where it comes into contact with the coffee grounds in the second container 2 for cold brewing” [0073]);
a filter assembly (third container 3, Fig. 2) for removing the solid material (“outer wall of the third container 3 has a filter structure for the water in the first container 1 to flow in and out of the cold-brewed coffee in the third container 3” [0047]) from the water, the filter assembly disposed in the channel (third container 3 defines an upper section of the channel and is thus disposed within it, Fig. 2), and
a controller (“controller” [0040] of control switch 41, Fig. 5) that controls the pressure regulating system (“a controller and two relays can be used to control the forward and reverse rotation of the electric air pump motor” [0040]) to alternately (i) depressurize the brewing chamber to draw water out of the serving chamber and through the channel and the filter assembly into the brewing chamber (“upper part of the side wall of the second container 2 is connected to an air pump 4 that can vacuum the second container 2 to form a negative pressure, thereby pumping the water in the first container 1 into the second container 2” [0036]) and (ii) pressurize the brewing chamber to push the beverage serving from the brewing chamber through the filter assembly and the channel to the serving chamber (“air pump 4 that… applying air pressure to the second container 2 to reversely press the water pumped into the second container 2 back into the first container 1” [0036]).
Regarding claim 13, Li teaches the appliance according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a venting device (“air pipe” between “air pump mounting portion is provided at the upper end of the side wall of the second container 2, and the air pump 4” [0043], Fig. 4) provides a small metered air flow (“electric air pump” that is air pump 4 may be chosen to generate a small air flow when operated. That “control switch 41 can be switched at intervals of 0.5-10 minutes under controlled conditions” [0075] is construed as teaching the air flow is (temporally) metered) between the brewing chamber (“second container 2” [0052], Fig. 1) and the surrounding atmosphere (air at “atmospheric pressure” [0060] outside second container 2, Fig. 1) during both depressurizing (“upper part of the side wall of the second container 2 is connected to an air pump 4 that can vacuum the second container 2 to form a negative pressure, thereby pumping the water in the first container 1 into the second container 2” [0036]) and pressurizing the brewing chamber (“air pump 4 that… applying air pressure to the second container 2 to reversely press the water pumped into the second container 2 back into the first container 1” [0036]).
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches the appliance according to claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the venting device (“air pipe” between “air pump mounting portion is provided at the upper end of the side wall of the second container 2 , and the air pump 4” [0043], Fig. 4) comprises a capillary tube (A “pipe” through which “air” [0043] flows is construed as a capillary tube).
Regarding claim 22, Li teaches the appliance according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the appliance (“coffee cold brew device” [0036], Fig. 1) lacks a heating element (Li is construed as lacking a heating element given the specification includes no positive recitation of a heating element and states that the “present invention aims to provide a coffee cold extraction device” [0005]) for heating the water (“water” [0060]).
Regarding claim 23, Li teaches a method for making a beverage comprising alternately:
a. depressurizing (“an air pump 4 that can vacuum the second container 2 to form a negative pressure” [0036]) a brewing chamber (“second container 2” [0052], Fig. 1) to draw water (“water” [0060]) out of a serving chamber (first container 1, Fig. 1) and through a channel (space within connecting piece 5 and third container 3, Fig. 2) in which a filter assembly (third container 3, Fig. 2) holding solid material (“coffee powder” [0060]) and into a brewing chamber (second container 2 [0052], Fig. 1) to thereby dissolve components of the solid material in the water (“effective ingredients in the coffee powder to leach into the cold water” [0003]), and
b. pressurizing the brewing chamber to push the beverage from the brewing chamber through the filter assembly and the channel to the serving chamber (“air pump 4 that can… applying air pressure to the second container 2 to reversely press the water pumped into the second container 2 back into the first container 1” [0036]).
Regarding claim 25, Li teaches the method according to claim 23 (see rejection of claim 23 above), wherein air pressure in the serving chamber (first container 1, Fig. 1) is maintained substantially at ambient pressure (air pressure within first container 1 is construed as being at “ambient pressure” given that “Under the action of atmospheric pressure, the water in the first container 1 is completely poured into the second container 2” [0066] and “air pump 4… pumps air from the second container 2” [0066] and not the first container 1).
Regarding claim 26, Li teaches the method according to claim 23 (see rejection of claim 23 above), wherein the steps (i) and (ii) of alternately depressurizing (“an air pump 4 that can vacuum the second container 2 to form a negative pressure” [0036]) and pressurizing (“air pump 4 that can… applying air pressure to the second container 2” [0036]) the brewing chamber (“second container 2” [0052], Fig. 1) are repeated for multiple cycles (“cycle continues in sequence. The number of cycles can be increased according to the desired coffee strength” [0066]).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2020125644 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches the appliance according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the brewing chamber (“second container 2” [0052], Fig. 1), filter assembly (third container 3, Fig. 2) and serving chamber (first container 1, Fig. 1) are detachably connected together (“third container 3 can be conveniently taken out from the second container 2” [0049] and “the first container 1 and the second container 2 are disassembled for cleaning” [0068]), with the brewing chamber disposed uppermost (Figs. 1-4 show uppermost situation of second container 2) and the filter assembly (third container 3, Fig. 2) disposed between the brewing chamber and the serving chamber (Figs. 1-4 show situation of third container 3 between second container 2 and lower section of first container 1), and further comprising a tube (connecting piece 5, Fig. 1)… at its upper end (“upper end of the connecting piece 5” [0054]) to the filter assembly, and wherein its lower end (end of connecting piece 5 closer to bottom of inner cavity of first container 1, Fig. 9) is spaced from the base (Fig. 9 shows second transverse through hole 53 of connecting piece 5 defining space between bottom of the inner cavity of first container 1), the tube defining a lower section (connecting piece 5 encases section of space inside connecting piece 5, Fig. 2) of the channel (space within connecting piece 5 and third container 3, Fig. 2).
While Li teaches a tube, its upper end, and the filter assembly, Li does not teach a tube releasably connectable at its upper end to the filter assembly. Li instead teaches a tube releasably connectable along its upper portion to the brewing chamber (“the bottom surface 22 of the second container 2 has a central opening, and the upper portion of the connecting piece 5 is detachably connected to the central opening of the bottom surface 22” [0052]). Applicant is respectfully advised that it has been held by the courts that the positioning of claim limitations are not patentable over otherwise relevant prior art when such positioning does not modify the operation of a device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). In this case, Li discloses releasable connections between a tube 5, filter assembly 3, and first and second containers 1, 2 whose rearrangement would not affect the ability of the tube to fluidly connect first and second containers 1, 2.
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the appliance according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the tube (connecting piece 5, Fig. 1) is straight (Figs. 1-4 show straight body of connecting piece 5) and extends substantially centrally through (“connecting piece 5 is a centrally penetrating tube” [0054], Fig. 1) the serving chamber (first container 1, Fig. 1).
Claims 4-7, 10, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2020125644 A1), further in view of Evangelisti et al. (US 20230180961 A1), hereinafter Evangelisti.
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the appliance of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), … the beverage (“coffee” [0060]).
Li does not teach further comprising a foam filter adapted to remove foam formed in the beverage.
Evangelisti teaches further comprising a foam filter (decanting chamber 20, Fig. 1) adapted to remove foam (“air bubbles in the coffee beverage, which could lead to the presence of foam” [0066]) formed in (“time during which the decanting chamber 20 is passed through” by “the coffee beverage” [0074] can be “comprised between 1 sec and 8 sec, sufficient to eliminate any unwanted air bubbles” [0074]) the beverage (see mapping to Li).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the appliance of Li to include a foam filter. Li and Evangelisti are analogous arts because they both relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device that pumps air in and out of a brewing chamber. Evangelisti teaches a coffee device with a decanting chamber for dispersing foam created by air bubbles. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a decanting chamber/foam filter. By doing so, one would be able to disperse foam and obtain a coffee beverage comparable to “a beverage obtained by percolation in a traditional “drip” type machine” [0066], as identified by Evangelisti.
Regarding claim 5, Li and Evangelisti teaches the appliance according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the foam filter (decanting chamber 20, Fig. 1; Evangelisti) comprises a wall (one or several lateral walls 26, Fig. 1; Evangelisti) extending around and spaced apart from (Fig. 1 shows “support portion 27 protruding from a central zone of the bottom wall 25” [0076] surrounded by lateral walls 26) the tube (connecting piece 5, Fig. 1; Li) and substantially longitudinally coextensive therewith (“support portion 27 protruding from a central zone of the bottom wall 25, having a height coherent with that of the lateral wall(s) 26” [0076], Fig. 1; Evangelisti).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam filter of Modified Li to extend around a tube. Li and Evangelisti are analogous arts because they both relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with a centrally extending tube. Evangelisti teaches a coffee device with a decanting chamber extending around a centrally extending filter support portion. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to extend a foam filter around a centrally extending member. By doing so, one would be able to disperse foam building up from at positions in a complete range of angles.
Regarding claim 6, Li and Evangelisti teaches the appliance according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the wall (one or several lateral walls 26, Fig. 1; Evangelisti) is substantially imperforate (Shading of lateral wall 26 in Fig. 1 is construed as indicating a solid body, additionally only “the outlet duct 16” is recited as “transit[ing] through the lateral wall 26” [0081]; Having one outlet is construed as being substantially imperforate; Evangelisti).
Regarding claim 7, Li and Evangelisti teaches the appliance according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the wall (one or several lateral walls 26, Fig. 1; Evangelisti) includes castellations at an upper end thereof and/or further comprises castellations (plurality of pins, or pegs 41, Figs 7-8; Evangelisti) at an opposing lower end (bottom wall/reference surface 25/32, Figs. 7-8; Evangelisti) thereof.
Regarding claim 10, Li and Evangelisti teaches the appliance according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the foam filter (decanting chamber 20, Fig. 1; Evangelisti) and the tube (connecting piece 5, Fig. 1; Li) are integrally formed (Fig. 1 shows that walls 26 of decanting chamber 20 are integrally formed with support portion 27; Evangelisti).
Regarding claim 24, Li teaches the method according to claim 23 (see rejection of claim 23 above), wherein the channel (space within connecting piece 5 and third container 3, Fig. 2) is formed in a tube (connecting piece 5, Fig. 1) and, after passing through the tube (liquid is construed as passing between first and second containers 1,2 through piece 5 given that after “all the coffee liquid flows into the first container 1 , the tube clamp 53” of piece 5 “or the valve is closed” [0065]), at least a portion of the beverage (an amount of “coffee” [0060])… a length (vertical height of connecting piece 5, Fig. 2) of the tube.
Li does not teach passes through a foam filter surrounding a length of the tube.
Evangelisti teaches passes through a foam filter (decanting chamber 20, Fig. 1) surrounding (“support portion 27 protruding from a central zone of the bottom wall 25, having a height coherent with that of the lateral wall(s) 26” [0076] is shown surrounded by walls 26 that “delimit the decanting chamber 20” [0069] in Fig. 1; Evangelisti) a length of the tube (see mapping to Li).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Modified Li to include a foam filter extending around a tube. Li and Evangelisti are analogous arts because they both relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with a centrally extending tube. Evangelisti teaches a coffee device with a decanting chamber extending around a centrally extending filter support portion. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a foam filter extending around a centrally extending member. By doing so, one would be able to obtain a coffee beverage comparable to “a beverage obtained by percolation in a traditional “drip” type machine” [0066], as identified by Evangelisti, and disperse foam building up from at positions in a complete range of angles.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2020125644 A1), further in view of Evangelisti et al. (US 20230180961 A1), hereinafter Evangelisti, and Heuberger (US 20210177192 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Li and Evangelisti teaches the appliance according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the wall (one or several lateral walls 26, Fig. 1; Evangelisti) of the foam filter (decanting chamber 20, Fig. 1; Evangelisti)… its lower end (bottom wall/reference surface 25/32, Figs. 7-8; Evangelisti).
Li and Evangelisti do not teach wherein the wall of the foam filter tapers to narrow toward its lower end.
Heuberger teaches wherein the wall of the foam filter (see mapping to Evangelisti) tapers to narrow toward (“tank bottom 10 converges toward the liquid outlet 14, that is, toward the bottom, in a funnel-like manner and has a plurality of peripheral steps 16, which are arranged one above the other in a terrace-like manner” [0039], Figs. 1-3) its lower end (see mapping to Evangelisti).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam filter wall of Modified Li to taper. Li, Evangelisti, and Heuberger are analogous arts because they all relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device that pumps air in and out of a brewing chamber. Evangelisti teaches a coffee device with a decanting chamber for dispersing foam created by air bubbles. Heuberger teaches a tapered tank for removing coffee foam. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a tapered foam filter. By doing so, one would be able to “further increase” the “effectiveness of defoaming of the coffee liquid” [0045], as identified by Heuberger.
Regarding claim 9, Li, Evangelisti, and Heuberger teach the appliance according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the wall (one or several lateral walls 26, Fig. 1; Evangelisti) is in form of a conical frustum (“funnel-like manner” [0039]; Heuberger).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2020125644 A1), further in view of Evangelisti et al. (US 20230180961 A1), hereinafter Evangelisti, Burrows (US 20200093315 A1), and Heuberger (US 20210177192 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Li and Evangelisti teaches the appliance according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the serving chamber (first container 1, Fig. 1; Li)… the wall (one or several lateral walls 26, Fig. 1; Evangelisti) of the foam filter (decanting chamber 20, Fig. 1; Evangelisti).
Li and Evangelisti do not teach the serving chamber comprises transparent walls or a transparent window and the wall of the foam filter is opaque.
Burrows teaches the serving chamber (see mapping to Li) comprises transparent walls or a transparent window (“A portion of the walls of the brew vessel 102 above the base 108 may be made of glass or other transparent material” [0053], Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the serving chamber of Modified Li to be transparent. Li, Evangelisti, and Burrows are analogous arts because they all relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with a serving chamber. Evangelisti teaches a coffee device with a decanting chamber. Burrows teaches transparent brew vessel walls. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide transparent walls. By doing so, one would be able to “provide a view of the vortex-producing brewing process” [0053], as identified by Burrows.
Li, Evangelisti, and Burrows do not teach and the wall of the foam filter is opaque.
Heuberger teaches and the wall of the foam filter (see mapping to Evangelisti) is opaque (“peripheral tank wall is formed as a one-piece structural part together with the steps formed in it… can be designed, in particular, as a plastic injection-molded part” [0027]; Plastic may be opaque.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam filter of Modified Li to be opaque. Li, Evangelisti, Burrows, and Heuberger are analogous arts because they all relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with a serving chamber. Evangelisti teaches a coffee device with a decanting chamber. Burrows teaches transparent brew vessel walls. Heuberger teaches an opaque tank wall. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide opaque walls. By doing so, one would be able to conveniently and cheaply produce a structural part by using commonly available plastic.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2020125644 A1), further in view of Lu (CN 108577551 A).
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches the appliance according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a removable closure (sealing cover 21, Fig. 1) closes an open mouth (“second container 2, and cover it with the sealing cover 21” [0060], Fig. 1) of the brewing chamber (“second container 2” [0052], Fig. 1), and the removable closure… the pressure regulating system (air pump 4, Fig. 2) and the controller (“controller” [0040] of control switch 41, Fig. 5).
Li does not teach … and the removable closure encloses the pressure regulating system and the controller. Lu teaches and the removable closure (see mapping to Li) encloses (“battery box 8 is provided at the top of the water tank cover 5 to cover the air pump 6. The battery box 8 contains a battery 9 electrically connected to the air pump 6”, Fig. 2) the pressure regulating system and the controller (see mapping to Li).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the removable closure and configuration of Li to cover the pressure regulating system and controller. Li and Lu are analogous arts because they both relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with an air pump, controller, and cover for an upper chamber. Lu teaches a coffee device with an air pump and battery contained under a removable cover. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide an air pump and controller/battery under a cover. By doing so, one would be able to protect device components while storing them in a more compact and portable manner.
Regarding claim 16, Li teaches the appliance according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a lower part (lower half of third container 3, Fig. 2) of the filter assembly (third container 3, Fig. 2)…an upper part (upper half of walls of first container 1) of the serving chamber (first container 1, Fig. 1), and the brewing chamber (“second container 2” [0052], Fig. 1) and the serving chamber are coaxially disposed (Fig. 2 shows axial alignment of first and second containers 1, 2).
Li does not teach wherein a lower part of the filter assembly is received in an upper part of the serving chamber.
Lu teaches wherein a lower part of the filter assembly (see mapping to Li) is received in (Fig. 1 shows inner filter cup 7 disposed in upper part of pot body 11) an upper part of the serving chamber (see mapping to Li).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the configuration of Li to place a filter assembly on a serving chamber. Li and Lu are analogous arts because they both relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with a filter assembly disposed within a serving assembly. Lu teaches a coffee device with a filter assembly disposed above a serving assembly. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to a different serving and filter assembly configuration. By doing so, one would be able to attach a filter assembly and serving chamber in a more modular and aesthetically pleasing manner.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2020125644 A1), further in view of Childers et al. (US 20070274858 A1), hereinafter Childers.
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches the appliance according to anyone of the preceding claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the pressure regulating system (air pump 4, Fig. 2) comprises a circuit having a first leg (unlabeled tube in Fig. 2 connecting air pump 4 and second container 2) connected between the brewing chamber (second container 2, Fig. 2) and an inlet side (unlabeled tube is construed as an input as “air pump 4 that can vacuum the second container 2” [0026] so the pump 4 intakes air) of the pneumatic pump (air pump 4, Fig. 2).
Li does not teach and a second leg connected between the brewing chamber and an outlet side of the pneumatic pump, and a first 3-way solenoid valve in the first leg and a second 3-way solenoid valve in the second leg.
Childers teaches and a second leg (section including valve 380, Fig. 12) connected between the brewing chamber (see mapping to Li) and an outlet side (valve end which “connect[s] reservoir 355 to the air 350 in reservoir 320” [0168]) of the pneumatic pump (see mapping to Li), and a first 3-way solenoid valve (valve 368 is construed as a three-way valve given its similar depiction to “three-way valve 380” [0171] in Fig. 12) in the first leg (see mapping to Li) and a second 3-way solenoid valve (“three-way valve 380” [0171], Fig. 12) in the second leg.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure regulating system of Li to include multiple legs and valves. Li and Childers are analogous arts because they both relate to pump-based liquid circulation systems. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with an air pump. Childers teaches a liquid delivery system including an air pump and valves for maintaining various pressures in a reservoir. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to introduce multiple legs and valves. By doing so, one would be able to achieve greater control over the evacuation, pressurization, and equilibration of a reservoir.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2020125644 A1), further in view of Nenov et al. (US 20100098823 A1), hereinafter Nenov.
Regarding claim 17, Li teaches the appliance according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the appliance (“coffee cold brew device” [0036], Fig. 1) further comprises… sensor (“liquid level sensor” [0044]) and a signal (“liquid level sensor transmits a signal” [0044]) from the… sensor triggers a changeover between pressurizing and depressurizing the brewing chamber (“transmits a signal to the controller of the control switch 41. The controller controls the air pump to stop extracting air from the second container 2 through the control switch 41.” [0044]; A changeover is construed as pump ceasing to extract air).
Li does not teach a pressure sensor… pressure.
Nenov teaches a pressure (“pressure sensor” [0018]) sensor (see mapping to Li)… pressure (“pressure” [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor of Li to include detect pressure. Li and Nenov are analogous arts because they both relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with a liquid level sensor and a controller. Nenov teaches a pressure sensor. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to introduce a pressure sensor. By doing so, one would be able to obtain “pressure readings and electronic feedback” [0018], as identified by Nenov.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2020125644 A1), further in view of Nenov et al. (US 20100098823 A1), hereinafter Nenov, and White et al. (US 20180084940 A1), hereinafter White.
Regarding claim 18, Li and Nenov teach the appliance according to claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the controller (“controller” [0040] of control switch 41, Fig. 5; Li)… the pressure (“pressure” [0018]; Nenov) signal (“liquid level sensor transmits a signal” [0044]; Li) and triggers the changeover (“transmits a signal to the controller of the control switch 41. The controller controls the air pump to stop extracting air from the second container 2 through the control switch 41.” [0044]; A changeover is construed as pump ceasing to extract air; Li).
Li and Nenov do not teach determines a rate of change from the pressure… when a predetermined rate of pressure change is measured.
White teaches determines a rate of change (“calculating a rate of change of pressure” [0161]) from (“using past values of pressure” [0161]) the pressure (see mapping to Nenov)… when a predetermined rate of pressure change is measured (“if the measured air pressure is greater than the set point” [0144] which “may also add a further offset based on a rate of change of pressure calculation” [0138] then “decrease the air pump power” [0144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Modified Li to operate based on pressure changes. Li, Nenov, and White are analogous arts because they all relate to beverage preparation devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with a liquid level sensor and a controller. Nenov teaches a pressure sensor. White teaches calculating a rate of change of pressure and a pressure offset based on said rate of change. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to control operations based on a rate of change in pressure. By doing so, one would be able to more accurately control how long an operation or cycle takes (e.g., controlling air pump to pump more air if pressure rises too slowly).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2020125644 A1), further in view of Mingliang (CN 2418777 Y) and Avins et al. (US 20170367526 A1), hereinafter Avins.
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches the appliance according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the filter assembly (third container 3, Fig. 2)… the solid material is held between the filter element (“fill the third container 3 with the required coffee powder” [0060]) and a lower part (bottom wall of ) of the brewing chamber (“second container 2” [0052], Fig. 1).
Li does not teach comprises a filter cup with a filter element at its base and a filter cup holder for receiving the filter cup.
Mingliang teaches comprises a filter cup (aluminum cup 8, Fig. 2) with a filter element (filter screen 6, Fig. 2)… its base (bottom wall of cup 8, Fig. 2) and a filter cup holder (outer filter cup 10, Fig. 2) for receiving the filter cup (“outer filter cup 10 has a cylindrical upper portion that fits over the aluminum cup 8” [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filter assembly of Li to include a cup and support. Li and Mingliang are analogous arts because they both relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with filter assembly. Mingliang teaches a coffee pot with a filter support and cup. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to introduce a filter cup and support. By doing so, one would be able to more ergonomically refill a filter assembly.
Mingliang teaches a filter cup and its base and a filter element, but does not teach a filter cup with a filter element at its base. Avins teaches a filter cup (upper portion 816a of brew chamber 810) with a filter element (disposable filter element 832) at its base (see orientation of elements in Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filter assembly of Modified Li to include a cup and support. Li, Mingliang, and Avins are analogous arts because they all relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with filter assembly. Mingliang teaches a coffee pot with a filter support and cup. Avins teaches a filter screen positioned toward a base. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to position a filter element at a base. By doing so, one would be able to ensure greater contact time between coffee grounds and water.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2020125644 A1), further in view of Mingliang (CN 2418777 Y), Avins et al. (US 20170367526 A1), hereinafter Avins, and Burrows (US 20200093315 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Li, Mingliang, and Avins teach the appliance according to claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above), wherein the filter element (filter screen 6, Fig. 2; Mingliang).
Modified Li does not teach comprises mesh.
Burrows teaches comprises mesh (“mesh filter” [0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filter element of Modified Li to include mesh. Li, Mingliang, Avins, and Burrows are analogous arts because they all relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with filter assembly. Mingliang teaches a coffee pot with a filter support and cup. Avins teaches a filter element. Burrows teaches a mesh filter. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to introduce a mesh filter. By doing so, one would be able to obtain a coffee beverage less likely to contain ground coffee.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2020125644 A1), further in view of Umana (US 20200359826 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Li teaches the appliance according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the filter assembly (coffee filter assembly 6, Fig. 2) and the brewing chamber (“second container 2” [0052], Fig. 1).
Li does not teach are screw threaded to each other.
Umana teaches are screw threaded to each other (“top container 2 comprises a coupling neck 7 and seal 8 that interface with top opening 9 of bottom container 10” [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assemblies of Li to include screw threadings. Li and Umana are analogous arts because they both relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with filter assembly. Mingliang teaches a pressurized coffee brewer with a coupling neck. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to introduce screw threading for attachment. By doing so, one would be able to ergonomically connect two chambers.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2020125644 A1), further in view of Mingliang (CN 2418777 Y).
Regarding claim 27, Li teaches the method according to claim 23 (see rejection of claim 23 above), further comprising: …to form a filter assembly (third container 3, Fig. 2); placing an amount of a solid material (amount of “required coffee powder” [0060]) into the filter assembly (“fill the third container 3 with the required coffee powder” [0060]); connecting the filter assembly (“place the third container 3 into the second container 2” [0060]) to a brewing chamber (“second container 2” [0052], Fig. 1); connecting the brewing chamber to a removable closure (“second container 2, and cover it with the sealing cover 21” [0060], Fig. 1); connecting the filter assembly to a liquid passageway (“third container 3 is independently arranged and is placed in a water flow channel” [0047]); placing an amount of water into a serving chamber (“fill the first container 1 with water in the corresponding proportion to the coffee” [0060]); and connecting the brewing chamber to the serving chamber (“Place the second container 2 into the first container 1” [0060]).
Li does not teach placing a filter cup into a filter cup holder to form a filter assembly.
Mingliang teaches placing (“outer filter cup 10 has a cylindrical upper portion that fits over the aluminum cup 8” [0008]) a filter cup (aluminum cup 8, Fig. 2) into a filter cup holder (outer filter cup 10, Fig. 2) to form a filter assembly (see mapping to Li).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filter assembly of Li to include a cup and support. Li and Mingliang are analogous arts because they both relate to coffee brewing devices. Li teaches a cold brew coffee device with filter assembly. Mingliang teaches a coffee pot with a filter support and cup. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to introduce a filter cup and support. By doing so, one would be able to more ergonomically refill a filter assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gormley et al. (US 20180192816 A1) discloses beverage brewing system with a vacuum pump for drawing a vacuum in the brew chamber through a vacuum line assembly and a solenoid valve for preventing air from entering the brew chamber and breaking the vacuum.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON HELFERTY whose telephone number is (571)272-1465. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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 (E