DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on or after February 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 20 have been fully considered. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The amendments to claim 20 overcome the previously set forth 112b rejection: The examiner agrees with this assertion. This rejection is subsequently withdrawn.
The amendments to Claim 1 overcome the prior art rejection as presented in previous correspondence in view of White as modified by Star: The examiner agrees that the amendments constitute a need for new grounds of rejection which is provided in view of Schmed (US 6,382,083 B2) as modified by White (US 2014/0102306 A1)
It is improper to combine two embodiments of the same invention: Regarding the prior art rejections cited to White, the examiner submits that the distinct embodiments are not relied upon in rejecting the independent claims. The separate embodiments relate to the carafe rather than the coffee machine of White as a whole. Furthermore, only the carafe embodiment as shown in Figures 12 and 13 are relied upon in rejecting the independent claims (in this and in previous correspondence). The housing, as cited to in Claim 16 and evidenced by Figure 1a is present in the invention regardless of which carafe embodiment is contained within it. Generally, a more detailed rejection is provided with regard to the chosen embodiment for clarity of the record.
The wedge of White does not read on the limitations of the claims as presented in Claim 6: This argument is not found to be persuasive. The wedge body, as cited by the examiner in previous correspondence is not limited to Element 130 of Figure 13 as alleged. Rather, the wedge of White, as cited in previous correspondence includes elements 130 and 129 in Figure 13. As a collective, these features are configured for movement along a second axis and movable. The movement of which causes movement of the valve member in response to movement of the wedge body as claimed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is in claim 7 which recites the limitations
“a bias mechanism that biases the valve member” which is further defined by the applicant’s specification as a “magnets or one or more springs” [0067]. These limitations will be applied to the examiner’s interpretation of the claim limitation.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmed (US 6, 382,083 B2) in view of White (US 2014/0102306 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
584
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
426
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Schmed teaches a drip coffee maker (“coffee machine” Col 3 Line 8), comprising: a brew basket configured to house coffee grounds during brewing (coffee powder received in the “brewing unit ”Col 6 Line 39-40 Figure 1 Element 5); a water supply (“fresh water reservoir” Col 4 Line 16 Figure 1 Element 2) disposed upstream of the brew basket (Shown in Figure 1) and configured to supply heated water (“hot water” Col 4 Line 29) to the brew basket to bring the heated water into contact with the coffee grounds to perform a drip coffee brewing operation (“brewing” Col 4 Line 25); an variable valve (“valve assembly” Figure 1 Element 12 Col 4 Line 44-45) disposed downstream of the brew basket (Shown in Figure 1) and movable within a continuous range of positions (“valve assembly comprises means for adjusting the amount of coffee beverage flowing through the valve assembly per time unit” Col 3 Lines 15-19) between a fully open position (fully “open position” Col 3 Line 41) and a fully closed position (fully “closed position” Col 3 Line 44) of variable valve; and a controller (“control valve” Col 6 Line 16) coupled to the variable valve (“valve assembly” Col 4 Line 44-45) and configured to regulate a flow rate (“flow rate” Col 6 Lines 15-17) of coffee produced in the brew basket to a brewing container (“brewing chamber” Col 4 Line 16 Figure 1 Element 6) by controlling the variable valve to controllably vary a flow rate through the variable valve during the drip coffee brewing operation (“the… valve assembly corresponds to a…control valve that controls the flow rate” Col 6 Lines 15-17) by selecting a position that is between the fully open position and the fully closed position and within the continuous range of positions (The “nut” component of the valve Figure 2 Element is movable between open and closed position to “decrease the cross sectional area of the passage” “position more to the right” Col 6 Line 26 or increase it).
Schmed does not teach that the variable valve is electronically-controllable
However, White does teach a drip coffee maker (“coffee maker” abstract) with an electronically-controllable variable valve (“valve assembly” [0039] Figure 12 Element 121 and the prior art also teaches that the valve is electrically controllable by an “electric motor” [0039]) which is movable within a continuous range of positions (the prior art teaches that the valve is continuously moveable between “open” and “closed positions by an “electric motor” [0039] ); and a controller (“control panel” [0021] that contains a “switch” [0039] which operates the electric motor and the valve movement)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Schemed such that valve is electronically controllable as disclosed by White as it has been held that automating a manual process automatic requires only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)
Regarding Claim 2: Schmed as modified by White further teaches that the electronically- controllable variable valve includes a valve member (Schmed-“valve body member” Col 6 Line 31-31 Figure 2 Element 21) projecting through a port (Schmed- “passage” Col 6 Line 33 Figure 2 Element 26) and configured to move (Schmed- “move” Col 6 Line 31) relative to the port to variably occlude the port and thereby vary a fluid flow rate through the port ((Schmed-increase or “decrease the size of the passage” to change the “flow rate” Col 6 Line 35).
Regarding Claim 3: Schmed as modified by White further teaches that the valve member (Schmed-“valve body member” Col 6 Line 31-31 Figure 2 Element 21) moves along a first axis (White- Figure 13 “First, Vertical Axis”) and includes a substantially conical portion (White-“Figure 13 further shows that the valve member has a conical shape), the first axis is substantially vertical (White-Figure 13 “First, Vertical Axis”)and the substantially conical portion of the valve member decreases in diameter from top to bottom such that movement of the valve member in a downward direction along the first axis increases occlusion of the port (White-Figure 13 further shows that the valve member has a conical portion (Element 125b) which decreases in diameter from top to bottom and thus increases the occlusion of the port when moved in the downward direction).
Regarding Claim 4: Schmed as modified by White further teaches that the electronically-controllable variable valve includes a valve drive (White-Figure 13 “Valve Drive”), and the valve drive includes an electric motor (White-Figure 13 Element 136) and a linear actuator (White-Figure 13 “Linear Actuator”) which reads on the limitation of the claim.
Regarding Claim 5: Schmed as modified by White further teaches that the electronically-controllable variable valve (White-“valve assembly” [0039] Figure 12 Element 121 and the prior art also teaches that the valve is electrically controllable by an “electric motor” [0039]) includes: a valve member (“valve member” [0038] Figure 13 “valve member”) projecting through a port (“opening” [0038] Figure 13 “Port”)) and configured to move along a first axis to vary a fluid flow rate through the port (the prior art further teaches that the valve member is configured to move via the “actuator” [0038] Figure 13 Element 122 and the “central shaft” [0038] Figure 13 Element 124 and variably occlude the port and thus vary flow rate); a wedge body (Figure 13 Element 130 and 129) configured for movement along a second axis (Figure 13 further shows that the wedge body is configured to move the elements of the valve drive along a “second axis”) and including an inclined surface (Figure 13 further shows that the wedge includes and inclined surface) operably coupled to the valve member to cause movement of the valve member along the first axis in response to movement of the wedge body along the second axis (the prior art further teaches that the wedge body is coupled to the valve element and that the movement of the wedge body in the second axis (driven by the electric motor) induces the movement of the valve element in the first axis); and a valve drive operably coupled to the wedge body to controllably-position the wedge body along the second axis and thereby control a position of the valve member along the first axis (Figure 13 further shows the relation of the valve drive and the wedge body as they operate in tandem to move the wedge body in the second axis to induce movement of the valve member in the direction of the first axis).
Claims 6-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 2014/0102306 A1) in view of Starr (US 2014/0208952 A1):
Regarding Claim 6: White teaches a drip coffee maker (“coffee maker” abstract), comprising: a brew basket (“filter basket” [0022] Figure 12 Element 120) configured to house coffee grounds during brewing (the prior art teaches “brewed coffee [is] output from the filter basket” [0022] which suggests that the basket is configured to house coffee grounds during brewing and reads on the limitations of the claim); and an electronically-controllable variable valve (“valve assembly” [0039] Figure 12 Element 121 and the prior art also teaches that the valve is electrically controllable by an “electric motor” [0039]) positioned to regulate water/coffee contact time in the brew basket (the invention operates the “valve assembly until such time as the grounds in the filter contained in the filter basket have been exposed to hot water and brewed sufficiently” [0041]), the electronically-controllable variable valve including: a valve member ( Figure 13 “valve member”) projecting through a port (“opening” [0038] Figure 13 “Port”) and configured to move along a first axis to vary a fluid flow rate through the port (Figure 13 “First, Vertical Axis”); a wedge body (Figure 13 “Wedge Body” Elements 130 and 129) configured for movement along a second axis (Figure 13 further shows that the wedge body is configured to move the elements of the valve drive along a “second axis”) and including an inclined surface (Figure 13 further shows that the wedge includes and inclined surface) operably coupled to the valve member to cause movement of the valve member along the first axis in response to movement of the wedge body along the second axis (the prior art further teaches that the wedge body is coupled to the valve element and that the movement of the wedge body in the second axis (driven by the electric motor) induces the movement of the valve element in the first axis); and a valve drive operably coupled to the wedge body to controllably-position the wedge body along the second axis and thereby control a position of the valve member along the first axis (Figure 13 further shows the relation of the valve drive and the wedge body as they operate in tandem to move the wedge body in the second axis to induce movement of the valve member in the direction of the first axis).
While White implies the presence of a water supply disposed upstream of the brew basket and configured to supply heated water to the brew basket to bring the heated water into contact with the coffee grounds to perform a drip coffee brewing operation (as the invention operates the “valve assembly until such time as the grounds in the filter contained in the filter basket have been exposed to hot water and brewed sufficiently” [0041]). The invention of white does not explicitly disclose a water supply for supplying hot water.
However, Starr et al does teach a kitchen appliance for preparing a hot beverage with a water supply (“reservoir” Abstract) for supplying hot water (“hot water generator” Abstract)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of White with the water supply and hot water generator as taught by Starr in order to provide water to the drip coffee maker and “increase the temperature of the liquid within the system” [0006] and “effectuate movement of liquid” [0006] withing the system.
Regarding Claim 7: White further teaches that the electronically-controllable variable valve (“valve assembly” [0039] Figure 12 Element 121 and the prior art also teaches that the valve is electrically controllable by an “electric motor” [0039]) includes a valve member (“valve member” [0038] Figure 13 “valve member”) further includes a bias mechanism (“spring” [0039] Figure 12 Element 131) that biases the valve member (Figure 13 “Valve Member”) towards a fully closed position along the first axis at which fluid flow through the port is inhibited (“biases the valve plug” of the valve member such that the invention is in a closed position [0024])
Regarding Claim 8: White further teaches that the electronically-controllable variable valve (“valve assembly” [0039] Figure 12 Element 121 and the prior art also teaches that the valve is electrically controllable by an “electric motor” [0039]) further includes a bias mechanism (“spring” [0039] Figure 13 Element 131) that biases the valve member (“valve member” [0038] Figure 13 “valve member” towards a fully open position along the first axis at which fluid flow through the port is maximized (the prior art further teaches that the spring biases the invention to “open the valve” [0039]).
Regarding Claim 9: White further teaches that the valve member (Figure 13 “valve member”) includes a substantially conical portion (Figure 13 further shows that the valve member has a conical portion (Element 125b).
Regarding Claim 10: White further teaches that the first axis is substantially vertical (Figure 13 “First, Vertical Axis”) and the substantially conical portion of the valve member decreases in diameter from top to bottom such that movement of the valve member in a downward direction along the first axis increases occlusion of the port (Figure 13 further shows that the valve member has a conical portion (Element 125b) which decreases in diameter from top to bottom and thus increases the occlusion of the port when moved in the downward direction).
Regarding Claim 11: White further teaches that the drip coffee maker further comprising a lift body (Figure 12 “Lift Body”) having a mating surface (Figure 12 “Mating Surface”) that engages the inclined surface of the wedge body (Figure 12 further shows that the mating surface engages the inclined surface of the wedge body), the lift body being movable along the first axis (Figure 12 further shows movability along first, vertical axis) and positioned intermediate the wedge body and the valve member (Figure 12 further shows the lift body between the wedge body and the valve member) to cause the movement of the valve member along the first axis in response to movement of the wedge body along the second axis (The prior art further teaches that the movement of the wedge body along the second axis initiates the movement of the valve member along the vertical axis a shown in Figures 12 and 13).
Regarding Claim 12: White further teaches that the lift body (Figure 12 “Lift Body”) includes a lifting surface (Figure 12 “Lifting Surface”) configured to contact the valve member to cause the movement of the valve member along the first axis (Figure 12 further shows that the lifting surface is configured to contact the valve member and cause movement along the first axis).
Regarding Claim 16: White further teaches that the drip coffee maker (“coffee maker” abstract) further comprises a housing (Figure 1a “Housing”), wherein the valve member (“valve member” [0038] Figure 13 “valve member”) is coupled to the brew basket (“filter basket” [0022] Figure 12 Element 120), the lift body (Figure 12 “Lift Body”) and wedge body (Figure 13 “Wedge Body” Elements 130 and 129) are disposed in the housing, and the brew basket is removable from the housing (the prior art further teaches that the “basket assembly is movable on a sliding drawer so that the [basket can be removed and serviced by the user]” [0039]), and wherein insertion of the brew basket into the housing aligns the valve member with the lift body and wedge body( the prior art further teaches that the brew basket, when reinserted “returns to brewing position in which the actuator rod impinges on the cam disk” [0039 which initiated the alignment of the valve body, lift body, and the wedge body).
Regarding Claim 17: White further teaches that the valve member (Figure 12 “Valve Member”) includes a mating surface (Figure 12 “mating surface”) configured to contact the inclined surface of the wedge body (Figure 12 shows that the mating surface enables the valve member to contact the inclined surface of the wedge body via the lift body)
Regarding Claim 18: White further teaches that the valve member (Figure 12 “valve member”) includes a downwardly-facing conical tip (Figure 12 “Conical Tip”) that funnels fluid flow to a single point of release (Figure 12 “outlet”).
Claims 13-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 2014/0102306 A1) and Starr (US 2014/0208952 A1) in further view of Warner (Us 5,957,036):
PNG
media_image3.png
650
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
696
1140
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13: White teaches that the valve member has an outlet (Figure 12 “outlet”) configured to output fluid received by the valve member through the port (Figure 13 “Port”)
White as modified by Starr does not teach that the lift body includes a channel configured to allow the fluid output by the outlet of the valve member to travel through the lift body
However, Warner does teach a drip coffee maker (“Coffee maker” Abstract) with a lift body (Figure 7 “Lift Body”) includes a channel (Figure 8 “Lift Body Channel”) configured to allow the fluid output by the outlet of the valve member (Figure 8 “Valve Outlet”) to travel through the lift body
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of White as modified by Starr with the channel as taught by Warner in order to provide a valve mechanism that is “reliable, inexpensive, and durable… and does not significantly interfere with the operation or use of the coffee maker” (Col 1 Lines 35-47) by streamlining the overall structure of the valve mechanism.
Regarding Claim 14: White as modified by Starr and Warner further teaches that the lift body (Figure 7 “Lift Body”) includes a fluid outlet (Figure 8 “Lift Body Fluid Outlet”) configured to output the fluid received in the channel of the lift body (Figure 8 “Lift body channel”) to be conveyed to a container (“carafe” Col 5 Line 33).
Regarding Claim 15: White does not teach that the wedge body includes an interior opening configured to receive the channel of the lift body, wherein the interior opening has a length along the second axis that is sufficient to allow the channel to project through the interior opening when the electronically-controllable variable valve is in each of fully closed and fully open positions.
However, Warner does teach that the wedge body (Figure 3 “Wedge Body”) includes an interior opening (Figure 3 “Wedge Body Interior Opening”) configured to receive the channel of the lift body (Figure 8 further shows that the opening received the channel of the lift body), wherein the interior opening has a length along the second axis that is sufficient to allow the channel to project through the interior opening when the electronically-controllable variable valve is in each of fully closed and fully open positions (Figure 3 further shows that the interior opening has a with sufficient to allow the channel to project through the interior opening when the valve is in operation between open and closed positions).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of White as modified by Starr with the wedge body an opening as taught by Warner in order to provide a valve mechanism that is “reliable, inexpensive, and durable… and does not significantly interfere with the operation or use of the coffee maker” (Col 1 Lines 35-47) by streamlining the overall structure of the valve mechanism.
Regarding Claim 19: The primary embodiment of White further teaches that the downwardly-facing conical tip (Figure 12 “Conical Tip”) is used for conveying fluid from the port to the single point of release (Figure 12 “outlet”), and the wedge body includes an interior opening (Figure 2 shows an “Interior Opening of Wedge Body” that allows elements of the lift body to pass through)
The primary embodiment of White does not teach that the downwardly-facing conical tip (Figure 12 “Conical Tip”) includes a plurality of through-holes (Figure 3 “Plurality of Through Holes”)
However, a secondary embodiment of White does teach that the downwardly-facing conical tip includes a plurality of through-holes (Figure 3 “Plurality of Through Holes”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the primary embodiment of White with the plurality of through holes taught by the second embodiment of White as it has been held that duplication of parts requires only routine skill in the art In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.VI B
Additionally, White as modified by Starr does not teach that the interior opening of the wedge allows fluid released from the single point of release to flow through the wedge body.
However, Warner does teach that the interior opening (Figure 3 “Interior Opening”) of the wedge body (Figure 3 “Wedge Body”) that allows fluid released from the single point of release to flow through the wedge body (The prior art teaches that the fluid flows through).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of White as modified by Starr with the wedge body an opening as taught by Warner in order to provide a valve mechanism that is “reliable, inexpensive, and durable… and does not significantly interfere with the operation or use of the coffee maker” (Col 1 Lines 35-47) by streamlining the overall structure of the valve mechanism.
Claims 20 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 2014/0102306 A1) and Starr (US 2014/0208952 A1) in further view of Schmed ( US 6, 382,083 B2):
Regarding Claim 20: White as modified by Starr further teaches that the electronically-controllable variable valve (White-“valve assembly” [0039] Figure 12 Element 121 and the prior art also teaches that the valve is electrically controllable by an “electric motor” [0039]) is disposed downstream of the brew basket (White-Figure 12 further shows that the valve is located downstream of the basket) and is movable within a continuous range of positions (White-the prior art teaches that the valve is continuously moveable between “open” and “closed positions by an “electric motor” [0039] ) to regulate a flow rate of coffee produced in the brew basket to a brewing container (White-the controller of the invention is coupled to the valve via the electric motor and controls the flow rate by controlling the position of the valve [0039]), and wherein the drip coffee maker further comprises a controller (White- “control panel” [0021] that contains a “switch” [0039] which operates the electric motor and the valve movement) coupled to the electronically-controllable variable valve and configured to regulate the flow rate of coffee by controlling the electronically-controllable variable valve (White-the controller of the invention is coupled to the valve via the electric motor and controls the flow rate by controlling the position of the valve [0039]
White as modified by Starr does not teach that the flow rate is controlled by selecting a position that is between the fully open position and the fully closed position and within the continuous range of positions.
However, Schmed does teach a drip coffee maker (“coffee machine” Col 3 Line 8) wherein the flow rate is controlled by selecting a position (“position” Col 3 is selected via the “valve assembly [which] comprises means for adjusting the amount of coffee beverage flowing through the valve assembly per time unit” Col 3 Lines 15-19) that is between the fully open position (fully “open position” Col 3 Line 41) and the fully closed position (fully “closed position” Col 3 Line 44) and within the continuous range of positions.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time of invention to modify the invention of White as modified by Starr such that the position is selected between a fully open and fully closed position as disclosed by Schmed in order to allow the user greater control of the “flow rate of the brewing water through the coffee powder” (Col 6 Line 60-61).
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 SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights