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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 5 and 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.
Regarding claim 5 Applicant discloses, “wherein the sidewall is a closed sidewall” on lines 1-2. However, claim 1 discloses, “a closed side wall” on line 2. Are these the same components? If so, then Applicant is duplicating the claim language in claim 5. If not, then Applicant should provide a distinguishing limitation.
Regarding claim 14 Applicant discloses, “wherein the sidewall is a closed sidewall” on lines 1-2. However, claim 12 discloses, “a closed side wall” on line 2. Are these the same components? If so, then Applicant is duplicating the claim language in claim 5. If not, then Applicant should provide a distinguishing limitation.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-8 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoakim et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0203198).
Regarding claim 1, Yoakim et al. disclose a beverage brewer cleaning apparatus, comprising:
a container (2) made of fluid-impermeable material having a closed sidewall (7 or 82), an open proximal end (see “the large open end” in paragraph [0151]), and a closed distal end (6 or 82) together defining an interior of the container (see Figure 3 or Figures 16-18), configured to be placed in a brewing chamber (34) of a beverage brewer (23) with the distal end arranged on a bottom surface of the brewing chamber (see Figure 9); and
a lid (8 or 86,80 or 86,880) covering the open proximal end of the container (see Figure 3 or Figures 16-18),
wherein a surface (15 or 80 or 880) of the lid (8 or 86,80) facing the interior of the container (2) within a periphery defined by the open proximal end of the container is entirely planar and entirely unobstructed (see Figure 6 or Figures 16-18); and
wherein the lid (8 or 86,80 or 86,880) is pierceable by a beverage brewer injection needle (29) to form a lid through-hole (see “puncture hole” in paragraph [0168] or 89) that allows entry of a piercing end (48) of the injection needle (29) into an interior of the container (2) and fluid communication from a hollow interior (47) of the injection needle (29) to the interior of the container (see Figures 9-10).
Regarding claim 5 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Yoakim et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sidewall (7 or 82) is a closed sidewall (see Figure 1 or Figures 16-18).
Regarding claim 6, Yoakim et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lid (8 or 86,80 or 86,880) is fixed to the open proximal end of the container (see paragraph [0156] or [0184] or [0188]).
Regarding claim 7, Yoakim et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lid (8 or 86,80 or 86,880) is sealed to the open proximal end of the container (see paragraph [0181] or [0184] or [0188]).
Regarding claim 8, Yoakim et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lid (8 or 86,80 or 86,880) is configured to be removably coupled to the open proximal end of the container (see paragraph [0156] and Figure 3, or paragraph [0184] and Figures 16-18, or paragraph [0188] and Figure 16-18).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12-17 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoakim et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0203198) as applied to claims 1 and 5-8 above, and further in view of Douglas et al. (USP 9,730,551).
Regarding claim 2, Yoakim et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 1. However, they do not disclose an apparatus wherein the closed distal end of the container is configured to be pierceable by a beverage brewer outflow needle to form a distal through-hole that allows entry of a piercing end of the outflow needle into an interior of the container and fluid communication from the interior of the container to an exterior of the container at least in part through a hollow interior of the beverage brewer outflow needle. Douglas et al. disclose an apparatus wherein the closed distal end of the container is configured to be pierceable by a beverage brewer outflow needle to form a distal through-hole that allows entry of a piercing end of the outflow needle into an interior of the container and fluid communication from the interior of the container to an exterior of the container at least in part through a hollow interior of the beverage brewer outflow needle (see Figure 2). Therefore, 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 apparatus disclosed by Yoakim et al. by including an apparatus wherein the closed distal end of the container is configured to be pierceable by a beverage brewer outflow needle to form a distal through-hole that allows entry of a piercing end of the outflow needle into an interior of the container and fluid communication from the interior of the container to an exterior of the container at least in part through a hollow interior of the beverage brewer outflow needle, as disclosed by Douglas et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a tubular outlet probe “to accommodate an outflow of the mixture from the cartridge” (see column 6 lines 61-63).
Regarding claim 3, Yoakim et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 1. However, they do not disclose an apparatus wherein the closed distal end of the container includes an opening that provides fluid communication from the interior of the container to an exterior of the container at least in part through a beverage brewer outflow needle. Douglas et al. disclose an apparatus wherein the closed distal end of the container includes an opening that provides fluid communication from the interior of the container to an exterior of the container at least in part through a beverage brewer outflow needle (see Figure 2). Therefore, 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 apparatus disclosed by Yoakim et al. by including an apparatus wherein the closed distal end of the container includes an opening that provides fluid communication from the interior of the container to an exterior of the container at least in part through a beverage brewer outflow needle, as disclosed by Douglas et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a tubular outlet probe “to accommodate an outflow of the mixture from the cartridge” (see column 6 lines 61-63).
Regarding claim 4, Yoakim et al. in view of Douglas et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 3. Furthermore, Douglas et al. disclose an apparatus wherein the closed distal end is made of rubber (see column 6 lines 8-13). Therefore, 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 apparatus disclosed by Yoakim et al. by including an apparatus wherein the closed distal end is made of rubber, as disclosed by Douglas et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a tubular outlet probe “to accommodate an outflow of the mixture from the cartridge” (see column 6 lines 61-63).
Regarding claim 12, Yoakim et al. disclose a beverage brewer cleaning apparatus (see column 7 lines 18-20), comprising:
a container (2) made of fluid-impermeable material having a closed sidewall (7 or 82), an open proximal end (see “the large open end” in paragraph [0151]), and a closed distal end (6 or 82) together defining an interior of the container (see Figure 3 or Figures 16-18), configured to be placed in a brewing chamber (34) of a beverage brewer (23) with the distal end arranged on a bottom surface of the brewing chamber (see Figure 9); and
a lid (8 or 86,80 or 86,880) covering the open proximal end of the container (see Figure 3 or Figures 16-18);
wherein a surface (15 or 80 or 880) of the lid (8 or 86,80 or 86,880) facing the interior of the container (2) within a periphery defined by the open proximal end of the container is entirely planar and entirely unobstructed (see Figure 6 or Figures 16-18).
However, Yoakim et al. do not disclose an apparatus wherein the closed distal end is pierceable by a beverage brewer outflow needle to form a container through-hole that allows entry of a piercing end of the outflow needle into an interior of the container and fluid communication from the interior of the container to a hollow interior of the outflow needle. Douglas et al. disclose an apparatus wherein the closed distal end is pierceable by a beverage brewer outflow needle to form a container through-hole that allows entry of a piercing end of the outflow needle into an interior of the container and fluid communication from the interior of the container to a hollow interior of the outflow needle (see Figure 2). Therefore, 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 apparatus disclosed by Yoakim et al. by including an apparatus wherein the closed distal end is pierceable by a beverage brewer outflow needle to form a container through-hole that allows entry of a piercing end of the outflow needle into an interior of the container and fluid communication from the interior of the container to a hollow interior of the outflow needle, as disclosed by Douglas et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a tubular outlet probe “to accommodate an outflow of the mixture from the cartridge” (see column 6 lines 61-63).
Regarding claim 13, Yoakim et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 12, wherein the lid (8 or 86,80 or 86,880) includes a lid through-hole (see “puncture hole” in paragraph [0168] or 89) that provides fluid communication from a beverage brewer injection needle (29) to the interior of the container (see Figures 9-10).
Regarding claim 14 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Yoakim et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 12, wherein the sidewall (7 or 82) is a closed sidewall (see Figure 1 or Figures 16-18).
Regarding claim 15, Yoakim et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 12, wherein the lid (8 or 86,80 or 86,880) is fixed to the open proximal end of the container (see paragraph [0181] or [0184] or [0188]).
Regarding claim 16, Yoakim et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 12, wherein the lid (8 or 86,80 or 86,880) is sealed to the open proximal end of the container (see paragraph [0181] or [0184] or [0188]).
Regarding claim 17, Yoakim et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 12, wherein the lid (8 or 86,80 or 86,880) is configured to be removably coupled to the open proximal end of the container (see paragraph [0156] and Figure 3, or paragraph [0184] and Figures 16-18, or paragraph [0188] and Figure 16-18).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoakim et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0203198) as applied to claims 1 and 5-8 above, and further in view of Lai et al. (USP 8,646,379).
Regarding claim 9, Yoakim et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 1. However, they do not disclose an apparatus further comprising a cleaning agent arranged within the container. Lai et al. disclose an apparatus further comprising a cleaning agent arranged within the container (see column 7 lines 28-31). Therefore, 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 apparatus disclosed by Yoakim et al. by including an apparatus further comprising a cleaning agent arranged within the container, as disclosed by Lai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a cleaning cup for a cleaning cycle (see column 7 lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 10, Yoakim et al. in view of Lai et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 9. Furthermore, Lai et al. disclose an apparatus wherein the cleaning agent is a cleaning fluid (see column 7 lines 28-31). Therefore, 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 apparatus disclosed by Yoakim et al. by including an apparatus wherein the cleaning agent is a cleaning fluid, as disclosed by Lai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a cleaning cup for a cleaning cycle (see column 7 lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 11, Yoakim et al. in view of Lai et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 9. Furthermore, Lai et al. disclose an apparatus wherein the cleaning agent is a cleaning solvent (see column 7 lines 28-31). Therefore, 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 apparatus disclosed by Yoakim et al. by including an apparatus wherein the cleaning agent is a cleaning solvent, as disclosed by Lai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a cleaning cup for a cleaning cycle (see column 7 lines 25-31).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoakim et al. (USPGPUB 2010/0203198) in view of Douglas et al. (USP 9,730,551) as applied to claims 2-4 and 12-17 above, and further in view of Lai et al. (USP 8,646,379).
Regarding claim 18, Yoakim et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 12. However, they do not disclose an apparatus further comprising a cleaning agent arranged within the container. Lai et al. disclose an apparatus further comprising a cleaning agent arranged within the container (see column 7 lines 28-31). Therefore, 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 apparatus disclosed by Yoakim et al. by including an apparatus further comprising a cleaning agent arranged within the container, as disclosed by Lai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a cleaning cup for a cleaning cycle (see column 7 lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 19, Yoakim et al. in view of Lai et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 18. Furthermore, Lai et al. disclose an apparatus wherein the cleaning agent is a cleaning fluid (see column 7 lines 28-31). Therefore, 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 apparatus disclosed by Yoakim et al. by including an apparatus wherein the cleaning agent is a cleaning fluid, as disclosed by Lai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a cleaning cup for a cleaning cycle (see column 7 lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 20, Yoakim et al. in view of Lai et al. disclose the beverage brewer cleaning apparatus of claim 18. Furthermore, Lai et al. disclose an apparatus wherein the cleaning agent is a cleaning solvent (see column 7 lines 28-31). Therefore, 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 apparatus disclosed by Yoakim et al. by including an apparatus wherein the cleaning agent is a cleaning solvent, as disclosed by Lai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a cleaning cup for a cleaning cycle (see column 7 lines 25-31).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
M.K.C.
2/5/2026
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655