DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 11/07/25. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 5, and 8 have been amended; no claims have been cancelled, and claim 16 has been added. Thus, claims 1-16 are presently pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dessing et al. (US 11,779,152).
With regard to claim 1, Dessing teaches a beverage preparation device (1, FIG. 6), comprising: a discharge line (“discharge line”, annotated FIG. 6 below) for discharging water via a discharge outlet (26), a pump (507) for selectively circulating water along the discharge line (“discharge line”, annotated FIG. 6 below) towards the discharge outlet (26), and one or more flushing lines (“flushing line”, annotated FIG. 6 below) with a flushing outlet (511), wherein the beverage preparation device (1, FIG. 6) is configured to operate in a discharging mode and in a flushing mode (flow direction element 515: discharge mode: “mixture is then guided via the temperature sensor 508, through the pump 507 and restriction 506 to heater 504 where it is heated to a desired temperature and dispensed at outlet 26. In this mode, a second input of valve 512 which is coupled to outlet 510 of reservoir 302 is closed and a second output of selection valve 515 which is coupled to inlet 511 of reservoir 302 is also closed….”, col. 7, ln. 65 to col. 8, ln. 5; flushing mode: “As mentioned above, the hot beverage dispensing device of FIG. 6 includes a flow direction element 515 arranged upstream of the outlet 26 which is configured to selectively redirect a flow of fluid streaming in a direction of the outlet 26 towards a rinsing/treatment fluid reservoir 302…..”, col. 8, ln. 20-27), such that in the discharging mode (“discharge mode”, col. 7, ln. 65 to col. 8, ln. 5) the pump (507, annotated FIG. 6 below) is arranged to circulate water along the discharge line in a first direction towards and out of the discharge outlet (26), and in the flushing mode (“flushing mode”, col. 8, ln. 20-27) at least part of the water in the discharge line (line attached to discharge outlet 26) flows in a second direction opposite to the first direction (the term “opposite” is being construed to mean a different direction) from the discharge line into the one or more flushing lines (line coupled to flushing outlet 511) and subsequently out of the flushing outlet (511).
Although Dessing teaches that at least part of the water in the discharge line flows into one or more flushing lines as detailed above, the citation does not explicitly teach that “gravity” performs this function; however, it is submitted that as the flushing outlet 511 is illustrated in FIG. 6 below that of the discharge outlet 26, the fluid within the discharge line would naturally flow to a lower location when valve 515 is closed toward the direction of the discharge outlet and valve 515 is open toward the flushing outlet as a matter of routine experimentation thereby not necessitating the usage of pump 507 to remove remaining fluid within the flushing line.
PNG
media_image1.png
460
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Dessing teaches in the flushing mode (“flushing mode”, col. 8, ln. 20-27), the pump (507) is arranged to draw at least part of the water from the discharge line into the one or more flushing lines and subsequently out of the flushing outlet (Table with Goal S212 for function “Drain Tubes” has pump 507 with a “1” (or “on” state”), valve 509 on, valve 512/515 off and valve 520 on) , and/or wherein the pump is a bidirectional pump or a gear pump.
With regard to claim 3, Dessing teaches wherein, compared to the one or more flushing lines (line coupled to flushing outlet 511), at least part of the discharge line is arranged on a higher level with respect to the vertical (FIG. 6).
With regard to claim 4, with regard to the limitation the beverage preparation device is configured to automatically switch between the discharging mode and the flushing mode, it is submitted that as the instant claim is directed toward an apparatus and as the structural limitations are taught by Dessing as detailed above, with respect to the method step claimed regarding “automatically switching”, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01(I)". Furthermore, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 5, Dessing teaches the beverage preparation device is configured to switch between the discharging mode and the flushing mode based on a status of the beverage preparation device (“In substep S101, the pump 507 is activated at its full capacity to substantially remove remaining liquid from the trajectory 500. A conductivity value may be monitored with sensor 307, and an error message may be given if an unexpected value is measured. This may indicate an improper operation, for example indicating that no remainders of milk are detected. In the next substeps S103, A104 the reservoir 302 is filled with tap water which is heated in the fluid transport trajectory 500 by heater 504. Subsequently in substeps S106 and S107, the water is pumped from the reservoir 302 via the fluid transport trajectory 500 to outlet 26, to remove the contaminated rinsing liquid from the reservoir 302 and the fluid transport trajectory 500. Operation of the system is paused for a few seconds in substep S113, before preceding to the next sequence of substeps S201-S212….”, col. 9, ln. 43-58).
With regard to claim 6, Dessing teaches the status is the presence of the water supply, the functional connection of the water supply with the discharge line, the residence time of water at a specific level in the water supply, the lapsed time in which no water is discharged via the discharge outlet, the temperature of the water within the water supply, and/or combinations thereof (“The fluid transport trajectory may further comprise one or more sensors, such as a conductivity sensor, a flow sensor, or a temperature sensor. The sensor arranged in the fluid transport trajectory may be used for carrying out various measurements for performance verification during the first and the second operational mode.”, col. 3, ln. 32-37).
With regard to claim 7, Dessing teaches the beverage preparation device comprises one or more valves so that based on controlling the valves the beverage preparation device switches between the discharging mode and the flushing mode (Dessing illustrates several valves (509/512/515) with corresponding operational parameters corresponding to discharging and flushing modes as illustrated in Table 1 with specific operational states and corresponding goals).
With regard to claim 8, Dessign teaches the one or more flushing lines comprises a first flushing line and a second flushing line, wherein in the flushing mode the discharge line is separated into a first section (line coupled to outlet 26),, which comprises the discharge outlet (26), and a second section (line coupled to flushing outlet 511), the first section connecting to the first flushing line (connecting at 515), and the second section connecting to the second flushing line (line coupled to flushing outlet 511), wherein, compared to the second flushing line, the first flushing line is arranged at a higher level with respect to a vertical direction (FIG. 6 illustrates the correlated first section higher than the second section).
With regard to claim 10, Dessign teaches a heating unit (504) arranged for heating and, thus, sanitizing the water, which is to be discharged via the discharge outlet (“The hot beverage dispensing device 1 of FIG. 6 comprises a fluid transport trajectory 500 with at least one of a pump 507 and a heater 504. In FIG. 6 both a pump and a heater are present.”, col. 7, ln. 55-57).
With regard to claim 11, Dessign teaches a beverage additive section (“ingredient supply section”) for dispensing additives, such as in the form of a liquid or in the form of a liquid comprising solid particles, via the discharge outlet (“According to yet a further embodiment of the invention, a hot beverage preparation module of the hot beverage preparation device comprises a hot water supply section to supply hot water, an ingredient supply section to supply one or more ingredients, and a combining section to prepare a beverage from the supplied hot water and the supplied one or more ingredients to a beverage supply outlet for supply of the prepared beverage to a receptacle.”, col. 3, ln. 5-13).
With regard to claim 13, Dessingh teaches a collecting container (“collection tray”), wherein the collecting container is arranged to collect the water, which flows via the flushing outlet out of the one or more flushing lines (“Alternatively, rinsing/treatment may be collected at a collection tray.”, col. 3, ln. 56-57).
With regard to claim 16, Dessign teaches the status is a status of a water supply from which the pump draws water for the circulation along the discharge line (“In substep S101, the pump 507 is activated at its full capacity to substantially remove remaining liquid from the trajectory 500. A conductivity value may be monitored with sensor 307, and an error message may be given if an unexpected value is measured. This may indicate an improper operation, for example indicating that no remainders of milk are detected. In the next substeps S103, A104 the reservoir 302 is filled with tap water which is heated in the fluid transport trajectory 500 by heater 504. Subsequently in substeps S106 and S107, the water is pumped from the reservoir 302 via the fluid transport trajectory 500 to outlet 26, to remove the contaminated rinsing liquid from the reservoir 302 and the fluid transport trajectory 500. Operation of the system is paused for a few seconds in substep S113, before preceding to the next sequence of substeps S201-S212….”, col. 9, ln. 43-58).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dessing et al. (US 11,779,152) in view of Lebleu (CN 1225715).
With regard to claim 9, Dessing teaches the invention as claimed; however, the citation does not teach a UV lamp arranged for irradiating UV light at a position along the discharge line to sanitize the water. However, Lebleu from the same field of endeavor directed toward a portable drinking water recovery and supply device teaches the well known limitation of utilizing a UV light along a water line: “switch triggers the condensed water pump. The condensed water by satisfying sanitation and food health requirement of UV transparent tube (26-A). then the condensed water by several times of exposing the bacteriostat or sterilizing components such as an ultraviolet germicidal lamp (29), other currently known UV source which can generate sufficient to kill the radiation of bacteria, viruses and organisms in the water sterilizing apparatus….”, pg. 13.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Dessing reference, to include a UV lamp arranged for irradiating UV light at a position along the discharge line to sanitize the water, as suggested and taught by Lebleu, for the purpose of providing a sanitizing function for a fluid to remove bacteria, viruses and other organisms (Lebleu pg. 13).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dessing et al. (US 11,779,152) in view of Skoli et al. (US 3,945,411)
With regard to claim 12, Dessingh teaches the invention as claimed; however, Dessing does not teach an in-line carbonation device for entering CO2 into the discharge line. However, Skoli from the same field of endeavor directed toward a system for mixing various kinds of fluids for producing beverages teaches the aforementioned limitation: precarbonating device 129: “The admixture of flavored beverage is delivered through a line 124 and a pump 126 through a check valve 127 into a delivery line 128.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Dessing reference, to include an in-line carbonation device for entering CO2 into the discharge line, as suggested and taught by Skoli, for the purpose of providing a predetermined amount of carbonation to a beverage product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are addressed hereafter. The Applicant contends in the office action response that the prior art citation does not teach “at least part of the water in the discharge line flows in a second direction opposite to the first direction.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the citation explicitly teaches: “In the second operational mode of the device, a flow of rinsing or treatment fluid is induced through the fluid transport trajectory 500. More specifically, selection valve 512 is set to selectively receive the rinsing/treatment fluid from the outlet 510 of the reservoir 302 which is provided to the fluid transport trajectory 500. Depending on the step performed in the second operational mode, the rinsing/treatment fluid may be either disposed at the outlet 26, or may be returned to the inlet 511 of the fluid reservoir.” (Dessing: col. 8, ln. 6-15). Accordingly, as the portion near the outlet 26 is cleaned and fluid “may be returned to the inlet 511 of the fluid reservoir”, the claimed recitation is taught by the prior art. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it should be stressed (as indicated in MPEP 2141) that the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex particularly emphasized: "’the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that ‘[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. The Supreme Court stated that there are ‘[t]hree cases decided after Graham [that] illustrate this doctrine.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (1) ‘In United States v. Adams, . . . [t]he Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (2) ‘In Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., . . . [t]he two [pre-existing elements] in combination did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation.’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (3) ‘[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.). The principles underlining these cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent application claiming the combination of elements of prior art would have been obvious. The Supreme Court further stated that: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396…..”
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 JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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 on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761