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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/ 006, 478. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims anticipate the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18/006, 291
18/ 006, 478 Copending Application
Claim 1: A machine for handling a flavoring ingredient and preparing a beverage therefrom and serving said beverage via a dispensing outlet to a consumer receptacle by mixing water [1] from a water source comprising:
a support, such as a frame and/or housing, that is stationary during said handling of said flavouring ingredient;
a seat configured to receive said flavouring ingredient unwrapped before mixing with said water;
a closure part configured to close and open the ingredient opening;
a wall part that is movable inside the seat,
the seat, the closure part and the wall part being: directly or indirectly mounted to the support;
and relatively movable between: a transfer configuration for supplying said flavouring ingredient into the seat and/or removing such ingredient upon beverage preparation; and a mixing chamber configuration in which the seat and the closure part and the wall part form a mixing chamber fluidically connected with the water source, during beverage preparation, said flavouring ingredient being mixed with said water in the mixing chamber to form said beverage prior to serving thereof via the dispensing outlet,
such machine comprising a control unit, the control unit is configured to control a preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient [2] after an introduction into the seat’s ingredient opening in the transfer configuration of at least one solid portion of a self-supporting agglomerate of said flavouring ingredient and subsequent relative movement from the transfer configuration into the mixing chamber configuration and prior to serving said beverage via the dispensing outlet, wherein said preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient comprises:
a portion break-up relative movement of the seat and the closure part and the wall part.
Claim 1: A machine for handling a flavouring ingredient and preparing a beverage therefrom and serving said beverage via a dispensing outlet to a consumer receptacle including a mixing unit that comprises:
a support, such as a frame and/or housing, that is stationary during said handling of said flavouring ingredient;
configured to receive said flavouring ingredient unwrapped before mixing with said water [1];
a seat configured to receive said flavouring ingredient unwrapped before mixing with said water;
a closure part configured to close and open the ingredient opening;
a wall part that is movable inside the seat,
the seat, the closure part and the wall part being: directly or indirectly mounted to the support,
and relatively movable between: a transfer configuration for supplying said flavouring ingredient into the seat and removing such ingredient upon beverage preparation; and a mixing chamber configuration in which the seat and the closure part and the wall part form a mixing chamber fluidically connected with the water source, during beverage preparation, said flavouring ingredient being mixed with said water in the mixing chamber to form said beverage prior to serving thereof via the dispensing outlet,
the seat is configured to move relatively to the support according to simultaneous and successive geometric translation and geometric rotation.
Claim 9: The machine of claim 1, wherein, after an introduction into the seat’s ingredient opening in the transfer configuration of at least one solid portion of a self-supporting agglomerate of said flavouring ingredient and subsequent relative movement from the transfer configuration into the mixing chamber configuration and prior to serving said beverage via the dispensing outlet, said control unit is configured to control a preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient [2] by:
a portion break-up relative movement of the seat and the closure part and the wall part…
[1] Mixing with water implies a water source.
[2] The limitation is near identical, but out of order.
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 as follows:
“a closure part configured to close and open the ingredient opening” in Claim 1 and 12 further defined by the applicant’s specifications as “configured to form a lid” [Page 4]. Therefore, a lid that covers the ingredient opening will be understood to read on the limitations of the claim.
“a control unit… configured to control a preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient” in Claim 1 and 12 further defined by the applicant’s specifications as “a unit comprising at least one of a controller; a processor; a printed circuit board; a user-interface; and a power manager” [Page 5]. Therefore, a unit comprising at least one of a controller; a processor; a printed circuit board; a user-interface; and a power manager will be understood to read on the limitations of the claim.
“a waste ingredient remover configured to remove a waste ingredient” in Claim 8 further defined by the applicant’s specifications as “the remover may have at least one of: a drawer-type configuration for being deployed and retracted over the ingredient opening in the transfer configuration…and a front face provided with a recessed part” [Page 12]. Therefore, this interpretation will be considered for the sake of examination.
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 § 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 1-12, and 15 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitations “a support, such as a frame and/or housing.” Additionally, claim 3 recites the limitation “such as 0.5 to 25 bar above ambient pressure” and claim 9 recites the limitation “such as an elastically deformable seal.” With regard to these limitations, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the limitations following the phrase do not further limit the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the ingredient opening.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction to “an ingredient opening” is recommended.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “said at least one actuator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction to “at least one actuator” is recommended.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 recites the limitation “the control unit… controls said liquid driver … in a volume that is in a range of 3 to 85% of a total volume of the mixing chamber at a spacing of the closure and wall parts when said beverage is prepared and served via the dispensing outlet.” It is unclear how the liquid driver can be controlled in a particular volume percentage when the liquid driver seems to be outside of the mixing chamber configuration. Additionally, it is not clear whether the invention as presented operates across variable volumes between preparation and serving or one consistent volume throughout. This presents an issue of indefinite language as the intended limitation of the claim is not clear and muddies the intended scope of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 also recites the limitation, “said liquid driver.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction to “a liquid driver” is recommended.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “said wall part actuator.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction to “a wall part actuator” is recommended. Alternatively, if this actuator is intended to be the same actuator as described in claim 2, the claim may be re-written to depend on Claim 2.
Claims 6, 8, and 9 recite the limitations “mixing unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims. Appropriate correction to “mixing chamber” is recommended. For the purposes of examination, the mixing chamber is understood as the configuration of all elements defined in claim 1 which assemble to create the mixing unit.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on Claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 does not further limit claim 1 as both present the limitation of the self-supporting agglomerate, the shaping of which, as phrased in Claim 15 is accounted for by the language of Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radhakrishnan (US 2016/0157663 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
830
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
858
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
706
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Radhakrishnan teaches a machine (“extraction assembly for use in an automatic espresso brewer” Abstract) for handling a flavoring ingredient (“beverage substance including but not limited to coffee, tea, herbs, botanicals “ [0022]) and preparing a beverage(“beverage” [0033]) therefrom and serving said beverage via a dispensing outlet (“Dispensing Line” Figure 2 Element 230 [0040]) to a consumer receptacle (“single cup” or “multiple cup containers” [0023]) by mixing water from a water source (“heated water system” [0021] Figure 1 Element 106) comprising:
a support, such as a frame and/or housing (“frame” [0017] Figure 1 Element 34), that is stationary during said handling of said flavouring ingredient (during brewing and ingredient pre-processing, the “frame” [is in] a stopped or parked position…[and] provides a relatively stable position for the brewing process” [0032]);
a seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028]) configured to receive said flavouring ingredient unwrapped before mixing with said water; a closure part (Figure 1 Element 142 “face of the piston” [0027]) configured to close and open the ingredient opening (“mouth” Figure 1 Element 116 [0024]); a wall part (“piston” [0028] Figure 1 Element 52) that is movable inside the seat (the piston moves into and out of the seat to open and close it [0028]),
the seat, the closure part and the wall part being: directly or indirectly mounted to the support (See figure 1); and relatively movable between: a transfer configuration (wherein the “piston is positioned outside of the brew chamber” [0024] to receive the brewing ingredient in the chamber) for supplying said flavouring ingredient into the seat or removing used ingredient (“eject or dispose” of the waste ingredient [0036]);
and a mixing chamber configuration in which the seat and the closure part and the wall part form a mixing chamber fluidically connected with the water source (“heated water system” [0021] Figure 1 Element 106), during beverage preparation (the piston is “engage[s]” [0030] with the seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028]) and the closure part (Figure 1 Element 142 “face of the piston” [0027] to form a mixing chamber),
said flavouring ingredient being mixed with said water in the mixing chamber to form said beverage (“beverage” [0022]) prior to serving thereof via the dispensing outlet (230)
such machine comprising a control unit (“controller” [0020] Figure 1 Element 90), the control unit is configured to control a preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient after an introduction into the seat’s ingredient opening in the transfer configuration of at least one solid portion of a self-supporting agglomerate (“puck” [0035]) of said flavouring ingredient and subsequent relative movement from the transfer configuration into the mixing chamber configuration and prior to serving said beverage via the dispensing outlet (The controller of the invention controls the movement of the invention into each configuration and the processing of the ingredient when contained in the seat [0019]), wherein said preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient comprises: a portion break-up relative movement (“compaction and compression” [0030]) of the seat and the closure part and the wall part.
Regarding Claim 2: Radhakrishnan further teaches that the control unit (“controller” [0020] Figure 1 Element 90) is configured to control via at least one actuator (“motor” [0036] Figure 2 Element 80) said break-up relative movement (“compaction and compression” [0030]) between the wall part and the closure part so as to exercise a compression force onto the solid portions between the closure and wall parts to break-up the solid portions (“compaction and compression” [0030] to create “uniformity” [0029] of the ingredient).
Regarding Claim 6: Radhakrishnan further teaches that the mixing unit comprises said wall part actuator (“motor” [0036] Figure 1 Element 80) that is connected to the wall part by a wall part transmission (“drive mechanism” [0037] and “lead screw” Figure 1 Element 74).
Regarding Claim 7: Radhakrishnan further teaches that the support (“frame” [0017] Figure 1 Element 34) and the seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028]) are connected by a guide-rail arrangement (“Upper beam” [0017] Figure 1 Element 64) that is stationary relative to the support and a guide-rail counter-member (“Lower beam” [0017] Figure 1 Element 66) arrangement that is stationary relative to the seat, or vice versa.
Regarding Claim 8. Radhakrishnan further teaches that the mixing unit comprises a waste ingredient remover (“chute/wiper with a blade portion” which forms a drawer type configuration that “sweeps across” and thus deploys and retracts over the ingredient opening [0036]) configured to remove a waste ingredient from the ingredient opening upon beverage preparation (“eject or dispose” of the waste ingredient [0036])
Regarding Claim 9: Radhakrishnan further teaches that the mixing unit comprises a closure seal (“a leading edge”[ 0027] Figure 4 Element 154)) which is located between the closure part (Figure 1 Element 142 “face of the piston” [0027]) and the seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028]) when closed by the seat so that the closure seal is urged between the seat and the closure part in a direction that is substantially parallel to a direction of opening and/or closing the seat by the closure part (the first piston face moves downward and causes “outward” compression [0028]of the seal into the ”annual groove” [0027] of the seat)
Regarding Claim 10: Radhakrishnan further teaches that the closure part (Figure 1 Element 142 “face of the piston” [0027]) comprises a peripheral sealing member (“sealing structure such as compressible gasket, O-ring or other device” Figure 1 Element 150) displaceably mounted on a closure holder ”annual groove” [0027] of the seat) and urged away from the holder against the seat while said flavouring ingredient is mixed with said water in the mixing chamber (the first piston face moves downward and causes “outward” compression [0028]of the seal into the ”annual groove” [0027] of the seat during the extraction process)
Regarding Claim 12: Radhakrishnan further teaches a combination of [the machine of claim 1] and a flavoring ingredient (“beverage substance including but not limited to coffee, tea, herbs, botanicals “[0022])
Regarding Claim 15: wherein said flavouring ingredient is shaped as at least one solid portion of a self-supporting agglomerate (“puck” [0035]) of such flavouring ingredient.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan (US 2016/0157663 A1) in view of Nickel (CA 3 087904 A1):
Regarding Claim 3: Radhakrishnan teaches that the control unit (“controller” [0020] Figure 1 Element 90) controls a liquid driver (“Inlet Lines” [0033] Figure 2 Element 220: after and/or before carrying out said portion break-up relative movement of the seat and the closure part and the wall part (“compaction and compression” [0030])
Radhakrishnan does not explicitly teach that the liquid driver is controlled at a pressure in the mixing chamber that is in a range of 0.1 to 30 bar above ambient pressure. However, Radhakrishnan does teach the volume [0023] is actively monitored by the controller according to the intend final product (“tea” [0022] or “espresso beverage” shot [0023] etc.) which respectively require particular pressures and volumes to brew.
Nickel teaches that “a good espresso should be prepared… according to the following… Flow Pressure p = 9 bar” (Page 8 Lines 10-15) which falls in the range of 0.1 to 30 bar above ambient pressure and reads on the limitation of the claim
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 Radhakrishnan with the pressure of Nickel in order to produce “good expresso” (Page 8 Line 10)
Radhakrishnan does not explicitly teach that the liquid driver is controlled in a volume that is in a range of 3 to 85% of a total volume of the mixing chamber; However, Radhakrishnan does teach the volume [0023] is variable and actively monitored by the controller according to the intend final product (“tea” [0022] or “espresso beverage” shot [0023] etc.). It would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the volume of water in relation to the proportion of flavouring agent constitutes a results effective variable that controls the strength and flavor of the beverage.
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 Radhakrishnan such that the volume that is in a range of 3 to 85% of a total volume of the mixing chamber to achieve a beverage of the desired strength as it has been held that routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 IIB.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan (US 2016/0157663 A1) in view of De ‘Longhi (US 2005/0139080 A1):
PNG
media_image4.png
946
712
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
830
662
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4: Radhakrishnan further teaches that the seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028]) is configured to move relatively to the support (“frame” [0017] Figure 1 Element 34),
Radhakrishnan does not teach that the seat is configured to move relatively to the support according to simultaneous and successive geometric translation and geometric rotation.
However, De ‘Longhi does teach a machine for producing a beverage (Abstract) wherein the seat (“container” [0044] Figure 1 Element 2) is configured to move relatively to the support (Figure 1 shows a frame or housing) according to simultaneous and successive geometric translation (“translation” [0073]) and geometric rotation (“rotation” [0073]).
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 Radhakrishnan with the translation and rotation of De ‘Longhi in order to “realize a machine that can be washed easily and without the risk of damaging components [and in which] parts are easily accessible” [0009-0010].
Regarding Claim 5: Radhakrishnan as modified by De ‘Longhi further teaches that the seat (Figure 1 Element 130 “cavity” [0028] Radhakrishnan) has a first pivot (“pivot point” [0035] Radhakrishnan) and a second pivot (“pin” [0073] Figure 5 Element 7) spaced apart from the first pivot, the seat being configured such that, to move from the mixing chamber configuration to the transfer configuration (wherein the “piston is positioned outside of the brew chamber” [0024] to receive the brewing ingredient in the chamber and to “eject or dispose” of the waste ingredient [0036]). The remaining limitations of the claim are understood as intended use which do not further limit the claims.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan (US 2016/0157663 A1) in view of Tilton (US 2019/0038065 A1):
Regarding Claim 11: Radhakrishnan does not explicitly teach that the mixing chamber is in fluid communication with a valve configured to release pressure from the mixing chamber
However, Tilton does teach a “brewing assembly” (Abstract) with a mixing chamber (“brewing chamber” Abstract) wherein the mixing chamber is in fluid communication with a valve (“pressure…valve” (Abstract)) configured to release pressure from the mixing chamber.
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 Radhakrishnan with the pressure valve of Tilton in order to “release” pressure from the mixing unit when a “threshold pressure” [0004] is reached and further control the brewing process in order to create the desire beverage.
Conclusion
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, Topaz Elliot can be reached at (571) 270-5851. 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
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761