DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 4.
The drawings are objected to because they are replete with the absence of lead lines, and, it seems, underlined reference characters where appropriate. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(q), “Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake.”
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two parts of confinement of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently, the drawings only show a single part. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because figs. 27 and 28 feature impermissible black shading (see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m)).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: BEVERAGE PREPARATION SYSTEMS
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites legal phraseology (“said”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Antecedent basis for the flow permeable material, the flow outlet means, and the rupturable adaptation of claim 2; the ring-like element of claim 6; and the two parts of confinement of claim 7 should be added to the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 14, line 5, should be amended to replace “(3)” with “(5).”
Page 15, last line, should be amended to replace “(41)” with “(42).”
Page 21, line 6, should be amended to recite “base wall (312).”
The specification is replete with recitations of “so that can be,” which should be either “so that it can be” or “so that they can be” depending on the context.
The specification ends by reciting “Lisbon, December 17th 2020.” While this is obviously the 371 filing date of this application, it is out of place in the specification and should be struck.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 on line 4, “and” should be replaced by a comma.
Claim 1, line 7, should be amended to recite “the container and lid parts.”
Claim 1, line 9, should be amended to recite “so that it can be.”
Claim 1, second-to-last line, should be amended to recite “so that it can be.”
Claim 1, line 17, should be amended to recite “a volumetric shape and dimensions.”
Claim 1, line 18, should be amended to recite “dimensions.”
Claim 1, line 19, should be amended to recite “the container and lid parts.”
Claim 1, second-to-last line, should be amended to recite “a container sealing portion.”
Claim 2, line 3, should be amended to recite “a volumetric shape and volumetric dimensions,” and line 4 should be amended to recite “dimensions.”
Claim 2, line 5, should be amended to recite “the container and lid parts.”
Claim 2, line 7, should be amended to recite “so that it can be.”
Claim 2, line 9, should be amended to recite “[[a]] the confinement.” (While some dependent claims feature a reintroduction of “a confinement” after claim 1, a single reintroduction is not objectionable since the claims are very clearly more thoroughly defining the confinement, but there is no good reason to reintroduce the limitation twice in a single claim).
Claim 3, line 3, should be amended to recite “a similar volumetric shape.”
Claim 3, line 4, should be amended to recite “dimensions” for each of the two recitations.
Claim 3, line 5, should be amended to recite “the container and lid parts.”
Claim 3, last line, should be amended to recite “the container sealing portion.”
Claim 7, line 4, should be amended to recite “the confinement.”
Claim 10, line 9, should be amended to recite “are adapted so that they can be.”
Claim 10, last two lines, should be amended to recite “at least one . . . flow passageway[[s]] configured as a hole[[s]].”
Claim 11, last line, should be amended to recite “an elastically deformable material.”
Claim 12, line 3, should be amended to recite “different configurations.”
Claim 12, line 5, should be amended to recite “a pressurized fitting.”
Claims 4–6, 8, 9, and 13 are objected to due to dependency upon objected-to claims.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitations are understood under § 112(f):
The lid connection means of claim 1 (element 6 of the disclosure).
The flow outlet means of claim 2 (no structure seen as disclosed).
The beverage flow dispensing means of claim 10 (element 36 in the disclosure).
The retention means of claim 12 (element 7 of the disclosure).
The pressurized flow means of claim 13 (“such as a hydraulic pump”).
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.
Claims 1–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding each of claims 1–3, 7, and 9–11, the phrases “optionally,” “preferentially,” “such as,” “for example,” and “in particular” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites “the peripheral interface region” (l. 7), but this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis, and should employ the indefinite article.
Claim 1 recites “the cavity space” (l. 15), which has insufficient antecedent basis. It’s unclear if this is an alternate phrasing of the “collection space” provided earlier in the claim. This rejection also carries to claim 8 given the same recitation therein.
Claim limitation “flow outlet means” in claim 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure features the word “outlet” twice, and neither mention appears to be referring to these means recited here. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 ends by reciting “such as a cellulosic-based material, or similar.” While “such as” renders this passage indefinite as per above, “or similar” also renders it indefinite because the metes and bounds of similarity are unclear.
Claim 4 recites “the top wall of the confinement,” but this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis and should employ the indefinite article.
Claim 6 recites “the upstream oriented surface, or top wall of said single portion,” as well as “the downstream-oriented surface, or base wall, thereof,” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for any of these limitations.
Claim 7 recites “similar confinement material,” which renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of similarity are unclear.
Claim 8 recites “the upstream feed-edge” (ll. 4 and 6), which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites “the downstream-oriented peripheral free-edge of the lid part” (ll. 6–7), but this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected due to dependency upon rejected claims.
Comment: The claims feature certain limitations throughout that do not have explicit antecedent basis, but are not indefinite therefore since they are understandable as inherent features, particularly in light of the specification (MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–5, 9–11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 10-1326682 B1) in view of Webster et al. (US Pub. 2005/0034605).
Claim 1: Jung discloses a beverage preparation system comprising:
a single portion comprising a confinement for collecting a beverage precursor substance (120, “receptacles for extraction of pack type (or pod type) beverage cartridges, or even filter non-encapsulated capsule type beverage cartridges, packaged in a porous sheath, such as a nonwoven fabric”);
a portion holder comprising a container part with a sidewall and a base wall (111, see fig. 17A), and a lid part (130) with a flow-conducting wall presenting a flow passageway (131), and jointly confining a collection space extending at least downstream of the peripheral interface region between container and lid parts (evident from figs. 16 and 17),
said container part being adapted so that can be retained inside a portion receiving part of an extraction device that can be manually held and operated in a draw-like manner into an operating position engaged with a flow provision part of said extraction device (the disclosed container part, as an object, is capable of being retained in such a portion receiving part; MPEP § 2114),
said lid part being peripherally hinged to the container part by lid connection means (113, 133) so that can be operated to a closed position at which the single portion is confined inside the cavity space (see fig. 16A), and
wherein the single portion presents volumetric shape and dimension that are similar to the volumetric shape and dimension of the collection space provided by container and lid parts such that the exterior surface thereof is in contact with the interior surface provided by said container and lid parts (clearly suggested by figs. 16 and 17, but also evident from the analogous embodiments shown in figs. 2 and 4), whereby the single portion presents a rim wall portion (123) arranged at a relative level such that the single portion can sit therewith on a support step (see figs. 16 and 17 showing how 123 would sit on such a support step in 111, shown in fig. 17A) adapted as container sealing portion of the container part (“when the elevating body (not shown) moving together with the hot water jet nozzle of the beverage maker is interlocked in the flange 123 of the sieve 120, the soft inner portion is supported by the flange inner support jaw 125. Since the flexible cover is sandwiched between them, the sealing against hot water is further increased,” showing such a sealing at the rim wall portion and support step).
Jung does not disclose its flow-conducting wall presenting flow passageways (plural), as it only discloses a single injection hole 131.
However, flow passageways in similar flow-conducting wall is known in the art, as for example shown in Webster (32, see fig. 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the single flow passageway of Jung with the plurality of flow passageways of Webster to provide superior water distribution for infusion.
Claim 2: Jung discloses that the single portion presents a confinement (120) that encloses an edible substance collection space presenting volumetric shape and volumetric dimension that are similar to the volumetric shape and dimension of the collection space provided by container and lid parts (evident from figs. 16 and 17, but perhaps more so by the analogous embodiments shown in figs. 2 and 4), whereby at least the downstream-oriented portion of the confinement is preferentially provided in a flow permeable material (“receptacles for extraction of pack type (or pod type) beverage cartridges, or even filter non-encapsulated capsule type beverage cartridges, packaged in a porous sheath, such as a nonwoven fabric”) and is otherwise devoid of flow outlet means or otherwise adapted so that can be ruptured to provide flow outlets, and in that the single portion presents a confinement provided in a compostable material, such as a cellulosic-based material, or similar (ibid.).
Claim 3: Jung discloses that the single portion presents a confinement that encloses an edible substance collection space presenting similar volumetric shape and similar volumetric dimension to the volumetric shape and dimension of the collection space provided by container and lid parts (evident from figs. 16 and 17, but perhaps more so by the analogous embodiments shown in figs. 2 and 4) such that the top region thereof is in contact with the interior surface of the flow-conducting wall of the lid part (“when the elevating body (not shown) moving together with the hot water jet nozzle of the beverage maker is interlocked in the flange 123 of the sieve 120, the soft inner portion is supported by the flange inner support jaw 125. Since the flexible cover is sandwiched between them, the sealing against hot water is further increased,” showing such contact between the top region and the interior surface of the flow-conducting wall of the lid part).
Claim 4: Jung does not explicitly disclose that the single portion is configured such that, inside the closed portion holder and in a non-flow condition, the top wall of the confinement can be pressed downwards by the interior surface of the flow conducting wall.
However, Jung seems to allude to this being the case where it says, ““when the elevating body (not shown) moving together with the hot water jet nozzle of the beverage maker is interlocked in the flange 123 of the sieve 120, the soft inner portion is supported by the flange inner support jaw 125,” meaning that there is compressing contact between the soft inner portion (of cover 130) and at least 125 (part of the single portion 120), and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such pressing as part of the construction both given these passages and the need and expectation for the stability of the parts when connected.
Claim 5: Jung discloses that the single portion presents a confinement with sidewalls extending in at least one of a frusto-conic and a convex shape downstream of the rim wall portion (120 in fig. 17 clearly shows a frusto-conic shape), and top and bottom walls extending in a planar shape transversally to the prevailing flow direction at different distances relative to the rim wall portion (see also 120 in fig. 17).
Claim 9: Jung modified by Webster discloses that the flow-conducting wall presents a plurality of flow passageways extending in a direction similar to the prevailing flow direction (plural of Jung’s 131 would be oriented as claimed) and provided on different portions of the shape of the flow-conduction wall (as different of a plurality of flow passageways, they would naturally be provided on different portions of the shape of the wall; Applicant here seems to be meaning to suggest that the shape would have different, distinct parts, but the means of “different portions” and “shape” are broad enough to read on Jung modified by Webster).
Claim 10: Jung discloses that wherein the portion holder presents beverage flow dispensing means (121, 140) on the bottom region of the container part (see fig. 17), provided such that the exterior surface of said single portion is in direct contact with the flow conducting wall of the lid part on the upstream side (evident from the contact suggested by the passage, “when the elevating body (not shown) moving together with the hot water jet nozzle of the beverage maker is interlocked in the flange 123 of the sieve 120, the soft inner portion is supported by the flange inner support jaw 125. Since the flexible cover is sandwiched between them, the sealing against hot water is further increased”), and with said beverage flow dispensing means siting on the base wall of the container part on the downstream side (i.e. 121, 140 sitting on the base wall of 111), upstream of and in flow communication with a beverage discharge outlet (115) arranged on said base wall, and in that the beverage flow dispensing means are adapted so that can be retained on the base wall of the container part (plainly evident from figs. 16 and 17), and said flow dispensing means further present at least one, preferentially a plurality of, flow passageways (121, 140) configured as holes on the base portion of the flow dispensing means.
Claim 11: Jung discloses that the container part presents a container sealing portion (the part of 111 on which 125 sits, as discussed for claim 1) for providing liquid sealing of the portion holder in the closed position (“when the elevating body (not shown) moving together with the hot water jet nozzle of the beverage maker is interlocked in the flange 123 of the sieve 120, the soft inner portion is supported by the flange inner support jaw 125. Since the flexible cover is sandwiched between them, the sealing against hot water is further increased”), said container sealing portion configured as an inward-extending peripheral step providing an upstream-oriented support surface for a rim region of the single portion and also a support surface for the downstream-oriented peripheral free-edge of the lid part (ibid.; also evident from figs. 16 and 17) such that there is provided a sealing engagement of said container and lid sealing portions in case the portion holder is closed.
Claim 13: Jung discloses that said system further includes a beverage preparation apparatus comprising said extraction device (evident from drawer 30, and from “the powder beverage extracting receptacle (R) according to the present invention is a drawer type coupled to a beverage maker (not shown)”) and pressurized flow means upstream thereof so that a pressurized fluid can flow in a prevailing direction through said extraction device, portion holder and single portion inside thereof (“the hot water pressurized by the electric pump extracts the powder beverage contained in the strainer 120 to extract an espresso”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6–8 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections, as well as the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6–8, these claims, as best understood (see the drawing and specification objections, as well as the § 112(b) rejections, above), relate to atypical portion and portion holder shapes, for which there is no reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung or other prior art to arrive at.
Regarding claim 12, neither Jung nor any other prior art of record, alone or in combination, renders obvious such retention means on such a portion holder as understood under § 112(f).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Severin Electrogeräte GmbH (DE 20218335 U1), Trench Roca et al. (ES 2527337 A1), and Mäurle (DE 202007002064 U1) all discloses similar beverage apparatuses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761