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
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.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1, line 2 recites the phrase "in particular" which 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).
Claim 11, line 3; claim 16, line 4 recites “can be supplied; can be transmitted” which renders the claim indefinite because the phrase “can be” is not a positive recitation. It is suggested to delete the phrase “can be” and change to “is supplied; is transmitted”.
Claims 2-10 and 12-15 are also rejected because they are dependent upon claim 1.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Harrod (WO2019/000012). Harrod (US 2020/0121113) is being used as an English language equivalent for Harrod (WO2019/000012).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Harrod teaches a filter holder for receiving a filter with extraction material (Figs 1-5, filter basket 111, 0038, 0039), in particular ground coffee, comprising a receptacle portion having a bottom and at least one bottom-side flow-through opening (Fig 2, central opening 206, 0040) on which a valve for opening and closing (drip valve, valve surface 205, 0040) the flow-through opening is arranged, the valve (Figs 4, 5, moving valve element 408, 0044) is configured to be moved by means of a linear actuator (linear motor 503, mechanical finger 505).
With respect to the limitations of claims 2 and 4, Harrod teaches further comprising a curved body with at least one curved guide (Figs 5, 7, rotating cam 700, 0051) provided between the valve (408) and the linear actuator (503);
the flow-through opening on the bottom side is connected via a tube (Figs 11-13, elevated sealing rim 1303, 0058) to an outlet on the bottom side of the filter holder for dispensing an extraction product.
Claims 6-10, 13 and 16 are rejected because they are dependent upon claim 1.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harrod (WO2019/000012) as applied to claim 3, further in view of Garcia (US 2017/0251866).
With respect to the limitations of claim 4, Harrod discloses a connecting tube (1303). Harrod discloses the claimed invention except for the tube is made of an elastic material. However, Garcia discloses the tube is made of an elastic material (0031, sealing means at the needle outlet is a silicon, rubber, or other compliant material that is adapted to conform to the top of the pod and provide a seal around the needle outlet/pod interface) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the filter holder of Harrod having a tube silent to the material with the tube is made of an elastic material of Garcia for the purpose of using a known material that conforms to a mating surface to provide for a good seal (0031), thereby providing for a leak-free connection.
Claims 3, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harrod (WO2019/000012) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Smit (US 2013/0247776).
With respect to the limitations of claim 3, Harrod discloses the claimed invention except for the valve is movable in a vertical direction and a plunger of the linear actuator is movable in a horizontal direction. However, Smit discloses the valve is movable in a vertical direction (Figs 2-4, valve member 32, 0026) and a plunger (actuator lever 36, 0026) of the linear actuator is movable in a horizontal direction is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the filter holder of Harrod having a valve that moves in a vertical direction silent to a horizontal moving plunger with the plunger of the linear actuator is movable in a horizontal direction of Smit for the purpose of providing a known alternative plunger configuration that moves the valve in a vertical direction (0026), thereby reducing an overall footprint of the device.
With respect to the limitations of claim 14, Harrod teaches the filter holder according to claim 1 as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Harrod also teaches that the filter holder is detachably held (0038). Harrod discloses the claimed invention except for the filter holder is detachably held on the coffee machine by means of a bracket. However, Smit discloses the filter holder (Fig 1, filter holder 16, 0024) is detachably held on the coffee machine by means of a bracket (filter holder support bracket 18, 0024, 0027) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the detachable filter holder of Harrod silent to a bracket with the filter holder is detachably held on the coffee machine by means of a bracket of Smit for the purpose of providing a known support bracket configuration that is simple in construction and allows the filter holder to be properly positioned (0005, 0027).
With respect to the limitations of claim 15, Harrod teaches the filter holder has a closed hollow chamber in which the linear actuator is fixed (Fig 7, housing 707 surrounding electric motor 706, 0051).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harrod (WO2019/000012) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Oleksy (US 2015/0359380).
With respect to the limitations of claims 11 and 12, Harrod discloses the claimed invention except for the linear actuator is designed as an electromagnetic solenoid that can be supplied with current; the electromagnetic solenoid is a bistable electromagnetic linear solenoid with two discrete states and stable end positions. However, Oleksy discloses the linear actuator is designed as an electromagnetic solenoid that can be supplied with current (Fig 7, linear solenoid 710, 0080-0083); the electromagnetic solenoid is a bistable electromagnetic linear solenoid with two discrete states and stable end positions (0080-0083) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the filter holder of Harrod having a linear actuator silent to the recited electromagnetic linear solenoid with the linear actuator is designed as an electromagnetic solenoid that can be supplied with current; the electromagnetic solenoid is a bistable electromagnetic linear solenoid with two discrete states and stable end positions of Olesky for the purpose of using a known actuator that moves a linkage in a linear direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00].
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
12/4/2025