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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 of claims 1-8, nozzle species (a) movable and flow meter species (a) inline in the reply filed on 27 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 March 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶53, “pour over bag 106” should be corrected to –pour over bag 102--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5 at line 1, “wherein at least” should be corrected to –wherein the at least--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a holder for holding a pour-over bag.” The claim continues to recite various features of the pour-over bag. The claim does not positively recite the pour-over bag and so these limitations are considered only insofar as they affect the claimed structure of the holder and other claimed elements.
No claim limitations are interpreted under 112(f).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/992,316 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the nozzle” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite.
The remaining rejected claims are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowe (US 20040221724) in view of Bielfeldt (US 6,006,655).
PNG
media_image1.png
1043
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lowe (US 20040221724) discloses:
A beverage brewing system comprising: a case (74 and vertical housing portion shown in Fig 3, ¶35);
a holder (top rim of funnel assembly 22, capable of holding filter bag) for holding a pour-over bag beneath the nozzle assembly (spray head 78), the pour-over bag having an opening configured to receive a beverage precursor (the top rim is capable of holding a filter bag with an open top), wherein the pour-over bag hangs from the holder with the opening oriented toward the nozzle assembly (the upper rim is capable of holding a pour-over bag with an opening facing nozzle assembly 78, in much the way the filter 50 has an open top facing nozzle 78), the nozzle assembly pours the fluid (80, ¶35) into the pour-over bag through the opening, and the fluid (88) flows through the beverage precursor and through the pour-over bag into a cup (container 86, ¶35) positioned beneath the pour-over bag.
Lowe does not disclose, but one would expect such a coffee maker to have:
a reservoir positioned within the case for containing a fluid;
a pump positioned within the case for moving the fluid from the reservoir to the nozzle assembly;
a heating element positioned within the case for heating the fluid;
PNG
media_image2.png
785
848
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bielfeldt teaches:
a coffee maker having a filter paper (col 4 lines 4-6) formed as a hanging (col 5 lines 36-44) bag that hangs from an annular collar 10 (col 4 lines 50-56). The coffee maker features:
a reservoir (tank 114, col 4 lines 45-46) positioned within the case for containing a fluid;
a pump (102) positioned within the case for moving the fluid from the reservoir to the nozzle assembly (brewing head 2, outlet openings 3);
a heating element (110) positioned within the case for heating the fluid;
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coffee maker of Lowe by including a reservoir to store water, a pump to move water, and a heating element to heat water, as taught by Bielfeldt to provide hot water for brewing coffee.
Further, it appears that the coffee filter bag is not positively recited. To the extent to which the limitation “the pour-over bag hangs from the holder” affects the structure of the holder, it would be obvious to substitute the holder portions of Lowe configured to hold a conical filter with a filter holder configured to hold a hanging bag, as shown in Bielfeldt, because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Both holders perform the function of holding a filter paper. One of ordinary skill could have made such a substitution to achieve predictable results because both references deal with filter paper holders in the environment of a coffee maker. This substitution is limited to the part of the holder that holds the filter and does not affect the function of Lowe to control the flow of water into and out of the funnel assembly 22 to control the steep time (¶7).
Regarding claim 2, the coffee maker of Lowe as modified by the typical components and hanging bag support of Bielfeldt teaches:
a first level detector (Lowe: 151, ¶60) for detecting a level of the fluid within the pour-over bag.
Regarding claim 3, the coffee maker of Lowe as modified by the typical components and hanging bag support of Bielfeldt teaches:
the first level detector comprises at least one temperature detector (Lowe: ¶60 “thermal”).
Regarding claim 4, the coffee maker of Lowe as modified by the typical components and hanging bag support of Bielfeldt teaches:
at least one temperature detector (Lowe: 151, see Fig 3) is positioned proximate a top of the pour-over bag (near the top of 22 in Fig 3) and is configured to detect a temperature of the pour-over bag as the nozzle assembly pours the fluid into the pour-over bag (¶60), and wherein the at least one temperature detector is configured to [stop the flow of water]…when the temperature of the pour-over bag exceeds a first predetermined temperature (In the context of pumping hot water into the filter and using a thermal sensor to detect the height as discussed in Lowe ¶60, it is evident that a high temperature corresponds to a more full filter. Lowe further discloses operating the valve to prevent overflow, see ¶59.).
Lowe does not explicitly disclose that stopping the flow of water into the filter comprises:
turn off the pump
Bielfeldt teaches that a pump brings water to the brewing head and nozzle. Thus, when the valve of Low is closed, it would also be obvious to stop the pump in conjunction with closing the valve to stop the flow of water into the filter while conserving energy and avoiding damage to the pump.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowe (US 20040221724) in view of Bielfeldt (US 6,006,655), and further in view of Alexander (US 20180360264).
Regarding claim 5, the coffee maker of Lowe as modified by the typical components and hanging bag support of Bielfeldt teaches:
at least one temperature detector comprises a first temperature detector (Lowe: 151, ¶60).
Lowe and Bielfeldt do not teach:
the first level detector further comprises a second temperature detector positioned proximate a bottom of the pour-over bag and configured to detect the temperature of the pour-over bag as the nozzle assembly pours the fluid into the pour-over bag, and wherein the second temperature detector is configured to turn on the pump when the temperature of the pour-over bag decreases below a second predetermined temperature.
Alexander teaches:
a method of determining the level of a hot beverage by using multiple temperature sensors arranged along the height of a vessel (¶441). The sensos may be located outside of a sidewall of the vessel (¶441, see Fig 50A). Where there is a substantial temperature difference between two adjacent sensors, the hot liquid level is determined to be between those sensors (¶442-¶443). The arrangement is applicable to a variety of food handling containers (¶445).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the coffee maker of Lowe by including additional temperature sensors arranged along the height of the funnel assembly 22 of Lowe, as taught by Alexander, to obtain the benefit of determining a more precise liquid level. Since Lowe discloses that a high liquid level stops the flow of liquid to prevent overflowing, it follows that a low liquid level, corresponding to a lower temperature at one of the lower temperature sensors, would be factor in causing the flow of water to start. In coffee maker of Lowe as modified by Bielfeldt, starting the flow of water requires starting the pump of Bielfeldt and opening the valve of Lowe.
Regarding claim 6, the coffee maker of Lowe as modified by the typical components and hanging bag support of Bielfeldt, and the sensors of Alexander teaches:
the first temperature detector (Lowe 151, see Fig 3) is positioned above the holder (top rim of 22).
Regarding claim 7, the coffee maker of Lowe as modified by the typical components and hanging bag support of Bielfeldt, and the sensors of Alexander teaches:
the second temperature detector is positioned below the holder (as taught by Alexander, the temperature sensors are arranged along the height of the vessel to be sensed).
Regarding claim 8, the coffee maker of Lowe as modified by the typical components and hanging bag support of Bielfeldt, and the sensors of Alexander teaches:
at least one of the first and second temperature detectors comprise at least one of a thermopile infrared sensor, thermistor (Alexander: ¶441 “Negative Temperature Coefficient (NTC) thermistors”) or thermocouple.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alexander (US 20180360264) teaches a drinking vessel with a plurality of temperature sensors vertically spaced apart. The “control circuitry 5080 can, based on the information sensed by the plurality of sensors 5016, determine the differential in temperature between any two adjacent sensors. Where such differential exceeds a certain amount (e.g., 5 degrees F., 10 degrees F., 15 degrees F.) and/or indicates a temperature higher than ambient by a certain amount, the control circuitry 5080 can determine that the liquid level in the chamber 5015 is between said two sensors” (¶442).
Streeter (US 20050126401) teaches a temperature transducer in a heated water tank of a coffee brewer to control the filling by a pump. “The transducer 43 will emit a control signal 45 when heated water displaced from the lower tank compartment 12b reaches level L'. If the brew signal 60 selects the partial volume provided at level L', the controller 58 will react to the control signal 45 by deactivating the water pump 36 during stage (iv).” (¶32).
Chen (US 20170332834) teaches “Once all the heated water goes to the filter basket (5) and the hot water chamber (2) becomes empty, the electronic temperature sensor will detect a drop in temperature that” adjusts valves to cause refilling of the heating chamber with cold water (¶26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights