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 .
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 limitation(s) is/are: “counter pressure means” and “bypass means” in claims 1 and 13, “elastic return means” in claims 3 and 12, “drive means” in claim 4, “a control and command unit” in claim 5, “connection and sealing elements” in claim 7, “first sealing means”, “second sealing means” and “support element” in claim 8, and “actuator element” in claim 15.
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. As noticed in paragraph 0032, the counter pressure means comprise a cream whipper valve disposed along the first branch and the bypass means comprise an interception valve which can be selectively activated to open or close the second branch. As noticed in paragraph 0155, it is possible to use a simple metal helical spring as elastic means 67. As noticed in paragraph 0098, the bypass means can comprise drive means 134, for example a mechanical actuator or suchlike (applies to the drive means and the actuator element). As noticed paragraph 0116, the connection and sealing elements 49 comprise first sealing means 50 configured to cooperate with an internal surface of the transit channel 42 of the solenoid valve 34, and second sealing means 51 disposed, during use, outside the valve body 41 and configured to be positioned in contact with the latter. As noticed in paragraph 0119, 0125-0126, the first sealing means 50 comprise an annular portion 52, 53 having a larger section than the average external section of the tubular body 47, with sizes mating with the transit channel 42. According to other embodiments, with reference to fig. 6, a pair of annular portions can also be provided, for example a pair of gaskets 55, located adjacent to each other. According to other variants, the first sealing means 50 can also comprise a combination of two or more of either annular portions 52, head portions 53 or gaskets 55, disposed between the head end 47a and the second sealing means 51. As noticed in paragraph 0127, the second sealing means can comprise an abutment shoulder 51, having a section larger than an entry aperture 56 of the transit channel 42 of the solenoid valve 34, which abuts on the valve body 41, against the edge of the entry aperture 56. As noticed in paragraph 0130, the support element 57 can be U-shaped, with a bottom wall 58 and two lateral walls 59 parallel to each other, each suitable to cooperate with an abutment shoulder 51 of a respective rapid connection tube 40.
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 Objections
Claims 2, 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, the limitation “a first branch in which said counter pressure means are provided having a cream whipper valve, and by a second branch in which said bypass means are provided comprising an interception valve” should read “a first branch in which said counter pressure means is provided having a cream whipper valve, and by a second branch in which said bypass means is provided comprising an interception valve”.
In claim 6, the limitation “The automatic machine as in claim 1, comprisinq at least said second low- pressure path has, at least for most of its extension, a passage section for the beverage that is substantially constant” should read “The automatic machine as in claim 1, wherein said second low- pressure path has, at least for most of its extension, a passage section for the beverage that is substantially constant”.
Claim 8 should depend from claim 7 instead of claim 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-6, 9 and 11-13 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 4 recites the limitation "the same circuit branch" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “control and command unit” (claim 5) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. In this case, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(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.
The term “substantially” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what degree is the passage section substantially constant and substantially free of restrictions or variations in diameter.
Regarding claim 9, 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).
In claim 11, the limitation “wherein said tubular body has an internal channel having a substantially constant section, preferably equal to, or greater than, 3mm” is unclear if the 3mm is the diameter, the length, or what dimension of the tubular body.
The term “substantially” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what degree is a section of the internal channel substantially constant.
In claim 12, the limitation “a delivery valve located downstream of said entry aperture” is unclear as it seems from Figure 1 that the delivery valve 26 is located upstream of the entry aperture 22.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the exit duct" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 6, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CORTI (US 2014/0150664).
Regarding claim 1, CORTI teaches an automatic machine (Fig. 1) for preparing coffee beverages, comprising a brewing unit (1) provided with a brewing chamber (24) connected to a feed circuit (6) for the water by means of an entry aperture (aperture formed by inlet conduit 6) and to an exit circuit (56) for the beverage by means of an exit aperture (aperture formed by 56), comprising a valve unit (57, 45, 47, 8 and 9), provided with an entry connected to said exit circuit (as shown in Fig. 1-5) and with an exit connected to a delivery duct (8 and 9), configured to supply a first high-pressure exit path (path formed by 8) comprising counter pressure means (47) and a second low-pressure exit path (path formed by 9) comprising bypass means (valve 57 acts as a bypass means; para. 0041) selectively drivable in order to bypass the action of said counter pressure means and make the beverage pass in said second exit path (para. 0031).
Regarding claim 6, CORTI teaches the automatic machine as in claim 1, wherein said second low- pressure path has, at least for most of its extension, a passage section (passage formed by conduit 9) for the beverage that is substantially constant, that is, substantially free of restrictions or variations in diameter that could cause turbulences and generate air bubbles (as shown in Fig. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, CORTI teaches the automatic machine as in claim 1, comprising a delivery valve (10) located upstream of said entry aperture (as shown in Fig. 1), comprising an entry aperture and an exit aperture for a fluid (as shown in Fig. 1), a chamber (inherently present in a solenoid valve) that puts said entry and exit apertures in selective communication (it is known that’s how a solenoid valve works), a housing compartment (inherently present in a solenoid valve), a piston disposed in said compartment (inherently present in a solenoid valve), which is mobile between a closing position in which it prevents the transit of the fluid and an opening position in which it allows the passage of the fluid (it is known that’s how a solenoid valve works), and elastic return means associated with said piston (inherently present in a solenoid valve), outside said chamber (inherently present in a solenoid valve), wherein even in the closed condition of said delivery valve and in the condition of maximum release of the elastic means in said compartment there remains in any case defined a free space defining a minimum volume of said chamber (inherently present in a solenoid valve).
Regarding claim 13, CORTI teaches a method to prepare a coffee beverage by brewing a dose of coffee powder in a brewing chamber (24), wherein said method comprises: receiving an indication of a type of coffee beverage chosen between a beverage to be prepared at high pressure having organoleptic characteristics similar to an "Espresso" coffee (ES; para. 0002; 0014-0015; 0052), and a beverage to be prepared at low pressure having organoleptic characteristics similar to a "Drip" coffee (FB; para. 0002; 0014-0015; 0031; 0041); feeding water to said brewing chamber through an entry aperture (aperture formed by inlet conduit 6) and making the beverage exit from said brewing chamber through an exit aperture (aperture formed by 56) connected to an exit circuit (56); and making the coffee beverage transit through a valve unit (57, 45, 47, 8 and 9) downstream of the exit duct (as shown in Fig. 1-5), wherein, if the preparation of a beverage at high pressure is required, said method provides to deliver the beverage along a high-pressure exit path (path formed by 8) of said valve unit making it transit through counter pressure means (47) and, if the preparation of a beverage at low pressure is required, said method provides to drive bypass means (valve 57 acts as a bypass means; para. 0041) of said valve unit in order to bypass the action of said counter pressure means and deliver the coffee beverage along a low-pressure exit path (path formed by 9).
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 2, 3, 7-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CORTI in view of FISCHER (US 2013/0014649).
Regarding claim 2, CORTI teaches the automatic machine as in claim 1, wherein between said entry and said exit are provided said first high-pressure exit path and said second low-pressure exit path which are defined respectively by a first branch in which said counter pressure means are provided (as shown in Fig. 2 and 4), and by a second branch in which said bypass means are provided comprising an interception valve (valve 57 acts as a bypass means; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4).
CORTI fails to disclose wherein the counter pressure means has a cream whipper valve.
FISCHER teaches an automatic machine for preparing coffee beverages (title) comprising a counter pressure means (16; as shown in Fig. 1-4) having a cream whipper valve (pressure/crema valve 16; abstract; para. 0005; 0037-0038; as shown in Fig. 1-4)
Therefore, it would have it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the counter pressure means of CORTI, with FISCHER, by providing a pressure/crema valve as the counter pressure means to regulate pressure for creating a rich and creamy crema on top of the espresso coffee.
Regarding claim 3, CORTI and FISCHER combined teach the automatic machine as in claim 2, wherein said cream whipper valve (FISCHER; 16) comprises an entry aperture (FISCHER; aperture where 17 is connected) and an exit aperture (FISCHER; aperture where 18 is connected) for a fluid (FISCHER; as shown in Fig. 1-4), a chamber that puts said entry and exit apertures in selective communication (FISCHER; para. 0039), a housing compartment (FISCHER; as shown in Fig. 1-4), a piston (FISCHER; ball-shaped piston of 16; as shown in Fig. 1-4) disposed in said compartment (FISCHER; as shown in Fig. 1-4), which is mobile between a closing position in which it prevents the transit of the fluid and an opening position in which it allows the passage of the fluid (FISCHER: para. 0037-0039), and elastic return means (FISCHER; spring of 16) associated with said piston, outside said chamber (FISCHER; as shown in Fig. 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, CORTI and FISCHER combined teach the automatic machine as in claim 2, comprising a rapid connection tube (conduit 9) connected to said interception valve (CORTI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4) and defining said second branch (CORTI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4), said tube comprising a tubular body provided with a first head end (CORTI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4) able, during use, to be inserted inside a transit channel provided in a valve body of said interception valve (CORTI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4), and a second end, opposite the first end (CORTI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4), and connection and sealing elements integrated with said tubular body (CORTI; as shown in Fig. 2and 4; para. 0022; 0033).
CORTI and FISCHER combined fail to disclose more than one rapid connection tube.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide more than one rapid connection tube, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, CORTI and FISCHER combined teach the automatic machine as in claim 6, wherein said connection and sealing elements comprise first sealing means (CORTI; 62) disposed in the proximity of said first head end and configured to cooperate with an internal surface of said transit channel (CORTI; as shown in Fig. 4), and second sealing means (CORTI; sealing ring between 39 and 35) disposed, during use, outside of and in contact with said valve body (CORTI; thru 35) and configured to cooperate with a support element (CORTI; step of 57 where 62 rests) of said interception valve (CORTI; as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, CORTI and FISHER combined teach all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, wherein said connection and sealing elements and said tubular body are made in a single body and with the same, at least partly flexible, material, such as a silicone material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the connection and sealing elements, and the tubular body as a single body with the same material, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article, which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together, involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). The term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding.
Regarding claim 10, CORTI and FISCHER combined teach the automatic machine as in claim 7, characterized in that said tubular body comprises a component (CORTI; body forming conduit 9), provided with said connection and sealing elements (CORTI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4) and configured to be inserted inside the transit channel (CORTI; para. 0022; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4).
CORTI and FISCHER combined fail to disclose wherein said tubular body is made in two components, a first component and a second component configured to be coupled to the first component.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the tubular body in two components coupled to each other, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, CORTI and FISCHER combined teach the automatic machine as in claim 7, wherein said tubular body has an internal channel (CORTI; channel form by conduit 9) having a substantially constant section (CORTI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4).
CORTI and FISCHER combined fail to disclose wherein the internal channel is equal to, or greater than, 3mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the claimed internal channel dimension range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, CORTI teaches the method as in claim 13, wherein for the preparation of a beverage at high pressure it provides to drive an interception valve (valve 57 acts as an interception valve) disposed along a second branch of said valve unit (as shown in Fig. 2 and 4) so as to keep it closed and force the beverage to transit through another valve (47) disposed along a first branch (para. 0031; 0047; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4), and for the preparation of a beverage at low pressure it provides to drive said interception valve in order to open said second branch allowing the beverage to transit through it (para. 0041; 0049; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4).
CORTI fails to disclose the another valve is a cream whipper valve.
FISCHER teaches an automatic machine for preparing coffee beverages (title) comprising a cream whipper valve (pressure/crema valve 16; abstract; para. 0005; 0037-0038; as shown in Fig. 1-4).
Therefore, it would have it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the counter pressure means of CORTI, with FISCHER, by providing a pressure/crema valve as the another valve to regulate pressure for creating a rich and creamy crema on top of the espresso coffee.
Claims 4, 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CORTI in view of REYHANLOO (US 2013/0295244).
Regarding claim 4, CORTI teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, wherein said high-pressure exit path and said low-pressure exit path share the same circuit branch, wherein said counter pressure means comprise a cream whipper valve and said bypass means comprise drive means selectively commandable to keep said cream whipper valve in a non-active configuration.
REYHANLOO teaches an automatic machine for preparing coffee beverages (abstract), wherein said high-pressure exit path and said low-pressure exit path share the same circuit branch (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein said counter pressure means comprise a cream whipper valve (pressure/crema valve comprising 200, 201 and 202) and said bypass means comprise drive means (211) selectively commandable to keep said cream whipper valve in a non-active configuration (para. 0038-0040).
Therefore, it would have it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the high-pressure exit path, the low-pressure exit path, the counter pressure means and the bypass means of CORTI, with REYHANLOO, by providing the high-pressure exit path and said low-pressure exit path in the same circuit branch, a cream whipper valve as the counter pressure means, and a drive means as the bypass means, as an alternative to the separate paths, the non-return valve and the switch valves of CORTI, to minimize the machine complexity and size.
Regarding claim 5, CORTI teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for explicitly disclosing, comprising a control and command unit configured to receive an indication regarding a type of beverage to be prepared, and consequently drive said bypass means.
REYHANLOO teaches an automatic machine for preparing coffee beverages (abstract) comprising a control and command unit (210) configured to receive an indication regarding a type of beverage to be prepared, and consequently drive said bypass means (para. 0038-0041).
Therefore, it would have it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic machine of CORTI, with REYHANLOO, by providing a control and command unit, to improve operation of the valves and therefore the beverage quality.
Regarding claim 15, CORTI teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 13, except for, wherein for the preparation of a beverage at high pressure it provides to drive an actuator element so as to put a cream whipper valve of said valve unit in an active conformation, suitable to define said high-pressure exit path, and for the preparation of a beverage at low pressure it provides to drive said actuator element so as to put said cream whipper valve in a non-active conformation, defining said low-pressure exit path.
REYHANLOO teaches a method to prepare a coffee beverage (para. 0002), wherein for the preparation of a beverage at high pressure it provides to drive (by 211) an actuator element (201) so as to put a cream whipper valve (pressure/crema valve 200, 201, 202) of said valve unit in an active conformation, suitable to define said high-pressure exit path (para. 0038-0040), and for the preparation of a beverage at low pressure it provides to drive said actuator element so as to put said cream whipper valve in a non-active conformation, defining said low-pressure exit path (para. 0038-0040).
Therefore, it would have it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of CORTI, with REYHANLOO, by driving an actuator element to activate a cream whipper valve defining a high pressure exit path, and to not activate a cream whipper valve defining a low pressure exit path, to minimize the machine complexity and size.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CORTI in view of OH (US 2020/0121115).
Regarding claim 16, CORTI teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for, wherein for the preparation of a beverage at low pressure it provides to use a first dose of coffee powder, and to feed the water with a flow rate comprised between 2 and 4.2 cc/sec, so as to guarantee a correct extraction of the aromas, and a total percentage of dissolved solids comprised between about 1.30% and 1.55%, while for the preparation of a beverage at high pressure, the method provides to use a second quantity of coffee powder, greater than the first quantity, and to reduce the flow rate of the water to about 1cc/sec, so that the water remains in contact with the coffee powder for a greater amount of time.
OH teaches a method to prepare a coffee beverage (abstract), wherein for the preparation of a beverage at low pressure it provides to use a first dose of coffee powder (Table 4C; coffee 4 oz; amount of coffee powder is 4 oz), and to feed the water with a flow rate comprised between 2 and 4.2 cc/sec (Table 4C; coffee 4 oz; 1 oz/8s = 3.70 cc/sec), so as to guarantee a correct extraction of the aromas (para. 0097), and a total percentage of dissolved solids comprised between about 1.15% and 1.35% (para.0005; Fig. 1), while for the preparation of a beverage at high pressure, the method provides to use a second quantity of coffee powder (Table 3C; expresso 4 oz; amount of coffee powder is 3 oz), and to reduce the flow rate of the water to about 2.96 cc/sec (Table 3C; expresso 4 oz; 1 oz/10s = 2.96 cc/sec), so that the water remains in contact with the coffee powder for a greater amount of time (para. 0097).
CORTI and OH combined fail to disclose wherein the second coffee powder quantity is greater than the first coffee powder quantity, and wherein the flow rate of water is reduced to about 1 cc/sec.
Therefore, it would have it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed coffee powder quantity and flow rate for high pressure beverage, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2022/0304497, US 2015/0342396 and US 2003/0034073.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 01/24/2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761