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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character 28’ has been used to designate both rotary motor and closing position (see para. 0025). 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “ice-feeding unit” and “ice-feeding device.” The claim language should appear consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 1 recites “the outlet opening of the outlet unit” and “a plurality of outlet openings.” The claim should be “an outlet opening of the plurality of outlet openings,” or words to that effect.
Claim 1 recites “this channel” and should, instead, recite “the ice channel” for consistency.
Claim 2 recites “ice-feeding device” which should be consistent with claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “ice-feeding device” which should be consistent with claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the outlet opening.” The claim should be amended consistent with claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “the outlet opening.” The claim should be amended consistent with claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “the tube section” and “pipe section” while claim 3 recites “tube piece opening.” The claim language should be consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 7 recites “the tube section” while claim 3 recites “tube piece opening.” The claim language should be consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 7 recites “the outlet opening.” The claim should be amended consistent with claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “the pivoting flap” which should be “a pivoting flap” as claim 3 makes no mention of a pivoting flap. The pivoting flap is introduced in claim 4 and claim 8 depends from claim 3.
Claim 8 recites “the tube section” while claim 3 recites “tube piece opening.” The claim language should be consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 8 recites “the outflow tube” which should be “an outflow tube” as claim 3 makes no mention of an outflow tube. The outflow tube is introduced in claim 4 and claim 8 depends from claim 3.
Claim 9 recites “the flap” which should be “a flap” as claim 3 makes no mention of a flap. The pivoting flap is introduced in claim 4 and claim 9 depends from claim 3.
Claim 9 recites “the tube section” while claim 3 recites “tube piece opening.” The claim language should be consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 9 recites “the outflow tube” which should be “an outflow tube” as claim 3 makes no mention of an outflow tube. The outflow tube is introduced in claim 4 and claim 9 depends from claim 3.
Claim 10 identifies the plurality of outlet openings using reference characters 31, 32, 33, and 34 while claim 1 identifies the same using 31 and 35. While the reference characters form no basis of the claims’ scope, this still rises to an inconsistency in the claims that should be addressed.
Claim 12 recites “the pivoting flap” which should be “a pivoting flap” as claim 3 makes no mention of a pivoting flap. The pivoting flap is introduced in claim 4 and claim 12 depends from claim 3.
Claim 12 recites “the outflow tube” which should be “an outflow tube” as claim 3 makes no mention of an outflow tube. The outflow tube is introduced in claim 4 and claim 12 depends from claim 3.
Claim 13 recites “the flap” which should be “a flap” as claim 3 makes no mention of a flap. The pivoting flap is introduced in claim 4 and claim 13 depends from claim 3.
Claim 13 recites “the support” and should, instead, recite “a support.”
Claim 15 recites “the part pieces” while claim 1 recites “part sections.” The claim language should appear consistent throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: "measuring means” in claim 2 and 14.
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 limitation “measuring means” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use term “means” coupled with functional language “…detecting the quantity of ice let through or the number of ice cubes…” and “…the quantity of ice allowed through or the number of ice cubes can be measured…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 2 and 14 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Paragraph 0024 details measuring means 30 “preferably comprising a light barrier.”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-15 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a beverage dispensing machine for dispensing beverages “in particular of coffee, milk, chocolate, and/or mixed beverages” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear from the claim language if what follows “in particular” is merely exemplary, and therefore optional, or required limitations.
Claim 1 recites that the ice feeding device is arranged above the coffee machine unit and “from this, a tubular ice channel leads to the outlet opening of the outlet unit” which renders the claim indefinite as “from this” creates confusion regarding the relative relationship between the ice channel, coffee machine, and the outlet opening. For instance, it is unclear if “from this” means the tubular ice channel leads from the ice feeding device to the outlet opening or the tubular ice channel leads from the coffee machine unit to the outlet opening.
Claim 2 recites “the specified quantity” which lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear whether the “specified quantity” refers to the “quantity of ice let through,” to the “number of ice cubes,” to both, or to either.
Claim 3 recites “ a tube piece opening lower down into the outlet opening” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by “opening lower down.” It is not clear if the intention is for the opening of the tube piece to be lower relative to some other structure or if the tube piece itself opens at a position lower than some other structure. In any event, it appears that “lower down” is relative to the positioning of some other structure. However, it is unclear what that relative relationship is.
Claim 4 recites “a branch element into an outflow tube, through which the ice can be conveyed” which renders the claim indefinite. The use of “into an outflow tube” creates confusion as it is unclear in what way the outflow tube structurally relates to the branch element. For instance, does the branch element reside, or is positioned, within the outflow tube or does the branch element branch into the outflow tube?
Claim 4 recites “into a catchment container or the like” which renders the claim indefinite because the claim include(s elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites, in part, “part length with a rectangular cross-section” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by a part length having a rectangular cross section. Specifically, the claim requires a part length, and not any part or collections of parts, to have a rectangular cross section. In other words, the length is what is claimed as having the rectangular cross section. Under this understanding, it is unclear in what way a length has a rectangular cross section. Further, it is unclear if the intention is for the claimed structures (i.e., upper tube piece, branch valve, tube section) to have, either alone or in combination, a rectangular cross section or at least partially define a rectangular cross section.
Claim 9 recites “an extension of the slide surface” which renders the claim indefinite as “the slide surface” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what slide surface is being referenced.
Claim 10 recites “the additional outlet opening for ice” which renders the claim indefinite as “the additional outlet opening” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 10 depends directly from claim 1 which recites, in part, a tubular ice channel connected to the ice feeding device and to the outlet opening. It is unclear if “the additional outlet opening” refers to the opening recited in claim 1 (since both are claimed as being for ice) or if there is a second outlet opening for ice.
Regarding claim 11, 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).
Claim 12 recites that the upper tube piece, the branch valve, the pivoting flap, the tube section, and the outflow tube “are in each case connected to one another in such a way that in each case they are connected together or secured in a detachable manner” which renders the claim indefinite. The aforementioned structures are defined as being “connected to one another” in alternative ways: 1) connected together, or 2) secured in a detachable manner. The claim can, therefore, be properly interpreted to mean that the recited structures are: 1) connected to one another in such a way that in each case they are connected together and 2) connected to one another in such a way that in each case they are secured in a detachable manner. As a result of the alternative limitations, the scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, the “connected to one another in such a way that in each case they are connected” limitation appears to be merely repetitive and it is unclear if this is the intended scenario.
Claim 14 recites a measuring means that “preferably comprises a light barrier” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear from the claim language if what follows “preferably” is required or merely optional.
Claim 15 recites that the part pieces of the ice channel are made of plastic parts “preferably of silicone or similar materials” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if “silicone or similar materials” is a required limitation and, if so, what the metes and bounds of “similar materials” would be. Additionally, silicone is a polymer and not a plastic which further compounds the confusion of the scope of the claim. In other words, since silicone is not a plastic it is not clear what the scope of “similar materials” would be.
Dependent claims not explicitly detailed above remain indefinite for inheriting the above deficiencies based on their respective dependency.
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(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US2009/0293733) in view of Bertone (US 2010/0242497).
Regarding claim 1, Martin teaches a beverage-dispensing machine for dispensing beverages (para. 0001; Figs. 2-3 and 17-18), in particular of coffee, milk, chocolate, and/or mixed beverages, with a cabinet housing (housing shown in Figure 3 and taken as defined by the exterior surfaces of the dispensing machine), arranged in which are at least one coffee machine unit (brew module 21 including coffee brewer assembly 78-para. 0109), a milk-frothing device (23 para. 0047; foamed milk produced by mixing milk with steam. See also steam boiler and para. 0159 for producing frothed milk), a water-heating device (water boiler 400), an ice-feeding unit (Fig. 2; ice module 24 with ice supplied via conduit 34), and an outlet unit (taken as respective outlets of the conduits extending from 21, 23, 24, and 26 and that connect to the fill head 38) in the lower region of the coffee machine unit (fill head 38, and the respective outlets, are below 21), accessible from the front side (The claim does not require any specific structure, for instance, a removable door or opened housing. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language includes any means by which the outlets are capable of being accessed. In this case the outlets of Martin can be accessed by removing a portion of the housing), with a plurality of outlet openings (respective opening at the end of the conduits connecting to head 38 for each device) for the respective beverages.
Martin does not explicitly teach that the outlets are accessible from the front side. Additionally, Martin does not teach that the ice-feeding device is arranged above the coffee machine unit and that from this, a tubular ice channel leads to the outlet opening of the outlet unit, and that the ice can be let down through this channel, wherein this tubular ice channel is composed of part sections which can be detached from one another.
However, Martin does teach its ice-feeding device having some conduit or channel (taken as the path the ice travels along 34) that leads to the outlet opening (outlet of 34 that connects to fill head 38) and that ice can be let down through this channel.
With respect to the accessibility from the front side, Martin teaches that the housing can be used for storing containers (402; para. 0107). As these containers are intended to be accessed for use and/or replacement, it is reasonable to conclude that the housing, at least in the lower region, includes an access point for placing and retrieving the containers.
While Martin does not teach that the housing has a removable front panel or a access point, such distinction does not provide a patentable difference over the prior art.
Including an access point (i.e., a removable door or panel) in order to access the outlets and beverage devices would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to, for instance, perform maintenance.
Furthermore, allowing access to the inner region of the housing is well known in the prior art. For instance, Bertone relates to an apparatus for producing beverages and teaches such an arrangement (Fig. 2) for allowing access.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Martin, with Bertone, by modifying the front panel of the housing of Martin to be removable for in doing so would provide access to the inner region of the housing, which contains the beverage devices, conduits, outlets, etc., which would allow a user/operator to perform maintenance See also MPEP 2144.04-V-C.
Additionally, Bertone teaches an ice maker (Fig. 12; 39) coupled to a tubular ice channel (tubular channel defined by tubular element 220, 2422, and 2424) which leads to an outlet opening (para. 0089), and that the ice can be let down through this channel, wherein this tubular ice channel is composed of part sections which can be detached from one another (Fig. 3 shows the elements detached from one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Martin, with Bertone, by replacing the conduit connecting the ice module to the fill head of Martin, with the tubular ice channel of Bertone, for in doing so would provide an alternative means of guiding ice to the outlet to produce a beverage using ice.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Martin, with Bertone, by modifying tubular ice channel of modified Martin to be composed of detachable part sections for in doing so would allow a user/operator to perform maintenance by, for instance, replacing damage sections. See also MPEP 2144.04-V-C.
The combination of Martin and Bertone teaches substantially the claimed invention including the dispensing machine having a cabinet housing containing a coffee machine unit, a milk frothing device, a water heating device, an ice feeding unit, and an outlet unit (Martin, as detailed above) and a tubular ice channel leading from the ice-feeding device to the outlet opening (Martin as modified by Bertone to couple the tubular ice channel of Bertone to the ice module of Martin. This would produce an arrangement in which the tubular ice channel leads from the ice module to the outlet so that ice can be used to produce a beverage using ice).
The combination is silent on the ice-feeding device being arranged above the coffee machine unit.
Martin, as shown in Figure 2, illustrates the ice module (24) and brew module (21) being, more or less, level with one another. While Figure 2 is understood to only be a schematic diagram not indicative of any actual relative dimensions, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ice module and brew module could only be arranged in one of three arrangements: 1) the ice module and brew module are level with each other, 2) the ice module is above the brew module, and 3) the ice module is below the brew module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Martin, with Bertone, by modifying the relative positioning between the ice module and brew module of Martin, to have the ice module arranged above the brew module, for in doing so would amount to an obvious matter of design choice involving the rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of the beverage dispensing machine. See MPEP 2144.04-VI-C.
Furthermore, Martin details a beverage machine in which ice can be supplied to produce an iced coffee beverage. Those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there are a finite number of predictable solutions to providing ice to a beverage dispenser. As detailed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ice module and brew module could only be arranged in one of three arrangements: 1) the ice module and brew module are level with each other, 2) the ice module is above the brew module, and 3) the ice module is below the brew module. Those of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the three indicated arrangements with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143-I-E.
Regarding claim 11, the primary combination, as applied to claim 1, teaches each claimed limitation and further teaches [Martin] wherein arranged in the cabinet housing (Figs. 17-18), beneath the outlet unit, is a standing surface (907) of a drip container (908), accessible from outside, for a container (6) such as a cup or beaker.
Claim(s) 2-7, 9, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US2009/0293733) in view of Bertone (US 2010/0242497), and in further view of Brandon-Jones (US2022/0146177; relying on earlier effective filing date).
Regarding claim 2, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for the machine being characterized in that the ice-feeding device is controlled in such a way that a specific quantity of ice or a specific number of ice cubes are let down in portions through the ice channel to the outlet unit, wherein a measuring means is integrated into the ice channel for detecting the quantity of ice let through or the number of ice cubes, by means of which the ice-feeding device is stopped when the specified quantity of ice is attained.
Brandon-Jones relates to an ice dispensing system and is concerned with providing a determined amount of ice for a beverage (para. 0005) and teaches ice-feeding device is controlled (via controller; para. 0019) in such a way that a specific quantity of ice or a specific number of ice cubes are let down in portions through the ice channel (chute 102) to an outlet unit (105/106), wherein a measuring means (103) is integrated into the ice channel (Fig. 1) for detecting the quantity of ice let through or the number of ice cubes, by means of which the ice-feeding device is stopped when the specified quantity of ice is attained (para. 0026; optical sensor 103 directs an optical beam through the chute such that ice moving past the sensor will break the beam. This information can be used by the controller to calculate the amount of ice that has passed the sensor. Based on this, the controller moves flap 104 to stop the flow of ice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Martin, as modified by Bertone, with Brandon-Jones by adding to the dispensing machine and ice feeding device/ice channel of modified Martin, with the controlled metering of ice using an optical sensor taught by Brandon-Jones, for in doing so would provide an automatic means for accurately metering a determined amount of ice.
Regarding claim 3, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including wherein the part elements of the ice channel (Bertone) are formed from an upper tubular piece (220), connected to the ice-feeding device (39 via 224) and a tube piece opening lower down into the outlet opening (tube piece 2424)
The combination is silent on a branch valve.
PNG
media_image1.png
668
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Brandon-Jones (annotated)
Brandon-Jones relates to an ice dispensing system and is concerned with providing a determined amount of ice for a beverage (para. 0005) and teaches the part elements of the ice channel (102) are formed from an upper tubular piece (annotated above, taken as the upper portion of chute 102), connected to the ice-feeding device (101), a branch valve (annotated above; taken as the tubes portions 108 and upper openings of 105/106 along with controllable flap 104), and a tube piece opening lower down into the outlet opening (tube piece opening taken as the upper opening of 105 or 106 that are selectively open/closed by flap 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Martin, as modified by Bertone, with Brandon-Jones by adding to the ice feeding device/ice channel of modified Martin, with the controlled metering of ice using an optical sensor taught by Brandon-Jones, for in doing so would provide an automatic means for accurately metering a determined amount of ice, as well as, directing the flow of the ice to a desired location.
Regarding claim 4, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 3, and further teaches characterized in that allocated to the branch valve (Brandon-Jones, as detailed in claim 3) are a pivoting flap (flap 104) and a branch element (branch element taken as the diverting of 105/106) into an outflow tube (waste outlet 106), through which the ice can be conveyed off into a catchment container or the like (para. 0023; into a waste receptacle).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Brandon-Jones (annotated)
Regarding claim 5, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 4, and further teaches characterized [Brandon-Jones, as detailed above in claims 3 and 4] in that the upper tube piece (upper portion of chute 102), with its lower end (end of 102 connected to 108), and the outflow tube (106) connecting downstream of the branch valve, run approximately vertically and coaxially to one another (as shown in Fig. 1, approximately vertically and coaxially shown via dotted line), while the tube piece opening (tube piece openings taken as the upper openings of 105/106) into the outlet opening (lower outlets of 105/106) projects away from the branch valve at an angle of less than 90° (as shown in figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Brandon-Jones (annotated)
Regarding claim 6, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 3, and further teaches [Brandon-Jones] wherein at least the upper tube piece (upper section of 102), the branch valve (as annotated above), and the tube section (upper portion of tube 105 or 106) are provided in each case over a part length with a rectangular cross-section (the aforementioned upper tube piece, valve and tube section define a part length of the device, as shown in Fig. 1.), wherein the lower side of the pipe section forms a slide surface (ice can slide down tubes 105/106) for the ice.
While not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to modify the arrangement above to define a rectangular cross section as a matter of design choice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Martin, as modified by Bertone, with Brandon-Jones by changing the shape of the upper tube piece, branch valve, and tube section of modified Martin, to have or define a rectangular cross section, for in doing so would amount to a mere change in shape that would be an obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. See MPEP 2144.04-IV-B.
Regarding claim 7, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 3, and further teaches [Brandon-Jones] wherein the tube section (Note: claim 3 does not recite a tube section, nor does claim 1. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to refer to any tube section rather than a specific tube section. In this case, a tube section is taken as tube section 105 or 106) projects in linear fashion away from a support (outer walls) of the branch valve,
The combination is silent on the tube section curving and bending downward towards the outlet opening.
However, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Martin, as modified by Bertone, with Brandon-Jones by changing a portion of the shape of the tube section of modified Martin, to have a curved section that bends, for in doing so would amount to a mere change in shape that would be an obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. See MPEP 2144.04-IV-B.
Regarding claim 9, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 3, and further teaches [Brandon-Jones] wherein the flap (104)
Regarding claim 12, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 3, and further teaches [Brandon-Jones] wherein the upper tube piece (upper portion of 102), the branch valve (as annotated in claim 3), the pivoting flap (104) located in the valve, the tube section (tube 105), and the outflow tube (tube 106) of the ice channel are in each case connected to one another in such a way that in each case they are connected together (each of the aforementioned are connected together, either directly or indirectly) or secured in a detachable manner.
Regarding claim 13, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 3, and further teaches [Brandon-Jones] the support (taken as the external housing surrounding flap 104) allocated to the branch valve.
The primary combination does not explicitly teach a removable cover, which allows for the flap to be removed from the branch valve.
However, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Martin, as modified by Bertone and Brandon-Jones, by having the external surface of the branch valve of modified Martin, to be removable, for in doing so would allow a user/operator to perform maintenance by, for instance, replacing damage sections. See also MPEP 2144.04-V-C.
Regarding claim 14, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 13, except for at least one measuring means is contained in the support, downstream of the flap, which preferably comprises a light barrier, by means of which the quantity of ice allowed through or the number of ice cubes can be measured.
However, Brandon-Jones teaches at least one measuring means (103) is contained in the support, downstream of the flap (104), which preferably comprises a light barrier (considered an optional limitation), by means of which the quantity of ice allowed through or the number of ice cubes can be measured (para. 0026; “In some embodiments, the ice dispensing system includes a sensor that senses ice at a location other than the chute 102. For example, an ice sensor could be configured to detect ice that has collected in a receptacle. For example, a weight sensor may be provided in a receptacle supporting surface. Such a sensor may send a signal to the controller when a weight, that is associated with a preset desired amount of ice, has been detected. The controller may deactivate the ice dispensing element to stop dispensing ice when a preset amount of ice has been sensed by the ice sensor. The controller may deactivate the ice dispensing element to stop dispensing ice and, simultaneously or substantially simultaneously, move the ice directing element from the second position to the first position.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Martin, as modified by Bertone, with Brandon-Jones by adding to the dispensing machine and ice feeding device/ice channel, downstream of the flap, of modified Martin, with the controlled metering of ice using a weight sensor taught by Brandon-Jones, for in doing so would provide an automatic means for accurately metering a determined amount of ice.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US2009/0293733) in view of Bertone (US 2010/0242497), Brandon-Jones (US2022/0146177; relying on earlier effective filing date), and in further view of Aus Der Fuenten (US 2010/0199846).
Regarding claim 8, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 3, including [Branon-Jones] wherein the pivoting flap (104) being adjusted (via a controller, which pivots 104 based on information from sensor 103) at the branch valve into a closed position of either the tube section (Note: claim 3 does not recite a tube section, nor does claim 1. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to refer to any tube section rather than a specific tube section. In this case, a tube section is taken as tube section 105) or of the outflow tube (tube 106), wherein in a deenergized state, the flap (104) closes the tube section (105) (para. 0024, when not dispensing ice, the flap 104 may be in the first position that directs ice to 106. As such, the flap 104 closes tube section 105).
While Brandon-Jones teaches substantially the claimed invention including the flap pivoting between a first position and a second position in a controlled manner, Brandon-Jones is silent on the use of a motor to cause such motion.
Aus Der Fuenten relates to a beverage dispensing appliance (Title; Fig. 1) using an ice dispenser (2) and a brewing unit (3) and teaches using a motor (19) to rotate a disc (17) to direct ice along a path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Martin, as modified by Bertone and Brandon-Jones, with Aus Der Fuenten by replacing the mechanism responsible for causing the flap of pivot between the first position and the second position of modified Martin, to use a motor as taught by Aus Der Fuenten, for in doing so would amount to using a conventional mechanical structure for causing rotation. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider using a motor to cause the flap to pivot of the primary combination as in doing so would provide a well known mechanical system for causing rotation which can be controlled.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US2009/0293733) in view of Bertone (US 2010/0242497) and in further view of Sakthivel (US 20180299190)
Regarding claim 10, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the outlet unit, with the plurality of outlet openings for the respective outlet of the beverages, arranged next to one another in a nozzle pattern, and the additional outlet opening for ice, is provided with a larger opening cross-section than the outlet openings for the beverages.
Sakthivel relates to a beverage dispenser (para. 0001) and teaches an outlet unit with a plurality of outlet openings (outlet 152 for ice, outlet 150 for chilled water, and outlet 154 for heater water) for the respective outlet of the beverages, arranged next to one another in a nozzle pattern (Fig. 2), and the additional outlet opening for ice (ice outlet 152), is provided with a larger opening cross-section than the outlet openings for the beverages (Fig. 2 shows outlet 152 larger than outlets 150 and 154. Additionally, having a larger outlet for ice is implicitly disclosed as the outlets 150 and 154 are intended for liquids which need not be as large to accommodate chunks of ice.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Martin, as modified by Bertone, with Sakthivel by replacing the arrangement of the outlets of modified Martin, to use the outlet arrangement of Sakthivel, for in doing so would provide the plurality of outlets in the same region which would allow user access during beverage preparation. Additionally, having the outlet for ice being larger that the outlets for beverages would have been an obvious modification to a person of ordinary skill in the art as in doing so would allow ice cubes, which are larger than brewed liquid, to be dispensed without clogging. See MPEP 2144.04-IV-A.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US2009/0293733) in view of Bertone (US 2010/0242497) and in further view of Claeson (US2010/0145522)
Regarding claim 15, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the part pieces of the ice channel are made of plastic parts, preferably of silicone or similar materials.
Claeson relates to a dispensing machine for producing various beverages (para. 0003) and teaches plastic (para. 0106) as a viable material for an ice channel (Figs. 15-16, ice channel 1126).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Martin, as modified by Bertone, with Claeson by replacing the material of the ice channel parts of modified Martin, being inherently of some material, to use plastic as taught by Claeson, as the prior art teaches that plastic is a suitable material for an ice channel. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (ET).
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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761