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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “gas pump,” “gas tank,” (claim 6) “gas source,” (claim 7) “dedicated inlet,” (claim 7) and “actuators” (claims 9-10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: para. 0135 references actuators 16 and 17 which do not appear in the drawings. 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 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1 and 12 recite “said water” and “the water source” which should be “water” and “a water source” as this is the first recitation of the terms. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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: "infusion unit” in claims 1 and 12 and directing device in claim 3.
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 infusion unit 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 a generic placeholder “unit” and “device” coupled with functional language “…configured to generate compressed gas in the mixing chamber…” (claims 1 and 12) and “to direct said beverage from the outlet guide to said consumer receptacle,” respectively, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “infusion” is unrelated to the function of generating compressed gas and convey only function (i.e., the act of making a beverage) and not any known structure for performing the claimed function of generating compressed gas. The term “directing” merely describes the function being claimed and, as such, modifies the generic term “device” functionally and not structurally.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-12 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:
Infusion unit: Figure 1 and paragraph 0116 identifies infusion unit as element 10 that generates compressed gas 7’. Paragraph 0129 details infusion unit 10 including a gas device 14/137 for generating the compressed gas 7’ in mixing chamber 12’ and including at least one of “a gas pump, a compressed gas tank, and a or [sic] the abovementioned valve as a gas valve 137.”
Directing device: Figure 1 and paragraph 0123 identifies dispensing outlet as element 8 and directing device as element 80.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites “the dispensing outlet is associated with a directing device configured to direct said beverage from the outlet guide to said consumer receptacle and residual liquid to a waste collector.”
Paragraph 0083 identifies the directing device as element 80.
PNG
media_image1.png
538
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of the instant application (annotated)
Paragraph 0054 merely repeats the same claim language of directing the beverage to the consumer receptacle and residual liquid to a waste collector. Paragraph 0123 details directing device 80 is configured to direct beverage 7 from outlet guide 140 to consumer receptacle 9 and residual liquid to waste collector 91, e.g., via a draining edge 81 of directing device 80.
The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In Atmel, the patentee claimed an apparatus that included a "high voltage generating means" limitation, thereby invoking 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The specification incorporated by reference a non-patent document from a technical journal, which described a particular high voltage generating circuit. The Federal Circuit concluded that the title of the article in the specification may, by itself, be sufficient to indicate to one skilled in the art the precise structure of the means for performing the recited function, and it remanded the case to the district court "to consider the knowledge of one skilled in the art that indicated, based on unrefuted testimony, that the specification disclosed sufficient structure corresponding to the high-voltage means limitation." Id. at 1382, 53 USPQ2d at 1231.
If there is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation. See id. at 1380, 53 USPQ2d at 1229; In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, "[a] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure" in the context of a means plus function limitation. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Disclosure that an invention "may be controlled by known differential pressure, valving and control equipment" was not a disclosure of any structure corresponding to the claimed "control means for operating [a] valving " and the claim was held indefinite). See also Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1376, 58 USPQ2d 1801, 1806 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1115-18, 63 USPQ2d 1725, 1731-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Court interpreted the language of the "third monitoring means for monitoring the ECG signal…for activating …" to require the same means to perform both functions and the only entity referenced in the specification that could possibly perform both functions is the physician. The court held that excluding the physician, no structure accomplishes the claimed dual functions. Because no structure disclosed in the embodiments of the invention actually performs the claimed dual functions, the specification lacks corresponding structure as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.).
Whether a claim reciting an element in means- (or step-) plus-function language fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the specification does not disclose adequate structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited function is closely related to the question of whether the specification meets the description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976) (unless the means-plus-function language is itself unclear, a claim limitation written in means-plus- function language meets the definiteness requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, so long as the specification meets the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph).
In this case, the specification and drawings fail to reasonably set forth the structure(s) responsible for performing the recited function and, instead, merely discuss the same with a high level of generality. As “directing device” is not a term of art the identifies the specific structure(s) for performing the function and the lack of direction provided in the specification, the claim fails to satisfy the written description requirement.
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 1-12 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “the seat, the closure part, and the wall part being directly or indirectly mounted to the support and relatively movable between…” which renders the claim indefinite as “relatively movable” is a vague term and it is unclear to what the movement of the seat, closure part, and the wall is be compared. For instance, the claim also recites that the support is stationary during handling of the flavouring ingredient and that the wall part is movable inside the seat. It is, therefore, unclear if the seat, the closure part, and the wall part are movable relative to each other or relative to the support. As these two interpretations require different cooperative relationships they, as a result, require mutually exclusive structural arrangements which makes the metes and bounds being sought unascertainable.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, 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).
Claims 1 and 12 recite “the infusion unit is configured such that” which renders the claim indefinite as “the infusion unit” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear as to what infusion unit is being referenced. For instance, it is unclear if the infusion unit is intended to refer to the mixing chamber, a portion of the mixing chamber, or another portion of the beverage machine.
Claims 1 and 12 recites “after the serving of said beverage…at least part of said water contained in the mixing chamber is evacuated from the mixing chamber to at least partly dry said flavoring ingredient upon infusion prior to removal of said flavouring ingredient from the mixing chamber” which renders the claim indefinite as “upon infusion prior to removal” creates confusion as to what is being claimed. For instance, it is unclear if the claim intends that the drying of the flavouring ingredient occurs upon infusion and prior to removal. Additionally, the use of “upon infusion” further compounds the clarity as the beverage preparation required mixing water and the flavouring ingredient to make the beverage via “infusion,” which occurs prior to serving. Then the claim requires that after serving the beverage, the drying of the flavouring ingredient occurs “upon infusion.” It seems that the drying of the flavouring ingredient “after the serving of the beverage” occurs after infusion. As the claim specifically states “upon infusion” it is unclear as to when the infusion unit performs the drying function.
Claim 2 inherits the above deficiencies as a result of its dependency from claim 1.
Claim limitation “directing device configured to direct said beverage from the outlet guide” 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. Please see above analysis under 35 USC 112 (a). 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.
Claim 4 inherits the above deficiencies as a result of its dependency from claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “evacuate…said flavouring ingredient to a or said waste collector” which renders the claim indefinite as the phrase “to a or said” is ambiguous. While likely a typographical error, such error, nonetheless, creates confusion as it is not reasonably clear what was intended. Additionally, “said waste collector” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is not clear what collector is being referenced.
Claim 6 recites “and a or said valve as a gas valve” which renders the claim indefinite as the phrase “to a or said” is ambiguous. While likely a typographical error, such error, nonetheless, creates confusion as it is not reasonably clear what was intended. Additionally, “said valve” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is not clear what valve is being referenced.
Claim 7 recites that the gas device comprises the gas valve that fluidically connects the mixing chamber and “a gas source,” which creates confusion as it is unclear if the gas source is intended to refer to the “gas pump” or the “compressed gas tank” recited in claim 6 (which are gas sources) or if the gas source is an additional source. The full scope of claim 6 allows for the device to comprise all of the gas pump, the compressed gas tank, and the gas valve. Claim 7 detailing the connection to a gas source creates confusion about whether there are multiple gas sources or not.
Claim 8 recites “release said compressed gas from the mixing chamber to evacuate said at least part of said water from a or said maximum pressure of said gas” which renders the claim indefinite as the phrase “from a or said” is ambiguous. While likely a typographical error, such error, nonetheless, creates confusion as it is not reasonably clear what was intended.
Claim 9 recites “said control unit” renders the claim indefinite as such term lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what control unit is being referenced.
Claim 9 recites “a portion break-up relative movement of the seat and the closure part and the wall part” renders the claim indefinite as is it unclear what is meant by “a portion break-up.” It is unclear if a portion of the relative movement is broken up or if such movement is intended to break up a portion of the flavouring ingredient.
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).
Claim 9 recites “by controlling said or one or more actuators” renders the claim indefinite as “said or one or more” is ambiguous. Additionally, there is no antecedence for “said actuators,” which further compounds the confusion.
Claim 9 recites “a portion loosening supply of water” renders the claim indefinite as is it unclear what is meant by “a portion loosening.” It is unclear if a portion of the relative movement is broken up or if such movement is intended to break up the flow of water into the mixing chamber.
Claim 9 recites “from a or said water source renders the claim indefinite as “from a or said” is ambiguous.
Claim 1 inherits the above deficiencies as a result of its dependency from claim 9.
Claim 11 recites “said liquid driver and said thermal conditioner” which lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what liquid driver and what thermal conditioner are being referenced.
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) 1-7, 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampaoli (US2010/0236418) in view of Heuberger (US2021/022/016, relying on earlier effective filing date).
Regarding claim 1, Sampaoli teaches a machine for handling a flavouring ingredient and preparing a beverage therefrom and serving said beverage via a dispensing outlet to a consumer receptacle (Abstract; preparation and dispensing of coffee beverages) (Figs. 1-4 and 9-10) comprising:
a support (containment frame 1 of the beverage machine; Fig. 1) that is stationary during said handling of said flavouring ingredient;
a seat (cylinder 2) having an ingredient opening (4) configured to receive said flavouring ingredient unwrapped before mixing with said water (para. 0057-0058);
a closure part (8) (Fig. 2-4 show movement between positions); and
a wall part (6/7) that is movable inside the seat (2) (Figs. 9-10),
the seat (2), the closure part (8) and the wall part (6/7)) being:
directly or indirectly mounted to the support (1) (As shown in Figs. 1-4 and 9-10); and
relatively movable (2, 6/7, and 8 are moveable relative to support 1) between:
transfer configuration for supplying said flavouring ingredient into the seat (Fig. 2 shows a configuration in which ingredients are supplied into seat 2 and prior to infusion) and/or removing such ingredient upon beverage preparation (Figs. 9-10 show a configuration in which used ingredients are expelled after beverage preparation); and
a mixing chamber configuration in which the seat and the closure part and the wall part form a mixing chamber fluidically connected with the water source (Figs. 3-4 show a configuration in which 2, 6/7, and 8 form a closed volume, infusion chamber 3, containing the ingredients with hot water supplied via 14 in order for infusion to occur),
the mixing chamber being associated with an inlet guide (channel 8a for guiding water into the mixing chamber 3) and an outlet guide (beverage outlet opening 3a), such as an inlet guide located in the closure part and an outlet guide located in the wall part or vice versa or both inlet and outlet guides located in the closure part or in the wall part (The phrase “such as” is understood, under broadest reasonable interpretation, to refer to optional limitations.),
the infusion unit is configured such that:
during beverage preparation, said flavouring ingredient is mixed with said water in the mixing chamber to form said beverage by infusion prior to serving thereof via the dispensing outlet (See paragraphs 0057-0059 that detail the loading of ingredient into the mixing chamber 3 prior to supplying water.) (paragraphs 0077-0078 and 0082 details mixing water with the ingredient within the mixing chamber to prepare a beverage by infusion.) (para. 0084 details that at the end of infusion, the beverage is dispensed via the opening 3a of the chamber 3, which, as shown in the Figures, would then flow through the duct connected at the end of 3a. ); and
after the serving of said beverage via the dispensing outlet, at least part of said water contained in the mixing chamber is evacuated from the mixing chamber to at least partly dry said flavouring ingredient upon infusion prior to removal of said flavouring ingredient from the mixing chamber (para. 0084, chamber 3 is emptied of residual water) (Figs. 9-10 illustrate the expelling of used ingredient 7a after the beverage is dispensed and residual water in chamber 3 is emptied. See also paragraphs 0085-0087).
Sampaoli is silent on the infusion unit being configured to generate compressed gas in the mixing chamber containing said flavouring ingredient upon infusion and to evacuate said at least part of said water contained in the mixing chamber with said compressed gas by releasing the gas from the mixing chamber.
Heuberger relates to dispensing beverages in a beverage vending machine (Abstract) in which an infusion unit (Fig. 1; chamber 4) configured to generate compressed gas (via compressed air source 20 or 21) in the mixing chamber (4, based on the assumption that the infusion unit is, or contains, the mixing chamber) containing said flavouring ingredient (brewing material 6) upon infusion (para. 0011) and to evacuate said at least part of said water contained in the mixing chamber with said compressed gas by releasing the gas from the mixing chamber (para. 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Sampaoli with Heuberger, by adding to the mixing chamber of Sampaoli, with the compressed gas source taught by Heyberger, for in doing so would improve the infusion process, leading to an individual adaptation of the concentration of the finished hot beverage, as well as, aiding in the dispensing of the brewed beverage and removal of residual water that may be present within the mixing chamber and the spend brewing ingredient.
Regarding claim 2, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the infusion unit is configured to release the compressed gas via the outlet guide so as to evacuate residual beverage from the outlet guide (Heuberger, para. 0011-012; See also Figure 1, compressed gas sources 20/21, outlet guide taken as 8/19/9) (In combination, employing the compressed gas system of Heuberger into the mixing chamber of Sampaoli would present an arrangement in which compressed gas exits via the outlet guide which would aid in removing any residual liquid contained therein as a result of such pressure).
Regarding claim 3, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches the dispensing outlet (see claim 1, above).
The combination does not explicitly state that the dispensing outlet is associated with a directing device configured to direct said beverage from the outlet guide to said consumer receptacle and residual liquid to a waste collector.
However, the claimed directing device is not positively claimed. Rather, the claim only requires that the outlet is associated with the directing device. The dispensing outlet of Sampaoli possesses all the structural requirements specified in the claim and, as such, is capable of being associated with such a directing device. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Additionally, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
In Otto, the claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers (i.e., a particular device) and a method of making the core member (i.e., a particular method of making that device) and "not to a method of curling hair wherein th[e] particular device is used." 312 F.2d at 940. The court held that patentability of the claims cannot be based "upon a certain procedure for curling hair using th[e] device and involving a number of steps in the process." The court noted that "the process is irrelevant as is the recitation involving the hair being wound around the core" in terms of determining patentability of the particular device. Id. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
In Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable.
In In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), an apparatus claim recited "[a] taping machine comprising a supporting structure, a brush attached to said supporting structure, said brush being formed with projecting bristles which terminate in free ends to collectively define a surface to which adhesive tape will detachably adhere, and means for providing relative motion between said brush and said supporting structure while said adhesive tape is adhered to said surface." An obviousness rejection was made over a reference to Kienzle which taught a machine for perforating sheets. The court upheld the rejection stating that "the references in claim 1 to adhesive tape handling do not expressly or impliedly require any particular structure in addition to that of Kienzle." Id. at 580-81. The perforating device had the structure of the taping device as claimed, the difference was in the use of the device, and "the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself." Id. at 580.
Heuberger teaches a directing device (19) coupled to the dispensing outlet (9 that directs the beverage from the outlet guide (8) to the consumer receptacle (40). In this case, the directing device allows for the compressed gas source(s) to function as intended.
The waste collector is not positively recited. The directing device (19) has multiple openings such that liquid from the chamber (4) can flow through either outlet. As such, liquid is capable of being passed to a waste collector in the event that one is present. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 4, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the infusion unit is configured such that after releasing said compressed gas the wall part is moved against said flavouring ingredient in the mixing chamber so as to compact said flavouring ingredient in the mixing chamber (See combination, as detailed in claim 1. Also see Figures 3 and 4 of Sampaoli showing the compression of the flavoring ingredient.).
Regarding claim 5, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the infusion unit is configured to evacuate, after said compressed gas is released, said flavouring ingredient (see claim 1, above) to a or said waste collector (As detailed previously, the waste collector is not positively recited. Sampaolli, for instance, teaches removal of spent ingredients, in Figs. 9-10. No additional structure is required by the claim. As such, a user could place a bucket or container next to the support of Sampaoli to collect the spent ingredient, which would not provide a structural modification to the beverage machine. Alternatively, a user could also simply let the spent ingredient fall on the floor or counter the beverage machine is on, and that surface would amount to a waste collector.).
Regarding claim 6, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the infusion unit includes a gas device for generating said compressed gas in the mixing chamber, the device comprising at least one of: a gas pump; a compressed gas tank; and a or said valve as a gas valve (Heuberger discloses, in para. 017, the gas source including an electrical pump or also a compressed gas tank. Additionally, valves 12 and 14 are included to regulate the flow of the compressed gas via signals from controller 30).
Regarding claim 7, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 6, and further teaches wherein the gas device comprises said gas valve that fluidically connects the mixing chamber and a gas source via a dedicated inlet of the mixing chamber or via the inlet guide and/or the outlet guide, the device further comprising said wall part that is movable inside the seat (The combination teaches each claimed limitation. Sampaoli teaches the wall part that is movable inside the seat, as detailed in claim 1. Heuberger teaches that the compressed gas source includes a gas valve 12/14 that fluidically connects the mixing chamber 4 and a gas source, pump or tank, via a dedicated inlet line as shown in Fig. 1) .
Regarding claim 9, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein [Sampaoli], after an introduction into the seat’s ingredient opening (4) in the transfer configuration (Fig. 2) of at least one solid portion of a self-supporting agglomerate of said flavouring ingredient and subsequent relative movement from the transfer configuration (Fig. 2) into the mixing chamber configuration (Fig. 3-4) and prior to serving said beverage via the dispensing outlet, said control unit (CPU 23) is configured to control a preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient by: a portion break-up relative movement of the seat and the closure part and the wall part, such as by controlling said or one or more actuators (motor 19); and a portion loosening supply of water from a or said water source into the mixing chamber (Water is supplied into the mixing chamber from a water source, not shown, via 8a/b and 14).
Sampaoli does not explicitly state at least one solid portion of a self-supporting agglomerate of said flavouring ingredient.
However, the aforementioned is not positively recited. Conversely, “at least one solid portion of a self-supporting agglomerate of said flavouring ingredient” is recited as the material or article worked upon. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
In Otto, the claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers (i.e., a particular device) and a method of making the core member (i.e., a particular method of making that device) and "not to a method of curling hair wherein th[e] particular device is used." 312 F.2d at 940. The court held that patentability of the claims cannot be based "upon a certain procedure for curling hair using th[e] device and involving a number of steps in the process." The court noted that "the process is irrelevant as is the recitation involving the hair being wound around the core" in terms of determining patentability of the particular device. Id. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
In Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable.
Regarding claim 10, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, and further teaches wherein the control unit (Sampaoli, CPU 23) is configured to control via said at least one actuator (motor 19) said break-up relative movement between the wall part and the closure part so as to exercise a compression force onto the solid portion(s) between the closure and wall parts to break-up the solid portion(s) (compression of ingredients shown in Figs. 3-4. See also paragraphs 0077-0078).
Claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and, as such, is similarly rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampaoli (US2010/0236418) in view of Heuberger (US2021/022/016, relying on earlier effective filing date) and in further view of Illly (US2010/0034942).
Regarding claim 8, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches [Heuberger] the compressed gas in the mixing chamber being at a maximum pressure of at least 0.5 bar above ambient pressure (para. 0034) and releasing said compressed gas from the mixing chamber to evacuate said at least part of said water (as detailed in claim 1 above).
The combination is silent on decreasing pressure from at least 0.5 bar to 0.1 bar above ambient within a period of time of less than 3 sec.
Illy relates to an apparatus for extracting a hot beverage (para. 0001) and teaches introducing a pressurized gas into the infusion chamber (Fig. 1b; step 102) at a pressure of 0.1 to 16 bar (para. 0036) within 0.01 and 0.5 seconds (para. 0039). Illy further teaches decreasing the compressed gas pressure (step 105b) by opening a gas valve fluidically coupled to the mixing chamber to reduce the pressure within the mixing chamber by 10-20% (para. 0051, with opening time of the valve being between 0.05 and 1.5 seconds). Illly also teaches dispensing the beverage (step 106) in which the valve is fully open (para. 0053). Illy states that the sudden opening of the valve, which releases pressure and allows for dispensing, has a positive effect on the quality and on the froth formation of the coffee.
Here, Illy teaches providing compressed gas into the mixing chamber at a pressure of, for instance, 0.5 bar and reducing the pressure within the chamber by 10-20% in less than 3 seconds and before dispensing, at which point the pressure is fully released.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Sampaoli, as modified by Heuberger, with Illy by modifying the pressure values within the mixing chamber, which occur over a certain period of time of modified Sampaoli, with the compressed gas pressure ranges and time period of Illy, for in doing so would improve the quality and froth formation of the coffee.
The proposed combination of Sampaoli, Heuberger, and Illy suggests modifying the pressure within the mixing chamber during infusion and after infusion, along with the time period for reducing such pressure during beverage dispensing with the values taught by Illy as Illy states that such values aid in improving the quality and froth formation of the brewed beverage.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Sampaoli, as modified above, to provide a pressure decrease from 0.5 bar to 0.1 bar in less than 3 second as the pressure range and time period to decrease from maximum pressure are interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result. In this case the recognized result would be improving the quality and froth formation of the resulting coffee beverage. Varying the pressure and time period would allow for qualities and froth formations to be achieved, wherein such varying would provide a specific tailoring of the beverage to a user’s preference. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05-ll-A and MPEP 2144.05-ll-B.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampaoli (US2010/0236418) in view of Heuberger (US2021/022/016, relying on earlier effective filing date) and in view of Steber (US2019/0082881)
Regarding claim 11, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, except explicitly for wherein the control unit, to control the preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient, controls said liquid driver and said thermal conditioner.
Sampaoli teaches a water source and a means for supplying heated water into the mixing chamber, but does not describe the control unit controlling a liquid driver and a thermal conditioner.
As liquid driver and thermal conditioner lack clear meaning in the claims (as detailed in the 35 USC 112 heading), the Examiner interprets such to mean that the control unit controls a liquid driver of the water source to supply the water to the mixing chamber and a thermal conditioner to heat the water being supplied to the mixing chamber.
Steber relates to a system for brewing a cup of coffee (Title; Fig. 1) and teaches a control unit (controller 180) that controls said liquid driver (para. 010; activate pump 162 to dispense volume of water into brew chamber 130) and said thermal conditioner (para. 0010, activate heating element 164 to heat a volume of water to a target temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Sampaoli, as modified by Heuberger, with Steber by modifying control unit of and adding to the water source of Sampaoli, with the control unit controlling heating of the water to a target temperature and supplying said heated water to the chamber of Steber, for in doing so would provide a simple and well known arrangement for controlling the heating and supplying of water to a beverage chamber.
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