3DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an anti-detachment unit configured to prevent the detachment of said pressed dose of ground coffee powder from walls of said filter when said pressing piston disengages said filter” in claim 1.
“at least one of a manual or an automatic movement unit is provided with at least one of said pressing piston or said cup engaging and disengaging said pressing piston with and from said filter” in claim 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.
“an anti-detachment unit” (claim 1) is interpreted as “[0050] The anti-detachment means comprises a filtering element 102 [0066] The anti-detachment means also comprises air channels 103”.
“at least one of a manual or an automatic movement unit” (claim 14) is interpreted as “[0080] The movement mechanism comprises a rotatable manual control lever 19 and a transmission that transforms rotation of the control lever 19 in a vertical translation of the pressing piston 15” and “[0082] The transmission can comprise specifically a gear formed by a vertical rack 20 that is solidly constrained to the pressing piston 15 and an arc of a cogwheel 21 supported rotationally by a horizontal mechanical axis 22 connected to the control lever 19 and engaging the vertical rack 20.” (para.0080 and 0082 of instant publication application).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “alt least one of” should be changed to “at least one of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “manual or automatic movement unit is provided with at least one said pressing piston or said cup engaging and disengaging said pressing piston with and from said filter”. It is unclear as to how said pressing piston engaging and disengaging itself (said pressing piston)? In addition, it is unclear if the unit or piston or cup engaging and disengaging said pressing piston with and from said filter. For examining purpose the above claim limitation is interpreted as “manual or automatic movement unit is provided with said pressing piston, the pressing piston engaging and disengaging with and from said filter”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2018/0368607) in view of Torquemada (US 2016/0157661 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al. discloses “a device” (abstract and figs.2-4) “for preparing a dose of ground coffee powder ready for infusion” (intended use), comprising
“a cup” (12a pointed at the cup) provided with “a gripping handle” (17 pointed at the device having the gripping handle) and housing “a filter” (fig.3, 13) containing “said dose of ground coffee powder” (fig.3, 12a. Claim 1, a cavity (12a) for loading coffee powder. MPEP 2115), “a coupling support” (11d) “in which said cup is coupled separately” (claim 14, i.e., flanges (12d) are disposed on the two sides of the filter assembly (17) respectively to engage with the sliding grooves (11d).), and “a pressing piston” (fig.3, 5, 6 and 30) fig.3, 5, 6 and 30) has an anti-detachment unit” (30 pointed at the blocking net with small openings and 51 pointed at the through hole. Examiner noted that applicant’s the anti-detachment unit also includes a filter (blocking net with small openings) and air channel (through hole)) “configured to prevent the detachment of said pressed dose of ground coffee powder from walls of said filter when said pressing piston disengages said filter” (See fig.3, 30 and 51. [0066] discuss about the blocking net 30 with small openings and through hole 51. This suggest that the openings that is capable of release pressure from the chamber 12a without pressure build up significantly during plunging that could cause potentially dislocation).
Wang et al. is silent regarding a pressing piston that is engageable in said filter for pressing said dose of ground coffee powder.
Torquemada teaches “a pressing piston that is engageable in said filter for pressing said dose of ground coffee powder” (fig.5 shows example of filter 14. Fig.7 shows example the press. Fig.8 shows example of press engaging in said filter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Wang et al. with Torquemada, by modifying Wang et al.’s location of piston and filter configuration according to Torquemada’s location of piston and filter configuration, to provide better compression before dispensing of the coffee for better extraction of coffee (fig.8) as taught by Torquemada.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wang et al. discloses “said anti-detachment unit comprises a filtering element” (Wang et al., fig.3, 30. [0066], i.e., A blocking net 30 is disposed below the extrusion portion 5a, the surrounding edges of blocking net 30 are fixed at the lower end of the first sealing ring 6, and the coffee powder are prevented from accessing into the water inlet 51 by the blocking net 30) “that is selectively permeable to the air but not to said ground coffee powder” (Wang et al., fig.3, 30. [0066], i.e., the coffee powder are prevented from accessing into the water inlet 51 by the blocking net 30).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wang et al. discloses “said filtering element is fitted to a head of said pressing piston” (Wang et al., filtering element 30 fitted to head of the pressing piston 5).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang et al. discloses “said anti-detachment unit further comprises air channels in said pressing piston that terminate on the head of said pressing piston behind said filtering element” (Wang et al., said anti-detachment unit further comprises air channels (fig.3, 5a pointed at the grooves of the air channels in said pressing piston 5) at the head of the pressing piston 5 behind the filtering element 30).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wang et al. discloses “said pressing piston is movable to engage with and disengage from said filter” (Dionisio et al., the bottom portion of the pressing piston 2 movable to engage with and disengage from said filter 64).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wang et al. discloses “said cup” (Torquemada, fig.5, 15) is movable to engage and disengage “said pressing piston” (Torquemada, fig.8 shows the pressing piston) with and from said “filter” (Torquemada, fig.5, 14).
Regarding claim 14, modified Wang et al. discloses “manual or automatic movement unit is provided with said pressing piston” (Torquemada, Fig.8 shows example of press engaging in said filter), “the pressing piston engaging and disengaging with and from said filter” (Torquemada, Fig.8 shows press engaging and disengaging from said filter).
Regarding claim 15, modified Wang et al. discloses “a coffee machine” (Wang, a machine 100) comprising “the device preparing a dose of ground coffee powder according to claim 1” (modified Wang et al. discloses all the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(1) EP 1050259 A1.
(2) DE 102014204483 B3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761