DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/20/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1, 5, 15-16, and 19-20 has/have been amended; no claim(s) has/have been cancelled and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psarologos et al (US 10376091), in view of Tonelli et al (US 20160051082) and Fradet et al (EP 2502530 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Psarologos discloses a bean hopper assembly comprising:
a housing (Fig. 17 #170 top cover);
a tub (Fig. 15 #150 hopper) at least partially located in the housing defining a pocket (Fig. 15 #131 bean reservoir) configured to hold beans,
an opening (Fig. 16 #134 discharge openings) extending through the tub (Fig. 15 #150 hopper) for routing beans into a provided grinder;
a knob (Fig. 15 #151 dial) extending through the opening and including a first locking member (Fig. 16 #161 sliders) that includes a locked position where the tub is fixed to the housing, and an unlocked position where the tub is selectively fixed to the housing (Col. 6 lines 13-17 ---"Retraction of the sliders 161 from the cooperating openings in the receiving portion of the espresso machine allows the hopper to be withdrawn, the shutter having already been closed to prevent beans from being inadvertently discharged.”).
However, Psarologos does not disclose a push button assembly including a second locking member that is selectively moveable to an actuated position and configured to release the tub only when the first locking member is in the unlocked position, and where the tub is fixed to the housing when the second locking member is in the actuated position and the first locking member is in the locked position.
Nonetheless, Tonelli in the same field of endeavor being beverage making devices teaches an assembly including a second locking member (Fig. 8 #45 followers) that is selectively moveable to an actuated position is configured to release the tub only when the first locking member (Fig. 8 #37 actuating member) is in the unlocked position, and where the tub is fixed to the housing when the second locking member (Fig. 8 #45 followers) is in the actuated position and the first locking member is in the locked position (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hopper assembly of Psarologos by incorporating the assembly as taught by Tonelli for the benefit of allowing the attachment and removal of the bean hopper.
However, Psarologos in view of Tonelli does not teach a push button assembly.
Nonetheless, Fradet in the same field of endeavor being beverage making devices teaches a push button assembly (Fig. 3) for locking and unlocking a lid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Psarologos in view of Tonelli by substituting the push button assembly as taught by Fradet, since the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Psarologos in view of Tonelli and Fradet teaches the hopper assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Psarologos teaches wherein the knob (Fig. 15 #151 dial) is rotationally fixed to a door (Shown in the figure below; shutter) and the door (Shown in the figure below; shutter) is rotatable with respect to the opening between a closed position where the opening is obstructed by the door (Shown in the figure below; shutter), and an open position where the opening is unobstructed by the door (Col. 6 lines 7-13 ---" As shown in FIG. 13, the underside 133 of the coupling portion 132 has one or more discharge openings 134 that can be blocked by a rotating shutter. The shutter is operated by a dial 151 that extends through a cover 152 within the reservoir 131. Rotating the dial 151 closes the shutter and simultaneously causes the safety sliders 162 to retract into the coupling portion 132.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Psarologos in view of Tonelli and Fradet teaches the hopper assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Psarologos teaches wherein the door is located within an annular rim (Fig. 16 #132 coupling portion) and the annular rim (Fig. 16 #132 coupling portion) includes the first locking member (Fig. 16 #161 sliders).
Regarding claim 4, Psarologos in view of Tonelli and Fradet teaches the hopper assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), and Psarologos teaches wherein the knob (Fig. 15 #151 dial) is rotatable to move the first locking member (Fig. 16 #161 sliders) to the unlocked position where the door is located in the closed position, and the knob (Fig. 15 #151 dial) is rotatable to move the first locking member (Fig. 16 #161 sliders) to the locked position where the door is located in the open position (Col. 6 lines 7-13 ---" As shown in FIG. 13, the underside 133 of the coupling portion 132 has one or more discharge openings 134 that can be blocked by a rotating shutter. The shutter is operated by a dial 151 that extends through a cover 152 within the reservoir 131. Rotating the dial 151 closes the shutter and simultaneously causes the safety sliders 162 to retract into the coupling portion 132.”).
Regarding claim 6, Psarologos in view of Tonelli and Fradet teaches the hopper assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), and Psarologos teaches wherein the at least one flange includes a plurality of flanges circumferentially spaced (Fig. 14 shows at least two #161 sliders; Examiner considers the #161 sliders to be structurally the same as a flange) around the annular rim (Fig. 16 #132 coupling portion) and the at least one cantilever includes a plurality of cantilevers circumferentially spaced equally to the plurality of flanges (Col. 6 lines 33-34 ---"The recess 71 features a pair of openings or sleeves 173 for receiving the sliders.”).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psarologos et al (US 10376091), Tonelli et al (US 20160051082) and Fradet et al (EP 2502530 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Lanigan et al (US 6,049,448).
Regarding claim 7, Psarologos in view of Tonelli and Fradet teaches the hopper assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the push button assembly includes a first moveable bracket and a second moveable bracket pivotally connected to the first moveable bracket by a linkage.
Nonetheless, Lanigan which solves the same problem of a push-button locking mechanism teaches wherein the push button assembly includes a first moveable bracket (Fig. 5 #88 distal section) and a second moveable bracket (Fig. 5 #90 proximal section) pivotally connected to the first moveable bracket (Fig. 5 #88 distal section) by a linkage (Fig. 5 #96 pivot pin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hopper assembly of Psarologos in view of Tonelli and Fradet by incorporating the first and second movable brackets and linkage as taught by Lanigan for the benefit of driving the locking members between a locked and an unlocked position.
Regarding claim 8, Psarologos in view of Tonelli, Fradet, and Lanigan teaches the hopper assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 7), and Lanigan teaches wherein the first moveable bracket (Fig. 5 #88 distal section) extends along a first axis and the second moveable bracket (Fig. 5 #90 proximal section) extends along a second axis that is transverse to the first axis (Shown in Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hopper assembly of Psarologos in view of Tonelli, Fradet, and Lanigan by incorporating the first and second movable brackets as taught by Lanigan for the benefit of driving the locking members to an unlocked position.
Regarding claim 9, Psarologos in view of Tonelli, Fradet, and Lanigan teaches the hopper assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), and Lanigan teaches wherein the linkage (Fig. 5 #96 pivot pin) is configured to translate movement of the first moveable bracket (Fig. 5 #88 distal section) along the first axis into movement of the second moveable bracket (Fig. 5 #90 proximal section)along the second axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hopper assembly of Psarologos in view of Tonelli, Fradet, and Lanigan by incorporating the linkage as taught by Lanigan for the benefit of driving the locking members between a locked and an unlocked position.
Regarding claim 10, Psarologos in view of Tonelli, Fradet, and Lanigan teaches the hopper assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), and Lanigan teaches wherein the second moveable bracket (Fig. 5 #88 distal section) extends along an exterior of the housing (The entire locking mechanism is located outside of a housing.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second moveable bracket extending along an exterior of the housing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 11-14 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.
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claim 15: The cited prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest a first locking member that includes an annular rim defining a flange rotatable with annular rim that extends circumferentially outwardly from the annular rim, the flange is radially and circumferentially aligned with the cantilever in a locked position, and, upon rotation of the flange, the flange is circumferentially spaced from the cantilever in an unlocked position.
For claim 19:
The cited prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest a housing defining a slot; the tub defining a channel including a first portion extending from a bottom tub surface along a first axis that the slot is elongated along and a second portion opposite the bottom tub surface extending along a second axis; a second locking member coupled to the second moveable bracket defining at least one protrusion that is selectively moveable from being retained in the second portion of the channel into alignment with the first portion of the channel when the button assembly is in an actuated position.
Response to Arguments
For claim 1:
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art cannot be inherently or obviously adapted to serve this relationship between the first and second locking members when both locking members are described individually in separate references without a nexus or any suggestion of a desire of incorporation. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Tonelli teaches both a first and second locking members. The tub cannot be removed when both locking members are engaged and function as claimed, where both locking members must be disengaged before the tube can be removed (Figs. 7-8 (locking members engaged to secure the tub) and Figs. 11-12 (locking members disengaged to remove the tub); [0062]).
Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to claims 5, 15-16, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 5, 15-16, and 19 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOE E MILLS JR./ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
