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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-24, drawn to a method and apparatus for brewing a beverage, classified in F25D16/00, A47J31/40.
II. Claims 25-41, drawn to a method and apparatus for cleaning a brewing beverage apparatus, classified in A47J31/60, A47J41/0016.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, such as washing machine, dishwash machine, hot water machine, etc.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of
their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching
different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with an attorney Marion P. Metelski on February 9, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-24. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 25-41 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her
legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/416,469 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they disclose similar subject matters as the instant invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Invention
Application No. 18/416,469
(US 20240245257)
Claim 14: An apparatus for brewing a beverage, comprising:
a brew station configured to brew a beverage concentrate using hot water;
a heat exchanger configured to cool the beverage concentrate from a first temperature to a predetermined second temperature; and
a storage receptacle in fluid communication with the heat exchanger to hold the beverage concentrate received from an output of the heat exchanger, wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is further cooled from the second temperature to the third temperature while the beverage concentrate is held in the storage receptacle.
Claim 1: An apparatus for brewing a beverage, comprising:
a brew station configured to brew a beverage concentrate using hot water;
a heat exchanger configured to cool the beverage concentrate from a first temperature to a predetermined second temperature; and
a storage receptacle in fluid communication with the heat exchanger to hold the beverage concentrate received from an output of the heat exchanger, wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is further cooled from the second temperature to the third temperature while the beverage concentrate is held in the storage receptacle;
wherein upon completion of brewing the beverage concentrate, the apparatus compares an actual level of the beverage concentrate in the storage receptacle to an anticipated level of the beverage concentrate.
Claim 14: An apparatus for brewing a beverage, comprising:
a brew station configured to brew a beverage concentrate using hot water;
a heat exchanger configured to cool the beverage concentrate from a first temperature to a predetermined second temperature; and
a storage receptacle in fluid communication with the heat exchanger to hold the beverage concentrate received from an output of the heat exchanger, wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is further cooled from the second temperature to the third temperature while the beverage concentrate is held in the storage receptacle.
Claim 3: An apparatus for brewing a beverage, comprising:
a brew station configured to brew a beverage concentrate using hot water;
a heat exchanger configured to cool the beverage concentrate from a first temperature to a predetermined second temperature; and
a storage receptacle in fluid communication with the heat exchanger to hold the beverage concentrate received from an output of the heat exchanger, wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is further cooled from the second temperature to the third temperature while the beverage concentrate is held in the storage receptacle;
wherein the apparatus forecasts estimated times for the next brews of the beverage concentrate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is noted that using of phrases such as “substantially free” in claim 11 renders the claim indefinite because the term "substantially" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much would be considered substantially free.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the third temperature" at line 7 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, recites the limitation "a brew basket" at line 2 in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “a brew basket” and “a brew basket” as the one recited in the preceding claim 16 at line 3 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (a brew basket).
Regarding claim 21, the word “it" at line 1 in the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “it” is the applicant is referring to. See MPEP § 2173.05(a).
Furthermore, the limitation "a predetermined level" at line 4 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this predetermined level is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 19 at line 3. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Regarding claim 23, recites the limitation "one or more flavorings" at line 2 in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “one or more flavorings” and “one or more sources of flavorings” at line 1 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (one or more flavorings).
The dependent claims are rejected for their inherited deficiencies on rejected claims 11 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-16 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caswell et al. (US 11,493,269) in view of Lazzarini et al. (US 9,907,320).
Regarding claim 1, Caswell discloses a method for brewing a beverage (abstract), comprising:
brewing a concentrate of the beverage (i.e. coffee, tea,…) using hot water (col. 11, lines 60-col. 12, lines 15);
reducing a temperature of the beverage concentrate from a first temperature (i.e. a hot state temperature) to a predetermined second temperature (i.e. called a predetermined chilled temperature) upon the brewing of the concentrate (abstract; col. 2, lines 34-47).
Caswell discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for further reducing the temperature of the beverage concentrate from the predetermined second temperature to a third temperature.
However, Lazzarini teaches further reducing the temperature (i.e. T1) of the beverage concentrate from the predetermined second temperature (i.e. predetermined temperature value) to a third temperature (i.e. T4 – about 4o C (39.2o F)) (col. 5, lines 5-10, 44-61).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the problem-solving area of further cooling beverage. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell and Lazzarini before him or her, to include such further cooling temperature of Lazzarini because it allows artisanal beverage to be made according to a production cycle defined by a predetermined sequence of operating steps. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a flexible machine, that is, a machine which can make, store and dispense both plain and flavored artisanal beverage, depending on the taste and requirements of the consumer and seller of the beverage (col. 2, lines 5-9).
With respect to claim 2, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Caswell further discloses wherein the step of reducing the temperature of the beverage concentrate from the first temperature (i.e. a hot state temperature) to the predetermined second temperature (i.e. called a predetermined chilled temperature) comprises transferring heat from the beverage concentrate to tap water using a heat exchanger (122, 200, 250).
With respect to claim 3, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Lazzarini further discloses wherein the step of further reducing the temperature of the beverage concentrate from the predetermined second temperature (i.e. predetermined temperature value) to the third temperature (i.e. T4 – about 4o C (39.2o F)) comprises refrigerating the beverage concentrate (12, i.e. called a cooling unit consisting a refrigerating device 16).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell and Lazzarini before him or her, to include such a refrigerating device of Lazzarini because it allows artisanal beverage to be made according to a production cycle defined by a predetermined sequence of operating steps. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a flexible machine, that is, a machine which can make, store and dispense both plain and flavored artisanal beverage, depending on the taste and requirements of the consumer and seller of the beverage (col. 2, lines 5-9).
With respect to claim 4, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Lazzarini further discloses wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is reduced from the predetermined second temperature (i.e. predetermined temperature value) to the third temperature (i.e. T4 – about 4o C (39.2o F)) within about 4 hours (i.e. a time interval) (col. 5, lines 62 – col. 6, lines 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell and Lazzarini before him or her, to include such the respective time interval of Lazzarini because it allows artisanal beverage to be made according to a production cycle defined by a predetermined sequence of operating steps. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a flexible machine, that is, a machine which can make, store and dispense both plain and flavored artisanal beverage, depending on the taste and requirements of the consumer and seller of the beverage (col. 2, lines 5-9).
With respect to claim 5, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Caswell further discloses wherein the first temperature is about 200 0F (col. 7, lines 38-48; See tables 1-6, i.e. “temperature In” between 165 0F – 186 0F). Note that: Lazzarini teaches the first temperature is about 95 oC (203 0F).
With respect to claim 6, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Lazzarini further discloses wherein the second temperature (i.e. predetermined temperature value) is about 70 0F (col. 4, lines 39-44; col. 5, lines 5-10, i.e. the second temperature can be adjusted substantially between 104 oC and 113 oF (40 oC and 45 oC)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell and Lazzarini before him or her, to include such the predetermined temperature range of Lazzarini because it allows artisanal beverage to be made according to a production cycle defined by a predetermined sequence of operating steps. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a flexible machine, that is, a machine which can make, store and dispense both plain and flavored artisanal beverage, depending on the taste and requirements of the consumer and seller of the beverage (col. 2, lines 5-9).
With respect to claim 7, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Lazzarini further discloses wherein the third temperature is about 40°F (i.e. T4 – about 4o C (39.2o F)) (col. 5, lines 5-10, 44-61).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell and Lazzarini before him or her, to include such further cooling temperature of Lazzarini because it allows artisanal beverage to be made according to a production cycle defined by a predetermined sequence of operating steps. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a flexible machine, that is, a machine which can make, store and dispense both plain and flavored artisanal beverage, depending on the taste and requirements of the consumer and seller of the beverage (col. 2, lines 5-9).
With respect to claim 14, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Caswell further discloses an apparatus 300 (fig. 9, i.e. called the system) for brewing a beverage (i.e. coffee, tea,…), comprising:
a brew station 302 (fig. 9, i.e. a hot beverage brewer) configured to brew a beverage concentrate using hot water (col. 11, lines 60-col. 12, lines 15);
a heat exchanger (122, 200, 250) configured to cool the beverage concentrate from a first temperature (i.e. a hot state temperature) to a predetermined second temperature (i.e. called a predetermined chilled temperature) (abstract; col. 2, lines 34-47); and
a storage receptacle (112, i.e. called a pre-chilling container) in fluid communication with the heat exchanger (122, 200, 250) to hold the beverage concentrate received from an output (128) of the heat exchanger (122, 200, 250) (col. 7, lines 38-48; See claim 20), except for wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is further cooled from the second temperature to the third temperature while the beverage concentrate is held in the storage receptacle.
However, Lazzarini teaches wherein the temperature (i.e. T1) of the beverage concentrate (i.e. yogurt) is further cooled from the second temperature (i.e. predetermined temperature value) to the third temperature (i.e. T4 – about 4o C (39.2o F)) while the beverage concentrate is held in the storage receptacle 12 (fig. 3, i.e. cooling unit) (col. 5, lines 5-10, 44-61).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the problem-solving area of further cooling beverage. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell and Lazzarini before him or her, to include such further cooling temperature of Lazzarini because it allows artisanal beverage to be made according to a production cycle defined by a predetermined sequence of operating steps. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a flexible machine, that is, a machine which can make, store and dispense both plain and flavored artisanal beverage, depending on the taste and requirements of the consumer and seller of the beverage (col. 2, lines 5-9).
With respect to claim 15, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Caswell further discloses a refrigerator 100 (fig. 1, i.e. called the beverage chiller), wherein the storage receptacle (112) is located within the refrigerator 100 (fig. 1, i.e. called the beverage chiller).
With respect to claim 16, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Caswell further discloses wherein the brew station (302) comprises: a source of hot water (304) for brewing the beverage concentrate; and a brew basket (not shown) configured to hold a beverage base that is used to brew the beverage concentrate (e.g., tea leaves, coffee grinds, and the like), wherein hot water is poured over the beverage base from the source of hot water to brew the beverage concentrate and the brew basket is in fluid communication with the storage receptacle (112) to provide the beverage concentrate to the storage receptacle (col. 11, lines 60 – col. 12, lines 15).
With respect to claim 20, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Caswell further discloses wherein the sensor comprises a load cell, a resistive probe, an optical sensor, or a float switch (col. 6, lines 53-61).
With respect to claim 21, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Caswell further discloses wherein when it is determined that an amount of the beverage concentrate held in one of the plurality of storage receptacles is at or below a predetermined level, the rotating tray is caused to rotate so that the brew basket of the rotating tray that corresponds to the storage receptacle whose amount of beverage concentrate is at or below the predetermined level is positioned at the brewing station to brew the beverage concentrate (col. 5, lines 11-16, 47-56) .
With respect to claim 22, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Caswell further discloses a source of hot water; a source of tap water or chilled water (col. 9, lines 53-64); and a mixing vessel (not shown, see figure 9) in fluid communication with the source of hot water, the source of tap water or chilled water, and the storage receptacle (112), wherein the beverage concentrate (e.g. tea leaves, coffee grinds, and the like) held in the storage receptacle is mixed with hot water provided by the source of hot water and tap water or chilled that is provided by the source of tap water or chilled water (col. 11, lines 60 – col. 12, lines 4).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caswell et al. (US 11,493,269) in view of Lazzarini et al. (US 9,907,320) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guerrero et al. (US 20050269362).
Regarding claims 8-9, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein a microbial growth in the beverage concentrate is below a predetermined range of microbial growth when the beverage concentrate is at the predetermined second temperature upon the brewing of the concentrate; and wherein the microbial growth is further reduced below the predetermined range when the beverage concentrate is at the third temperature.
However, Guerrero teaches wherein a microbial growth in the beverage concentrate (e.g. liquid milk, milk concentrate, non-dairy creamer, cocoa based or coffee based concentrates such as latte or cappuccino concentrates) is below a predetermined range of microbial growth when the beverage concentrate is at the predetermined second temperature upon the brewing of the concentrate (¶0051); and wherein the microbial growth is further reduced below the predetermined range when the beverage concentrate is at the third temperature (¶ 0006).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of dispensing liquid food and/or beverage. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Guerrero before him or her, to include such a method for hygienically delivering a liquid food in a food or beverage dispenser of Guerrero because it reduces the number of microorganisms to levels considered as safe by dislodging these microorganisms and spores to avoid the formation of colonies to grow at the critical dispensing region. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it reduces the bacterial growth at the low temperature (¶ 0006).
Claim(s) 10-13 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caswell et al. (US 11,493,269) in view of Lazzarini et al. (US 9,907,320) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bromley (US 20160081976).
Regarding claim 10, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for detecting when an additional amount of the beverage concentrate should be brewed and brewing the additional amount of the beverage concentrate without additional human intervention.
However, Bromley teaches detecting when an additional amount of the beverage concentrate should be brewed and brewing the additional amount of the beverage concentrate without additional human intervention (¶ 0044, 0409).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the problem-solving area of mixing/diluting of liquid. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Bromley before him or her, to include such an additional amount of the beverage concentrate of Bromley because the amount is added to the predetermined concentration to produce a beverage with ingredient(s) in the concentrate at an effective or intended concentration. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides an amount sufficient to preserve the composition (¶ 0035).
Regarding claim 11, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above including providing a concentrate of the brewed beverage in accordance with Claim 1 (see claim 1 as set forth above), except for mixing the concentrate of the brewed beverage with hot water to produce a diluted brewed beverage that is substantially free of a cloudy appearance.
However, Bromley teaches for mixing the concentrate of the brewed beverage with hot water to produce a diluted brewed beverage that is substantially free of a cloudy appearance (¶ 0043, 0222).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the problem-solving area of mixing/diluting of liquid. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Bromley before him or her, to include such dilution compositions of Bromley because it can be desirable that the liquid concentrate contains less than or equal to a particular concentration of one or more ingredients, or it can be desirable that the liquid concentrate contains greater than or equal to a particular concentration of one or more ingredients. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the ability to form dilution compositions having one or more properties can be assessed by diluting the liquid concentrate in an aqueous medium, such as water (¶ 0608).
With respect to claim 12, Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Bromley discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Bromley further discloses wherein the mixing step further comprises mixing the concentrate of the brewed beverage with tap water or chilled water (¶ 0569, 0621, i.e. tap water).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Bromley before him or her, to include such dilution compositions of Bromley because it can be desirable that the liquid concentrate contains less than or equal to a particular concentration of one or more ingredients, or it can be desirable that the liquid concentrate contains greater than or equal to a particular concentration of one or more ingredients. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the ability to form dilution compositions having one or more properties can be assessed by diluting the liquid concentrate in an aqueous medium, such as water (¶ 0608).
With respect to claim 13, Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Bromley discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Bromley further discloses wherein the mixing step further comprises mixing the diluted brewed beverage with a selected flavoring and/or a selected sweetener prior to delivering the diluted brewed beverage to a customer (¶ 0033, 0039, 0216).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Bromley before him or her, to include such flavoring/sweetener compositions of Bromley because it can be desirable that the liquid concentrate contains less than or equal to a particular concentration of one or more ingredients, or it can be desirable that the liquid concentrate contains greater than or equal to a particular concentration of one or more ingredients. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it improves the taste and/or smell of the provided concentrates and liquid dilution compositions, for example, the beverages (¶ 0239).
With respect to claim 23, Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Bromley discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 22 of which Bromley further discloses one or more sources of flavorings in fluid communication with the mixing vessel to supply a predetermined amount of one or more flavorings to the mixing vessel (¶ 0033, 0039, 0216).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Bromley before him or her, to include such flavoring/sweetener compositions of Bromley because it can be desirable that the liquid concentrate contains less than or equal to a particular concentration of one or more ingredients, or it can be desirable that the liquid concentrate contains greater than or equal to a particular concentration of one or more ingredients. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it improves the taste and/or smell of the provided concentrates and liquid dilution compositions, for example, the beverages (¶ 0239).
With respect to claim 24, Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Bromley discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 23 of which Bromley further discloses a source of a sweetener in fluid communication with the mixing vessel to supply a predetermined amount of the sweetener to the mixing vessel (¶ 0033, 0039, 0216).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Bromley before him or her, to include such flavoring/sweetener compositions of Bromley because it can be desirable that the liquid concentrate contains less than or equal to a particular concentration of one or more ingredients, or it can be desirable that the liquid concentrate contains greater than or equal to a particular concentration of one or more ingredients. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it improves the taste and/or smell of the provided concentrates and liquid dilution compositions, for example, the beverages (¶ 0239).
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caswell et al. (US 11,493,269) in view of Lazzarini et al. (US 9,907,320) as applied to claims 14-16 above, and further in view of Di Maria (US 20190254465).
Regarding claim 17, Caswell in view of Lazzarini discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for a rotating tray, wherein the brew basket is one of a plurality of brew baskets included in the rotating tray.
However, Di Maria teaches a rotating tray (120, i.e. called beverage carousal), wherein the brew basket (110, i.e. called beverage receptacle holder) is one of a plurality of brew baskets (110) included in the rotating tray (120) (¶ 0085, 0108-0110).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of apparatus for dispensing a beverage. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Di Maria before him or her, to include such rotating tray of Di Maria because it provides a range of options of beverages for selection by a customer which disadvantageously limits the storage capacity of the vending machine for the popular beverages thus requiring multiple vending machines to be provided. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides means for a user to select one or more beverage mixtures from a plurality of available beverage mixtures (¶ 0009).
With respect to claim 18, Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Di Maria discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Di Maria further discloses a plurality of storage receptacles (140), wherein each one of the plurality of storage receptacles (140) is in fluid communication with a brew basket (110) of the rotating tray (120) to thereby receive the beverage concentrate brewed in the brew basket (110).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Di Maria before him or her, to include such storage receptacles of Di Maria because it provides a range of options of beverages for selection by a customer which disadvantageously limits the storage capacity of the vending machine for the popular beverages thus requiring multiple vending machines to be provided. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides means for a user to select one or more beverage mixtures from a plurality of available beverage mixtures (¶ 0009).
With respect to claim 19, Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Di Maria discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Di Maria further discloses wherein each one of the plurality of storage receptacles (140) comprises a sensor (not shown) which detects when an amount of beverage concentrate held in the storage receptacle (104) is at or below a predetermined level (¶ 0108-0110).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Caswell in view of Lazzarini and Di Maria before him or her, to include such sensor of Di Maria because it detects the arrival and positioning of the cup and halts the travel of the beverage receptacle carousal. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it controls the movements and operations of the respective stations arid arrangements(¶ 0105).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Freedman et al. (US 20190216258). Tachibana et al. (US 20110041543). Roberts et al. (US 10,111,554). Hustvedt et al. (US 5,540,263).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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 W. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761