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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/04/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 14, 18, 21, and 23 have been amended, claims 25-41 have been withdrawn, no claims have been cancelled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-24 are presently under consideration in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-24 in the reply filed on 06/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
A Terminal Disclaimer has not been received. Therefore, the nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/416,469 is sustained as set forth below.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections from previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 06/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-24 under Caswell et al. in view of Lazzarini et al., Guerrero et al., Bromley, And Di Maria have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chang in view of Guerrero et al., Bromley, Caswell et al., And Di Maria as set forth below.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang (US 20220313006).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a method for brewing a beverage (¶ 0031), comprising:
brewing a concentrate of the beverage (i.e. an appropriate concentration of coffee, tea bag, powder, fruit tea powder or tea leaf.) using hot water (abstract; ¶ 0001, 0003);
reducing a temperature of the beverage concentrate from a first temperature (i.e. a hot drinking water temperature and/or a hot drink temperature) to a predetermined second temperature (i.e. a first cooling temperature and/or a room temperature water) upon the brewing of the concentrate (¶ 0013); and
further reducing the temperature of the beverage concentrate from the predetermined second temperature (i.e. a first cooling temperature and/or a room temperature water) to a third temperature (i.e. a second cooling temperature or called an iced drink temperature) (¶ 0031).
With respect to claim 2, Chang discloses wherein the step of reducing the temperature of the beverage concentrate from the first temperature (i.e. a hot drinking water temperature and/or hot drink temperature) to the predetermined second temperature (i.e. a first cooling temperature and/or a room temperature water) comprises transferring heat from the beverage concentrate to tap water using a heat exchanger (35) (¶ 0009, 0013, 0028).
With respect to claim 3, Chang discloses wherein the step of further reducing the temperature of the beverage concentrate from the predetermined second temperature (i.e. a first cooling temperature and/or a room temperature water) to the third temperature (i.e. a second cooling temperature or called an iced drink temperature) comprises refrigerating the beverage concentrate (¶ 0023).
With respect to claim 14, Chang discloses an apparatus (abstract, i.e. called a beverage manufacturing machine) for brewing a beverage, comprising:
a brew station (see figure 1) configured to brew a beverage concentrate (i.e. an appropriate concentration of coffee, tea bag, powder, fruit tea powder or tea leaf.) using hot water (¶ 0001, 0003);
a heat exchanger 35 (fig. 2) configured to cool the beverage concentrate from a first temperature (i.e. a hot drinking water temperature and/or a hot drink temperature) to a predetermined second temperature (¶ 0013, i.e. a first cooling temperature and/or a room temperature water); and
a storage receptacle 33, 34 (fig. 2, i.e. a coolant container and/or a coolant buffer) in fluid communication with the heat exchanger (35) to hold the beverage concentrate received from an output of the heat exchanger (35) (¶ 0023, 0029),
wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is further cooled from the second temperature (¶ 0013, i.e. a first cooling temperature and/or a room temperature water) to a third temperature (i.e. a second cooling temperature or called an iced drink temperature) (¶ 0031) while the beverage concentrate is held in the storage receptacle 33, 34 (fig. 2, i.e. a coolant container and/or a coolant buffer).
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) 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20220313006).
Regarding claim 4, Chang discloses wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is reduced from the predetermined second temperature (i.e. a first cooling temperature and/or a room temperature water) to the third temperature (i.e. a second cooling temperature or called an iced drink temperature) within about 4 hours (¶ 0028, i.e. cool the beverage quickly without requiring a long waiting time).
Chang does not explicitly disclose reducing the second temperature to third temperature within about 4 hours. However, 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 Chang before him or her, to include such time frame of Chang because such arrangement achieves the effects of improving the cooling efficiency, saving power, cooling the beverage
continuously in loops without incurring a larger power consumption, and providing a high efficiency to meet commercial requirements. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a beverage manufacturing machine capable of making a drink quickly and providing a high cooling efficiency (¶ 0003).
Furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 5, Chang discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above including wherein the first temperature is about 200 0F (¶ 0005, 0024, i.e. an approximately 60~80 Celsius (140 0F~176 0F).
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 Chang before him or her, to include such about temperature arrangements of Chang because such arrangement achieves the effects of improving the cooling efficiency, saving power, cooling the beverage continuously in loops without incurring a larger power consumption, and providing a high efficiency to meet commercial requirements. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a beverage manufacturing machine capable of making a drink quickly and providing a high cooling efficiency (¶ 0003).
Furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 6, Chang discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the second temperature is about 700F. Chang discloses wherein the second temperature (¶ 0013, i.e. a first cooling temperature and/or a room temperature water). It is considered inherently a typical of room temperature between 68 0F and 72 0F.
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 Chang before him or her, to include such about temperature arrangements of Chang because such arrangement achieves the effects of improving the cooling efficiency, saving power, cooling the beverage continuously in loops without incurring a larger power consumption, and providing a high efficiency to meet commercial requirements. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a beverage manufacturing machine capable of making a drink quickly and providing a high cooling efficiency (¶ 0003).
Furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 7, Chang discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the third temperature is about 40°F. Chang discloses wherein the third temperature (i.e. a second cooling temperature or called an iced drink temperature). It is considered inherently a typical of an iced drink temperature between 35 0F and 50 0F.
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 Chang before him or her, to include such temperature arrangements of Chang because such arrangement achieves the effects of improving the cooling efficiency, saving power, cooling the beverage continuously in loops without incurring a larger power consumption, and providing a high efficiency to meet commercial requirements. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a beverage manufacturing machine capable of making a drink quickly and providing a high cooling efficiency (¶ 0003).
Furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20220313006) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guerrero et al. (US 20050269362).
Regarding claims 8-9, Chang 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 Chang 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 Chang (US 20220313006) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bromley (US 20160081976).
Regarding claim 10, Chang 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 Chang 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, Chang in view of Bromley discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Chang further discloses 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 Chang 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, Chang in view of 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, Chang in view of 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, Chang in view of 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 from the one or more sources of 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, Chang in view of 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) 15-16 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20220313006) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Caswell et al. (US 11,493,269).
Regarding claim 15, Chang discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for a refrigerator, wherein the storage receptacle is located within the refrigerator.
However, Caswell teaches a refrigerator 100 (fig. 1, i.e. also called the beverage chiller), wherein the storage receptacle (112) is located within the refrigerator 100 (fig. 1, i.e. also called the beverage chiller).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a beverage chiller. 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 Chang and Caswell before him or her, to include such a refrigerator of Caswell because the chilled beverage can be freshly brewed and presented to the consumer as a chilled beverage within a matter of seconds or minutes without being diluted. The chilled beverage is therefore fresh, cold and customized based on the beverage type or variety, while requiring minimal labor to produce. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows creation and serving of a wide variety of freshly brewed and chilled beverages for each individual consumer (col. 1, lines 17-20).
With respect to claim 16, Chang in view of Caswell 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).
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 Chang and Caswell before him or her, to include such a brewing station components of Caswell because the chilled beverage can be freshly brewed and presented to the consumer as a chilled beverage within a matter of seconds or minutes without being diluted. The chilled beverage is therefore fresh, cold and customized based on the beverage type or variety, while requiring minimal labor to produce. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows creation and serving of a wide variety of freshly brewed and chilled beverages for each individual consumer (col. 1, lines 17-20).
With respect to claim 20, Chang in view of Caswell 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).
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 Chang and Caswell before him or her, to include such sensor(s) of Caswell because a portion of the cooling medium can be drained automatically upon reaching a predetermined height within the chamber. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows creation and serving of a wide variety of freshly brewed and chilled beverages for each individual consumer (col. 1, lines 17-20).
With respect to claim 21, Chang in view of Caswell discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Caswell further discloses wherein when an amount of the beverage concentrate held in one of the plurality of storage receptacles is at or below the 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).
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 Chang and Caswell before him or her, to include such storage receptacle thresholds of Caswell because the chilled beverage can be freshly brewed and presented to the consumer as a chilled beverage within a matter of seconds or minutes without being diluted. The chilled beverage is therefore fresh, cold and customized based on the beverage type or variety, while requiring minimal labor to produce. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows creation and serving of a wide variety of freshly brewed and chilled beverages for each individual consumer (col. 1, lines 17-20).
With respect to claim 22, Chang in view of Caswell 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).
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 Chang and Caswell before him or her, to include such type of waters of Caswell because the chilled beverage can be freshly brewed and presented to the consumer as a chilled beverage within a matter of seconds or minutes without being diluted. The chilled beverage is therefore fresh, cold and customized based on the beverage type or variety, while requiring minimal labor to produce. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows creation and serving of a wide variety of freshly brewed and chilled beverages for each individual consumer (col. 1, lines 17-20).
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20220313006) in view of Caswell et al. (US 11,493,269) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Di Maria (US 20190254465).
Regarding claim 17, Chang in view of Caswell 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 Chang in view of Caswell 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, Chang in view of Caswell 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 Chang in view of Caswell 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, Chang in view of Caswell 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 Chang in view of Caswell 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. Rezeki (US 20110200719). Andrews (US 200400111814). Rockwood et al. (US 2,927,522). Standaar et al. (US 10,893,773). Woodall (US 10,750,760). Dhruv et al. (US 8,158,076). Lu et al. (US 20110209624). Bethuy et al. (US 20160368752). Dahan et al. (US 20190270630). Dees et al. (US 20220240533). Standaar et al. (US 20220225816). Hobden et al. (US 20210361112). And Cook (US 20190169011).
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
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights