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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 02/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the state” and “the flow resistance” should be “a state” and “a flow resistance” as this is the first recitations of the same.
Claim 2: “the closing force” should be “a closing force.”
Claim 4: “the total of the range” should be “a total of a range.”
Claim 13: “the free cross-section” should be “a free cross-section.”
Claim 14: “valve operating means” should be “the valve operating means.”
Claim 14: “valve operating means control the state of the valve are designed to control the state of the valve” is repetitive and should be “the valve operating means control the state of the valve based on….”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for rotationally driving the capsule at an adjustable rotational speed,” “liquid feeding unit” and “external valve operating means” in claim 1, “flow-rate control means adjusting the flow rate such that a desired flow rate of the beverage is achieved” in claim 3, and “restoring force means” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “liquid feeding unit for feeding liquid into the capsule” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” followed by “for feeding liquid into the capsule,” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The phrase “liquid feeding” conveys only function and not any known structure for performing the claimed functions.
Claim limitation “means for rotationally driving the capsule at an adjustable rotational speed” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” followed by “for rotationally driving the capsule at an adjustable rotational speed,” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitation “external valve operating means that is arranged to control the state of the valve” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” followed by “to control the state of the valve,” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The phrase “external valve operating” conveys only function and not any known structure for performing the claimed functions.
Claim limitation “flow-rate control means adjusting the flow rate such that a desired flow rate of the beverage is achieved” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” followed by “adjusting the flow rate such that a desired flow rate of the beverage is achieved,” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The phrase “flow-rate control” conveys only function and not any known structure for performing the claimed functions.
Claim limitation “restoring force means biasing the valve” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” followed by “biasing the valve,” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The phrase “restoring force” conveys only function and not any known structure for performing the claimed functions.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-14 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Means for rotationally driving the capsule
Paragraph 0075 details using rotational driving means 60 (such as an electric motor) to cause rotation of the brewing module, which includes the capsule holder 16.
Liquid feeding unit
Paragraph 0074 details using pump 5 to providing liquid through supply line 3 to capsule 17.
External valve operating means
Paragraph 0087 details using pivot 56 as an external valve state operating means, which generates a centrifugal force that is used to control the change of the state of valve 50. Para. 0098 details 56 being a hinged pivot.
Flow rate control means
Paragraph 0076 details using a flow meter or sensor 62 to provide feedback regarding flow to control unit 7, which controls the rotational speed.
Restoring force means
Para. 0091 details using spring 57 to bias the valve 50.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perentes et al. (US2012/0240779).
Regarding claim 1, Perentes teaches a device for preparing a beverage from a substance contained in a capsule (para. 0001; “a system for preparing a beverage from a beverage substance contained in the capsule by passing a liquid through the substance using centrifugal forces.
“) (Fig. 3, capsule 1), the device comprising:
a capsule holder (10) arranged for holding such capsule (1);
means for rotationally driving the capsule at an adjustable rotational speed (rotary motor 27 for driving rotating capsule holder) (motor 27 is controller via controller 25 which adjust the rotational speed-para. 0109);
a liquid feeding unit for feeding liquid into the capsule (liquid supply 21, pump 20, injection member 13); and
beverage draining means (collector 11, valve 15/23, and load generating system 16/17) for draining a beverage produced in the capsule, the beverage draining means comprising:
at least one valve (valve 15/23 arranged circumferentially to water injection unit 18-para. 0092), and
at least one external valve operating means (16/17) that is arranged to control the state of the valve in order to modify the flow resistance of the beverage draining means (para. 0101; “The spring-biasing element 16 applies a predefined resilient load onto the enclosing member 15. The load primarily distributes itself along the pressing surface 15a of the valve portion 15 acting in closure against the annular surface of the valve portion of rim 3. Such surface may also be a simple annular contact line. Therefore, the valve 23 normally closes off the flow path for the centrifuged liquid until a sufficient pressure is exerted on the upstream area of the valve by the centrifuged liquid exiting through the orifices created by the perforating elements 24…. The liquid flows thus between the membrane 4 and the valve portion 15 and forces the valve 23 to open by pushing the whole enclosing member 15 upwards against the force of the spring-biasing element 16. The centrifuged liquid can thus transverse the restriction created between the surface 15a of the portion 15 and the upper surface or line of the rim 3 or protruding portion 18. The liquid is thus ejected at a high velocity against the collector 11 as indicated by arrow A in FIG. 3 or another vertically oriented annular wall of the device placed between the collector and the valve 23 (not shown).”) (para. 0109; “The sensing means 26 are preferably connected to a control means 25 of the device in order to provide information related to the present back-pressure acting onto the rim 3 of the engaged capsule, i.e., pressure or force value. Thereby, the control means 25 are preferably connected to at least the drive means 27, the pump 20 and the heating means 19. Thus, the brewing parameters such as the rotational speed of the motor 27, the temperature, the pressure and/or the volume of the liquid provided to the capsule during the beverage production process may be adjusted dependent on the provided information of the sensing means 26. In particular, the thickness h of the rim 3 is designed to vary the resulting back-pressure of valve 23 in order to adapt the brewing parameters of the particular beverage to be prepared. Furthermore, in function of the sensed information by the pressure sensors 26, the rotational speed is adjusted at the desired value that corresponds to a desired flow rate. As a result, different speeds or speed ranges can be selected as function of the sensed information by the sensing means 26. Selection of the speed is provided in the control unit 25 which controls in return the rotary motor 26 and if necessary the flow rate of the pump 20 to ensure sufficient supply of liquid in the capsule as a function of the selected speed.”) (para. 0110; “the length variation of the load generating means 16, 17 (e.g. spring length) can be sensed by distance sensor and provided as information to the control unit 25 for adjusting the brewing parameters, e.g., the rotation speed and/or volume of injected liquid.”).
Regarding claim 2, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the external valve operating means (16/17) is arranged to control the state of the valve (15/23) such that the higher the rotational speed, the higher the closing force of the valve (para. 0101; “the valve 23 normally closes off the flow path for the centrifuged liquid until a sufficient pressure is exerted on the upstream area of the valve by the centrifuged liquid exiting through the orifices created by the perforating elements 24. It should be noted that a small liquid leakage through the valve means 23 may be required that helps vent the gas or air contained in the capsule during the filling of the capsule with liquid (not shown). This leakage may be obtained by small radial grooves or orifices provided in any of the valve portions (portion 15 of the device and/or rim 3 of the capsule). The leakage may also be obtained by small embossings on the membrane 4 to create a leak. The small embossings could be on the surface of the valve portion 15. The liquid flows thus between the membrane 4 and the valve portion 15 and forces the valve 23 to open by pushing the whole enclosing member 15 upwards against the force of the spring-biasing element 16. The centrifuged liquid can thus transverse the restriction created between the surface 15a of the portion 15 and the upper surface or line of the rim 3 or protruding portion 18. The liquid is thus ejected at a high velocity against the collector 11 as indicated by arrow A in FIG. 3 or another vertically oriented annular wall of the device placed between the collector and the valve 23 (not shown).”) [Here, 16/17 biases the valve closed and only allows separation when a sufficient pressure is applied; i.e., one in which is greater in magnitude and opposite in direction of the biasing force. As a result, there necessarily exists a range of speeds that allows for the biasing force to commensurately increase until the biasing force can no longer counteract the force resulting from the increase in speed.].
Regarding claim 3, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the rotational speed is adjusted by flow-rate control means adjusting the flow rate such that a desired flow rate of the beverage is achieved (controller 25 is coupled to motor 27 and relies on feedback data from sensor 26) (para. 0104 and 0109 details adjusting flow rate).
Regarding claim 4, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the valve operating means (16/17) may control the state of the valve (15/23) such that the flow resistance of the beverage draining means increases in at least one subrange or the total of the range of the adjustable rotational speed (para. 0109 details adjusting rotational speed within ranges to reach a desired flow rate).
Regarding claim 5, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the valve (15/23) is controlled (via 16/17 as well as by controlling the rotational speed via controlling motor 27) such that the flow resistance of the beverage draining means is higher at a first rotational speed than at a second rotational speed, wherein the second rotational drive speed is lower than the first rotational speed (para. 0109 details adjusting rotational speed to reach a desired flow rate. Figure 5 provides a graphical representation of flow rate of the beverage vs motor rpm and shows that the flow rate increases with increasing rotation.) [As the flow rate increases with increasing rotational speed, this would mean that the flow resistance would also be high as compared to lower speeds. The same result is found in the instant application-see para. 0030].
Regarding claim 6, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the valve operating means controls the state of the valve such that: the valve is in a state of lower flow resistance when the rotational speed is between 0 rpm and a threshold rotational speed, and the valve is in a state of higher flow resistance when the rotational speed is higher than the threshold rotational speed (para. 0109 details adjusting rotational speed to reach a desired flow rate. Figure 5 provides a graphical representation of flow rate of the beverage vs motor rpm and shows that the flow rate increases with increasing rotation.) [As the flow rate increases with increasing rotational speed, this would mean that the flow resistance would also be high as compared to lower speeds. The same result is found in the instant application-see para. 0030. As such the flow resistance is low when the speed is between 0 and some value and would increase with increasing speed].
Regarding claim 6, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 6, and further teaches wherein when the rotational speed is higher than the threshold rotational speed, the valve operating means control the state of the valve such that the valve: increases the flow resistance with increasing rotational speed (See above analysis in claim 6), or keeps constant the flow resistance with increasing rotational speed.
Regarding claim 8, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the beverage draining means comprise a section which is arranged to be rotatable together with the capsule holder, and wherein the at least one valve is arranged in the rotatable section of the beverage draining means (15/23 rotates with capsule holder 10).
Regarding claim 9, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 8, and further teaches wherein the external valve operating means (16/17) comprise a valve member (spring 16) which is arranged to be displaced in a flow resistance increasing direction by centrifugal forces when a mass of the valve member or a mass connected thereto is rotated (para. 0101 and 0109; 16 biases the valve 15/23 onto the capsule holder and only when sufficient force is applied does the valve separate).
Regarding claim 10, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 9, and further teaches wherein the valve member (spring 16) is arranged to be displaceable in rotation and/or translation (as detailed above).
Regarding claim 11, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches a restoring force means biasing (spring 16) [the claim is interpreted as further defining the external valve operating means] the valve (15/23) towards a state with reduced flow resistance (spring 16 biases the valve 15/23 towards the capsule and capsule holder during use. Figure 5 illustrates flow rates compared to rotational speeds).
Regarding claim 12, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 11, and further teaches wherein the restoring force means is a spring element (spring 16) external to the walls of the beverage draining means (Fig. 3), or wherein the restoring force means is an integral resilient wall part of the beverage draining means.
Regarding claim 14, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches a capsule identification means and/or user interface means, wherein valve operating means control the state of the valve are designed to control the state of the valve based on information provided by the capsule identification means and/or user interface means (para. 0046-0047; barcode, RFID, etc. which allows for tailoring liquid temperature, pump flow rate, rotational speed, etc. By adjusting rotational speed based on such identification means, the valve 15/23 is indirectly controlled since the opening state of the valve is dependent on the rotational speed. See paras. 0101 and 0109).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perentes in view of Jarisch (US2013/0206014).
Regarding claim 13, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the valve comprises a flexible membrane arranged to vary the free cross-section of the beverage draining means when displaced.
Jarisch relates to the preparation of beverages by centrifugation (para. 0001) and teaches a valve comprising a flexible membrane arranged to vary the free cross-section of the beverage draining means when displaced (Figs. 3/3A, para. 0050 and 0056; flexible membrane 43, which aids in restricting flow).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Perentes with Jarisch, by adding to the valve of Perentes, with the flexible membrane of Jarisch, to further aid in providing back-pressure while enabling the control of residence time of the liquid in the capsule and of the flow rate of the centrifugal liquid leaving the receptacle (para. 0027, 0050, and 0056 of Jarisch).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2011/0189362 to Denisart et al. Figure 7 and paragraph 0106 details using an adjustable load actuating means (50) for regulating liquid flow
US2012/0301581 to Abegglen et al. Figs. 8-9 and paragraph 0108 details a valve (18) having a state controlled by springs (36), which bias the valve towards the capsule holder (20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761