Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment presents claims 1-14 as amended, claim 27 as cancelled, and claim 30 as added. Claims 1-14 and 30 remain pending examination.
The amendment is sufficient in addressing the previously indicated claim objections.
The amendment is sufficient in overcoming the previously indicated interpretations under 35 USC 112 (f).
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant traverses the Perentes reference in that:
“…the alleged external valve operating means, i.e., the load generating system (17) including spring- biasing element (16), of Perentes is arranged to directly counteract pressure exerted on the alleged at least one valve, i.e., enclosing member (15) and valve (23), of the alleged beverage draining means by centrifuged liquid exiting outlet orifices of the alleged capsule. In other words, the alleged external valve operating means of Perentes applies a force (i.e., "a predefined resilient load") directly to the alleged at least one valve of the beverage draining means to hold the alleged at least one valve in a closed position until a threshold pressure is reached, as opposed to applying a force from outside the beverage draining means to control the state of the at least one valve, as recited in amended Claim 1.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Perentes illustrates the external valve operating means (16/17) arranged external to the valve of the beverage draining means (11), Perentes does not explicitly teach that the external valve operating means applies a force from outside the beverage draining means to control the state of the at least one valve.
However, Perentes teaches, as detailed herein, that the spring (16) applies a force onto the valve (15) to control the state of the valve (15). Those of ordinary skill in the art would consider it reasonable that the external valve operating means, being arranged external to the valve of the beverage draining means, would apply a force from outside (a portion) the beverage draining means.
Additionally, using an external valve operating means that applies a force from outside the beverage draining means to control the state of the at least on valve would have been an obvious modification as:
An external valve operating means applying an internal force within the beverage draining means and an external force outside the beverage draining means addresses a recognized problem of controlling the state of the valve of the beverage draining means during rotation,
There are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions to this problem in that the applied force can either be internal or external. And
One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued using an external valve operating means that applies a force from outside the beverage draining means with a reasonable expectation of success.
Based on the above, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success,
it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In
that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was
obvious under 35 USC 103. See MPEP 2143-I-E.
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 1-14 and 30 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.
Regarding claim 1, the amended limitation of “wherein the at least one external valve operating means applies a force from outside the beverage draining means” renders the claim indefinite as such limitation is confusing. Claim 1 also requires, in relevant part, that the beverage draining means comprises the at least one valve and the at least one external valve operating means. It is unclear in what way the external valve operating means is arranged in order to apply a force from outside the beverage draining means when the beverage draining means is defined as including the external valve operating means. In other words, it is not clear how the external valve operating means applies a force from outside the beverage draining means since the claim specifically requires that the external valve operating means is a component of the beverage draining means. Since the claim requires that the external valve operating means is part of the beverage draining means, the applied force would be within, and not be from outside, the beverage draining means (as a whole). If Applicant’s intention is that the applies force is “outside” a specific region of the beverage draining means, then this should be clearly articulated. As a result of the above, the intended structural cooperative relationship between the beverage draining means, the valve, and the external valve operating means to allows for the external valve operating means to apply a force from outside the beverage draining means is unclear. For purposes of examination, as the applied force from the external valve operating means is use to control the state of the valve, the claim language will be interpreted as “wherein the at least one external valve operating means applies a force from outside any part/portion of the beverage draining means to control the state of the at least one valve.”
Dependent claims 2-14 and 30 inherit the above deficiency.
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) 1-12, 14, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over 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 the capsule (1);
a motor 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 pump arranged for feeding liquid into the capsule (liquid supply 21, pump 20, injection member 13); and
a 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 a state of the at least one valve in order to modify a 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.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Perentes illustrates the external valve operating means (16/17) arranged external to the valve (15) of the beverage draining means (11), Perentes does not explicitly teach that the external valve operating means applies a force from outside the beverage draining means to control the state of the at least on valve.
However, Perentes does teach that the external valve operating means applies a force onto the valve from outside the valve. Perentes teaches, as detailed above, that the spring (16) applies a force onto the valve (15) to control the state of the valve (15). Those of ordinary skill in the art would consider it reasonable that the external valve operating means, being arranged external to the valve of the beverage draining means, would apply a force from outside (a portion) of the beverage draining means.
Additionally, using an external valve operating means that applies a force from outside the beverage draining means to control the state of the at least on valve would have been an obvious modification as:
An external valve operating means applying an internal force within the beverage draining means and an external force outside the beverage draining means addresses a recognized problem of controlling the state of the valve of the beverage draining means during rotation,
There are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions to this problem in that the applied force can either be internal or external. And
One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued using an external valve operating means that applies a force from outside the beverage draining means with a reasonable expectation of success.
Based on the above, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success,
it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In
that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was
obvious under 35 USC 103. See MPEP 2143-I-E.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Perentes, by modifying the placement of the external valve operating means relative to the beverage draining means so that the external valve operating means that applies a force form outside the beverage draining means.
Regarding claim 2, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one external valve operating means (16/17) is arranged to control the state of the at least one valve (15/23) such that the higher the rotational speed, the higher the closing force of the at least one 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, based on signals from a flow rate sensor that correspond to a flow rate of the beverage, the rotational speed is adjusted to achieve a desired flow rate of the beverage (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 at least one external valve operating means (16/17) may control the state of the at least one 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 at least one 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 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 at least one external 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 at least one 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 7, 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 at least one valve operating means controls the state of the at least one valve such that the at least one 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 rotatable 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 at least one external valve operating means (16/17) comprises 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 at least one valve member (spring 16) is arranged to be displaceable in rotation or translation (as detailed above).
Regarding claim 11, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one valve is biased 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 a spring element (spring 16) external to the walls of the beverage draining means (Fig. 3), or an integral resilient wall part of the beverage draining means that biases the at least one valve towards the state with reduced flow resistance.
Regarding claim 14, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches a at least one of a capsule identification means or a user interface means, wherein the valve operating means is configured to control the state of the at least one valve based on information provided by the at least one of the capsule identification means or the 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).
Regarding claim 30, Perentes teaches the claimed device, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein a magnitude of the force applied by the at least one external valve operating means is not based on the beverage flowing inside and against an inner wall or other element 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….) [Here, until sufficient pressure is exerted onto the valve, the magnitude of the applies force from 16/17 onto the valve 15 is not based on beverage flowing inside as claimed, but rather based on the resilient load of the spring. As the claim language does not specify the claimed magnitude, the broadest reasonable interpretation includes all magnitudes of applied force onto the valve such as in the normally closed position detailed in Perentes].
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 at least one valve comprises a flexible membrane arranged to vary a 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 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
Prosecution Insights