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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KR on 07/23/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2022-023675 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“A delivery pipe 210” should read “a delivery pipe 240” (Pg. 7, Paragraph 2, Lines 10-11).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “the water supplied down moves up” (Pg. 12, line 9). The claim language is unclear in describing the claimed invention, and the specification does not state a meaning that could be ascertained from the claim language.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the reverse extraction unit" (Pg. 12, line 12), “the bottom” (Pg. 12, line 13), “the coffee maker” (Pg. 12, line 14), “the top of the 3-way valve” (Pg. 12, lines 18-19), “the bottom of the brewing container” (Pg. 12, lines 19-20), “the top of the brewing container” (Pg. 12, line 22), and “outside” (Pg. 12, line 24). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the outer surface of the supply pipe" (Pg. 13, lines 10-11). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-6 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Lambert)
PNG
media_image2.png
308
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Lambert)
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lambert (U.S. Patent No. 1774980).
Lambert teaches:
Regarding claim 1, (See Annotated Figures 1 and 2 above) A reverse coffee extraction device (Annotated Figure 1) comprising: a pump (28) configured to pump water upwards; and a brewing container (5) installed above the pump (28) to extract coffee, wherein the water pumped upwards is delivered to the brewing container (5) and moves upwards, and the coffee in the brewing container is brewed and extracted to an outside (Annotated Figure 2) while the water supplied down moves up. "The operation of my device or apparatus is as follows: the cartridge is lifted out of the outer container (5) and filled with the coffee grounds. It is then replaced, and the filter member (14) placed over it and the cap or cover latched down. The motor (29) is now started which reciprocated the piston (28) and draws hot water from the line (26) and forces it up through the opening (20a) through the foraminated base plate (12) and into and up through the coffee grounds in the receptacle (11), thence out through the filter member (14) into the space or chamber (16). From the chamber the resulting fluid passes through the openings (17) in flange (15) into the space (18) whence it is drawn off through pipe (19) to the coffee reservoir (not shown)” (Pg. 2, Lines 91-108) and “Hot water at about 212° Fahrenheit is forced by automatic means through the receptacle containing the coffee in a direction from the bottom up through the top of the receptacle. Ovor the top is placed a filtering means which seals the grounds and sediment in the coffee container and permits only pure liquid with the desired coffee flavor, caffeine, and but a slight trace of tannin to pass through. This liquid or beverage is drawn off at the top. The outer receptacle is an enclosure and is seated on a base beneath which is power driven means for pumping hot water. A time or quantity controlled device is provided for turning off the power to stop the flow of water when the desired amount of coffee has been produced” (Pg. 1, Lines 67-84). Examiner note: There is nothing in Lambert to prevent the flow of water from moving upwards while the coffee is brewed and extracted to an outside, thus it is assumed that the pump (28) is pumping water up while the coffee is being extracted to an outside.
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.
PNG
media_image3.png
438
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 (Kramer)
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert (U.S. Patent No. 1774980) in view of Kramer (U.S. Patent No. 20210251417).
Lambert teaches:
Regarding claim 2, (See Annotated Figures 1 and 2 above) wherein the reverse extraction unit (Annotated Figure 1) includes: the pump (28) configured to be disposed on the bottom in the coffee maker (Annotated Figure 1); a valve (25) connected to the pump (28); a supply pipe (26) connected to the valve (25) to supply water; a delivery pipe (22) vertically connected to the top of the valve (25) and guiding water upward and supplying to the bottom of the brewing container (5) when the pump pumps water supplied through the supply pipe (26); and a nozzle (18 and 19) connected to the top of the brewing container (5) and delivering extracted coffee water upward and extracting outside. “The motor (29) is now started which reciprocated the piston (28) and draws hot water from the line (26) and forces it up through the opening (20a) through the foraminated base plate (12) and into and up through the coffee grounds in the receptacle (11), thence out through the filter member (14) into the space or chamber (16). From the chamber the resulting fluid passes through the openings (17) in flange (15) into the space (18) whence it is drawn off through pipe (19) to the coffee reservoir (not shown)” (Pg. 2, Lines 96-108).”
Regarding claim 3, (See Annotated Figures 1 and 2 above) wherein the brewing container (5) is installed between the nozzle (18 and 19) and the delivery pipe (22), and when coffee is brewed into the water supplied upward through the delivery pipe (22), the coffee water is delivered and extracted through the nozzle (18 and 19).
Lambert does not teach:
Regarding claim 2, a 3-way valve connected to the pump; a supply pipe connected to the 3-way valve to supply water; a delivery pipe connected to the top of the 3-way valve.
Kramer teaches:
Regarding claim 2, (See Annotated Figure 3 above) a 3-way valve (15) connected to the pump (4); a supply pipe (5) connected to the 3-way valve (15) to supply water; a delivery pipe (Annotated Figure 3) connected to the top of the 3-way valve. “Water lines 5 may be any water line (e.g., pipe or hose) configured to convey fluid through extraction system 1” (Pg. 2, Paragraph 24, lines 1-3). Examiner note: Kramer teaches the flow of water from the pump (4) to the side of the 3-way valve (15) by means of a pipe, and then through the top of the 3-way valve (15) to the delivery pipe (Annotated Figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lambert to incorporate the teachings of Kramer to have, a 3-way valve connected to the pump; a supply pipe connected to the 3-way valve to supply water; a delivery pipe connected to the top of the 3-way valve. Doing so allows for the user to have a more versatile control over the flow of water. Additionally, this allows for the valve, not directly connected to pump or delivery pipe, to be opened for just water to flow out for applications such as tea.
PNG
media_image4.png
587
715
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 (Michael)
PNG
media_image5.png
504
751
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 (Michael)
Claims 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Kramer as applied to claims 2 and 3 above, and further in view of Michael et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2937710), hereinafter Michael.
Lambert in view of Kramer teaches:
Regarding claim 4, (See Lambert’s Annotated Figures 1 and 2 above) the supply pipe (26); water flowing through the supply pipe (26).
Lambert in view of Kramer does not teach:
Regarding claim 4, further comprising: a passage selecting the supply pipe and formed in the selected supply pipe; a strainer disposed on the outer surface of the supply pipe and having a coupling groove connected to the passage; and an iron separator coupled to the strainer and separating ferrous components contained in water flowing through the supply pipe.
Regarding claim 5, wherein a magnet is disposed in the iron separator so that ferrous components contained in water are separated by magnetism of the magnet.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the iron separator can be coupled to and separated from the strainer.
Michael teaches:
Regarding claim 4, (See Annotated Figures 4 and 5 above) further comprising: a passage (Annotated Figure 4) selecting the supply pipe (Annotated Figure 4) and formed in the selected supply pipe (Annotated Figure 4); a strainer (Annotated Figure 4) disposed on the outer surface of the supply pipe (Annotated Figure 4) and having a coupling groove (Annotated Figure 4) connected to the passage (Annotated Figure 4); and an iron separator (116, 117, 119, and 120) coupled to the strainer (Annotated Figure 4) and separating ferrous components contained in water flowing through the supply pipe (Annotated Figure 4), "Several such filters may be found desirable, for example, one filter 28 in advance of the regulating valve and meter, and others, such as 28a, in advance of each of the appliances served, in this case the water heater 32" (Pg. 1, Columns 2, Line 72 - Pg. 2, Column 3, Line 4) and "A second embodiment of the service filter unit of the present invention is disclosed in Figure 3, which embodiment is particularly but not exclusively adapted for use as the unit 28a of Figure 1" (Pg. 2, Column 4, Lines 40-43).
Regarding claim 5, (See Annotated Figures 4 and 5 above), wherein a magnet (118) is disposed in the iron separator (116, 117, 119, and 120) so that ferrous components contained in water are separated by magnetism of the magnet (118). “In view of the ferrous nature of the major portion of dust and dirt particles in the flowing fluid, we have conceived of employing magnetic filter means, wherein magnetized members are employed in the line of flow to attract and hold from further travel a great percentage of the total dust or contaminants” (Pg. 1, Column 1, Lines 39-44).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the iron separator (Annotated Figures 4 and 5 above) can be coupled to and separated from the strainer (Annotated Figure 4), “The magnet assembly may be readily and conveniently cleaned upon removal from the housing” (Pg. 1, Column 2, Lines 6-7).
In regards to claim 4, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lambert in view of Kramer to incorporate the teachings of Michael to have a passage within the selected supply pipe, a strainer disposed on the outer surface of the supply pipe, a coupling groove connected to the passage, and an iron separator coupled to the strainer contained in the water flowing through the supply pipe. Doing so allows for the prevention of any ferrous scale buildup within a device. Ferrous scale buildup can accelerate corrosion; thus, prevention of ferrous scale buildup is beneficial because it can lower the cost and need for replacement parts.
In regards to claim 5, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lambert in view of Kramer to incorporate the teachings of Michael to have a magnet disposed in the iron separator. Doing so allows for a solution to ferrous scale buildup that does not require chemicals to break down the scale. In a drink application many consumers would find it desirable to not chemically treat the water they are using to prepare their drink, for reasons such as safety and ease of use.
In regards to claim 6, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lambert in view of Kramer to incorporate the teachings of Michael to have the iron separator be coupled and separated from the strainer. Doing so allows for re-useability of the filter as the filter can to be removed and cleaned, as recognized by Michael “The magnet assembly may be readily and conveniently cleaned upon removal from the housing.” (Pg. 1, Column 2, Paragraph 1, Lines 6-7). Furthermore, since the filter can be cleaned and re-used it has the benefit of being a low-cost solution to ferrous scale build up, as it does not have to be replaced every time it is used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA ELIZABETH ULATOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3322. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/EMMA E ULATOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 03/16/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 3761