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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-11 and 15-19 in the reply filed on 27 Oct 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Inventions I and II define a single general inventive concept. Specifically, Applicant argues that the method claims of Invention II incorporate the structural limitations of the apparatus of Invention I, that the method and apparatus claims share overlapping features that demonstrate general unity of invention, and that the method claims includes all the limitations of Claims 1 and 15. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, while the method incorporates the structures of the apparatus, the method claims further requires the process to place ground coffee into the coffee filter. As presented in the previous Office Action, under clause (2), the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process, such as using loose tea leaves to brew tea. Additionally, the apparatus can also be used to filter sediments or particles from any liquid, whether food or non-food. Therefore, the Apparatus as claimed is considered to be distinct as it can be used in another process different from the process as claimed.
In response to the unity of invention shared by Inventions I and II, the argument is not persuasive because the Application is not filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 special international provisions and thus meeting the requirements of Unity of Invention is not applicable in this case.
Claims 12-14 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 6-11 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 6, the limitation “comprising part of a beverage system” renders the claim indefinite because the claim is defining “part of a beverage system” to be comprised by the pour-over cup; however, it appears that Applicant intends the pour-over cup to be “part of a beverage system” such that the “beverage system” comprises the pour-over cup as well as the beverage container. Therefore, it is unclear as to which structure is the combination and which structure is the sub-combination.
Claims 7-11 are rejected based on its dependency on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 recites “the perimeter flange is configured to rest along an inner flange ledge defined within an inner portion of the beverage container” which is also recited in Claim 15 (last two lines) and therefore fails to further limit the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 2017/0360251 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Miller discloses a pour over cup, comprising:
a cylindrical wall defining an upper opening and a bottom having a surface and a plurality of apertures defined therethrough (paragraph 25), the pour over cup further comprising a perimeter flange around the outside of the cylindrical wall and extending outward from the cylindrical wall (see top rim of pour over cup 101);
wherein when in use, the pour over cup is configured to be at least partially received within a beverage container (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Miller further teach comprising stainless steel (paragraph 20).
Regarding Claim 5, Miller further teaches wherein the pour over cup is configured to receive at least part of a coffee filter therein (filter 105, paragraph 20), wherein a relative bottom of the coffee filter contacts a relative bottom of the pour over cup (see Fig. 1 where the filter paper is below the infusible material 108).
Regarding Claim 6, Miller further teaches comprising part of a beverage system, the beverage system further comprising the beverage container (capturing reservoir 125, paragraph 21).
Regarding Claim 7, Miller further teaches comprising a lid (paragraph 8).
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) 2, 8-11 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2017/0360251 A1) in view of Bebo (US 2017/023418 A1).
Regarding Claims 2, 8, 15 and 17, Miller is silent to wherein when in use, the perimeter flange is configured to rest along an inner flange ledge defined within an inner portion of the beverage container. Bebo is relied on to teach a pour-over apparatus that comprises a cylindrical wall (receptacle guides 2, see Fig. 1) that further comprises a perimeter flange that extends around and outward from the cylindrical wall, and is configured to rest along an inner flange ledge defined within an inner portion of the beverage container (see Fig. 6). This configuration allows the pour-over cup to be stored inside the container for “storage mode” (see abstract and Fig. 3). Therefore, since both Miller and Bebo are directed to pour over-cup systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pour-over cup such that the walls comprise a perimeter flange to rest along an inner flange within an inner portion of the beverage container for the purpose of allowing the pour-over cup to be stored within the beverage container.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Miller further teaches wherein when in use, a lower portion of the pour over cup is present within the inner portion of the beverage container, and an upper portion of the pour over cup at least partially extends above the beverage container (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, the combination is silent to wherein when the pour over cup is in a stored position, the pour over cup is configured to fully fit within the inner portion of the beverage container by inverting the pour over cup. However, Bebo discloses a pour-over cup that fully fit within the inner portion of the beverage container when in the stored position (see Fig. 3). Therefore, since both the claimed invention and Bebo achieves similar endeavors of fully storing the pour-over cup within the beverage container, the difference of inverting the pour-over cup would have been an obvious matter based on engineering design choice.
Alternatively, Claims 10 and 19 are intended use limitations and can be read on by the prior art by inverting both of the pour-over cup and the beverage container when storing the pour-over cup in the inner portion of the beverage container. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Bebo is relied on to further teach wherein when the pour over cup is in a stored position within the inner portion of the beverage container, a lid can be secured to the beverage container (lid C, see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 16, Miller further teaches comprising a lid (paragraph 8).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 3, further in view of Constantine et al. (WO 2021/034917 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination is silent to further comprising a coating selected from the group consisting of silicone and paint. Constantine is relied on to teach a pour-over cup configured to hold a filter therein for brewing coffee (see abstract). Constantine also teaches a coating of silicone to further provide thermal insulation during brewing (Page 4, third paragraph). Since both Miller and Constantine are directed to pour-over containers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further provide a silicone coating for the purpose of improving the thermal insulation of the pour-over cup.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0346. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792