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 .
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.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for locking” in claims 2 and 17; “means for filtering or the filtering means” in claims 7-15 and 19-20; “means for retaining” in claim 10; and “means for extending” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0004] discloses the one-piece body may include locking channels that mate with locking tabs on the brew pod. Such a locking means permits the brew pod to be locked securely in place during the brewing process.
Paragraph [0006] discloses the coffee maker may further comprise a gasket disposed between the engagement member and the grounds basket. The coffee maker may also include a means for filtering the brewed coffee after it exits the grounds basket. The filtering means may comprise a metal filter disposed within the engagement member. The filtering means may further comprise a paper filter disposed about the metal filter. With this arrangement, the gasket may include means for retaining the filter means disposed about the engagement member.
Paragraph [0007] discloses the coffee maker may also include means for lifting the one-piece body away from a heat source used during the brewing process. The lifting means preferably comprises a base disposed about the bottom of the one-piece body, a pneumatically actuated piston, a retaining screw in communication with the piston and the base, and a spring disposed about the piston. With this lifting arrangement, the coffee maker preferably includes two or more straws disposed under the grounds basket about the bottom of the one-piece body to allow room for the lifting means. Moreover, with this arrangement, the coffee maker may include a lid disposed about the top of the one-piece body, wherein the lifting means comprises a means for extending the lid away from the one-piece body during the brewing process.
Paragraph [0025] discloses the brew pod 104 includes one or more O-rings 162 that are capable of being seated within channels (not shown) in the interior of the one-piece body 102. When the brew pod 104 is seated within the channels, the brew pod 104 is preferably locked in its vertical position so the pressure from brewing does not push the brew pod 104 up and break the seal created by the O-rings 162. Such locking means may include locking tabs 134 disposed about the brew pod 104 and complementary locking channels 136 formed in the interior of the one-piece body 102. Other variations of the locking means includes screw threads to the inner diameter of the one-piece body 102 and corresponding male threads to the outer diameter of the brew pod 104, or the like. The top hat 116 may optionally include alignment means (not shown) so the user knows if the brew pod 104 is in a locked position or not.
Paragraph [0028] discloses the coffee maker 100 preferably includes a filter means to filter brewed coffee from coffee grounds disposed within the grounds basket 106. The filter means may include a metal filter 126 disposed about the engagement member 114. The metal filter 126 may be integrated into the engagement member 114 or removable from it to permit easy cleaning. The filter means may also include an optional paper filter 128 disposed about the metal filter 126. The addition of the paper filter 128 is advisable as paper filters perform better than metal filters as the former can hold back the undissolved coffee particles that create a more bitter and muddy taste. If the metal filter 126 is removable, it may be held into place by way of the gasket 122. In such case, it is preferable for the gasket 122 to have retaining means 130 for retaining the metal filter 126 inside the engagement member 114. These same retaining means 130 may also be used to retain the paper filter 128 against the metal filter 126.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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) 15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nolan (US 5,902,620).
Regarding claim 15, Nolan discloses a coffee maker 10 (fig. 1, i.e. a hot beverage maker) for brewing coffee over a heat source (i.e. a microwave oven), the coffee maker comprising:
a one-piece body (12, i.e. called a container) having a top (i.e. the top of the container 12) and an opposing bottom (i.e. the bottom of the container 12);
a brew pod (41, i.e. called a filter assembly including a filter basket 46) removably disposed within the one-piece body (12); and
a means for lifting 32 (i.e. an air gap; see figure 3 indicated by the arrows) the one-piece body (12) away from the heat source (i.e. a microwave oven) during a brewing process (col. 3, lines 8-15; col. 4, lines 1-30).
With respect to claim 17, Nolan discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses means for locking (i.e. threaded to form a positive connection between the interengaged parts) the brew pod (41) into the one-piece body (12) to permit the brew pod to be locked securely in place during the brewing process (col. 3, lines 46-57).
With respect to claim 18, Nolan discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses means wherein the snorkel (60, i.e. called a conically-shaped tubular liquid inlet) includes a spout (42), an engagement member (45) disposed under the spout, and a top hat (44) disposed above the spout (42), wherein the engagement member (45) has screw threads (col. 3, lines 32-40), and wherein the grounds basket (46, i.e. a filter basket) has complementary screw threads to permit the engagement member (45) to be removable from the grounds basket (46, i.e. a filter basket).
With respect to claim 20, Nolan discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses a lid (68, i.e. called a cap) disposed about the top of the one-piece body (12), wherein the lifting means 32 (i.e. an air gap; see figure 3 indicated by the arrows) comprises a means for extending the lid (68) away from the one-piece body (12) during the brewing process (i.e. the brewing cycle/operation).
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) 1-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolan (US 5,902,620) in view of Cardoso (US 20140106036).
Regarding claim 1, Nolan discloses a coffee maker 10 (fig. 1, i.e. a hot beverage maker) comprising:
a one-piece body (12, i.e. called a container) having a top (i.e. the top of the container 12) and an opposing bottom (i.e. the bottom of the container 12); and
a brew pod removably (41, i.e. called a filter assembly) disposed within the one-piece body (12), the brew pod comprising: a grounds basket (46, i.e. a filter basket) for holding coffee grounds (i.e. coffee grinds) to be brewed during a brewing process (i.e. the brew cycle/operation); and
a snorkel 60 (i.e. called a conically-shaped tubular liquid inlet) removably disposed above the grounds basket (46, i.e. a filter basket) about the top of the one- piece body (12), wherein the snorkel (60) permits brewed coffee to exit (i.e. exiting through openings 64) from the grounds basket (46) and then flow into the one-piece body (12).
Nolan discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for one or more straws disposed under the grounds basket about the bottom of the one-piece body.
However, Cardoso teaches one or more straws 130 (fig. 1, i.e. called supporting elements) disposed under the grounds basket (140) about the bottom of the one-piece body (100) (¶ 0029).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of preparing 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 Nolan and Cardoso before him or her, to include such supports/legs of Cardoso because a beverage additive disposed between a surface of the container and the pod for spacing apart the pod from the surface of the container. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a pod for containing a substance from which a beverage can be extracted (¶ 0007).
With respect to claim 2, Nolan in view of Cardoso discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses means for locking (i.e. threaded to form a positive connection between the interengaged parts) the brew pod (41) into the one- piece body (12, i.e. called a container) to permit the brew pod (41) to be locked securely in place during the brewing process (i.e. the brewing cycle/operation).
With respect to claim 3, Nolan in view of Cardoso discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses wherein the snorkel 60 (i.e. called a conically-shaped tubular liquid inlet) includes a spout (42), an engagement member (45) disposed under the spout (42), and a top hat (44, i.e. called a flange) disposed above the spout (42).
With respect to claim 4, Nolan in view of Cardoso discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses wherein the one-piece body (12) includes locking channels (56, i.e. called a slot), and wherein the engagement member (45) includes complementary locking tabs that mate with the locking channels (56) to permit the brew pod (41) to be locked securely in place during the brewing process (i.e. the brewing cycle/operation).
With respect to claim 5, Nolan in view of Cardoso discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses wherein the engagement member (45) has screw threads, and wherein the grounds basket (46) has complementary screw threads to permit the engagement member (45) to be detachably removable from the grounds basket (46).
With respect to claim 6, Nolan in view of Cardoso discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses a gasket (54) disposed between the engagement member (45) and the grounds basket (46).
With respect to claim 7, Nolan in view of Cardoso discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses means for filtering (50, i.e. called a filter sieve) the brewed coffee after it exits (i.e. through the openings 64) the grounds basket (46).
With respect to claim 8, Nolan in view of Cardoso discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses wherein the filtering means (50, i.e. called a filter sieve) comprises a metal filter (i.e. the filter basket 46 made from aluminum) disposed within the engagement member (45) (col. 3, lines 21-23).
With respect to claim 9, Nolan in view of Cardoso discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Cardoso further discloses wherein the filtering means further comprises a paper filter (12) disposed about the metal filter (col. 2, lines 62-65).
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 Nolan and Cardoso before him or her, to include such filter materials of Cardoso because a filter that efficiently removes impurities with a low resistance to flow so that the impurities may be filtered out of the water without increasing the time required to brew a pot of coffee. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a pod for containing a substance from which a beverage can be extracted (¶ 0007).
With respect to claim 10, Nolan in view of Cardoso discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses means for filtering (50, i.e. called a filter sieve) the brewed coffee, wherein the filtering means (50, i.e. called a filter sieve) is disposed about the engagement member (45), and wherein the gasket (54) includes means for retaining the filter means (50, i.e. called a filter sieve) disposed about the engagement member (45).
With respect to claim 11, Nolan in view of Cardoso discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses means for lifting 32 (i.e. an air gap; see figure 3 indicated by the arrows) the one-piece body (12, i.e. called a container) away from a heat source (i.e. a microwave oven) used during the brewing process (col. 3, lines 8-15; col. 4, lines 1-30).
With respect to claim 16, Nolan in view of Cardoso discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses wherein the brew pod (41, i.e. called a filter assembly) comprises a grounds basket (46) for holding coffee grounds (i.e. coffee grinds) to be brewed; and a snorkel (60, i.e. called a conically-shaped tubular liquid inlet) removably disposed above the grounds basket (46) about the top of the one-piece body (12), wherein the snorkel (60, i.e. called a conically-shaped tubular liquid inlet) permits brewed coffee to exit (i.e. exiting through openings 64) from the grounds basket (46), except for two or more straws disposed under the grounds basket about the bottom of the one-piece body.
However, Cardoso teaches two or more straws 130 (fig. 1, i.e. called supporting elements) disposed under the grounds basket (140) about the bottom of the one-piece body (100) (¶ 0029).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of preparing 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 Nolan and Cardoso before him or her, to include such supports/legs of Cardoso because a beverage additive disposed between a surface of the container and the pod for spacing apart the pod from the surface of the container. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a pod for containing a substance from which a beverage can be extracted (¶ 0007).
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolan (US 5,902,620) in view of Cardoso (US 20140106036) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Schneeberger (US 5,492,054).
Regarding claim 12, Nolan in view of Cardoso discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the lifting means comprises a pneumatically actuated piston.
However, Schneeberger teaches wherein the lifting means comprises a pneumatically actuated piston (8) (col. 4, lines 66 – col. 5, lines 27).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a coffee maker. 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 Nolan in view of Cardoso and Schneeberger before him or her, to include such a piston of Schneeberger because this relative displacement of the extraction cup and the piston with respect to each other is performed by complex electronic controls and corresponding hydraulic or electric motor-driven displacement devices. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a simply and cost-effectively way than corresponding coffee makers for the other means (col. 1, lines 25-27).
With respect to claim 13, Nolan in view of Cardoso and Schneeberger discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Nolan further discloses wherein the lifting means 32 (i.e. an air gap; see figure 3 indicated by the arrows) further comprises a base (28) disposed about the bottom of the one-piece body (12), except for a retaining screw in communication with the piston and the base.
However, Schneeberger teaches a retaining screw (45, i.e. an adjustment spindle) in communication with the piston (8) and the base (col. 4, lines 66 – col. 5, lines 27).
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 Nolan in view of Cardoso and Schneeberger before him or her, to include such an adjustment spindle of Schneeberger because this relative displacement of the extraction cup and the piston with respect to each other is performed by complex electronic controls and corresponding hydraulic or electric motor-driven displacement devices. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a simply and cost-effectively way than corresponding coffee makers for the other means (col. 1, lines 25-27).
With respect to claim 14, Nolan in view of Cardoso and Schneeberger discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Schneeberger further discloses wherein the lifting means further includes a spring (47) disposed about the piston (8).
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 Nolan in view of Cardoso and Schneeberger before him or her, to include such a spring of Schneeberger because this relative displacement of the extraction cup and the piston with respect to each other is performed by complex electronic controls and corresponding hydraulic or electric motor-driven displacement devices. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a simply and cost-effectively way than corresponding coffee makers for the other means (col. 1, lines 25-27).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolan (US 5,902,620) in view of in view of Schneeberger (US 5,492,054).
Regarding claim 19, Nolan discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above including wherein the lifting means 32 (i.e. an air gap; see figure 3 indicated by the arrows) comprises a base (28) disposed about the bottom of the one-piece body (12), except for a pneumatically actuated piston, and a retaining screw in communication with the piston and the base.
However, Schneeberger teaches a pneumatically actuated piston (8), and a retaining screw (45, i.e. an adjustment spindle) in communication with the piston (8) and the base (col. 4, lines 66 – col. 5, lines 27).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a coffee maker. 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 Nolan and Schneeberger before him or her, to include such a piston and an adjustment spindle of Schneeberger because this relative displacement of the extraction cup and the piston with respect to each other is performed by complex electronic controls and corresponding hydraulic or electric motor-driven displacement devices. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a simple and cost-effective way than corresponding coffee makers for the other means (col. 1, lines 25-27).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shao (US 7,661,354). Jung (US 20240349931). Koslow et al. (US 6,103,116). Piazza (US 5.586,484).
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
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights