DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19 are currently pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0030 of the specification recites: “Assigned to each of these extraction pistons 21 is a valve-controlled connection 21’ for discharging the beverage in the extraction cells in the loaded brewing cylinder 24’, while at each of the pistons 31 a valve-controlled water connection 36 is formed for discharging the prepared beverage.” This statement is unclear, as it uses the phrase “discharging the beverage” and “discharging the prepared beverage” in seemingly different contexts while both using the term “discharging”. As best understood, the extraction pistons 21 have a valve connection 21’ for discharging the prepared beverage connected via a hole 21” after it has been brewed in the brewing cylinder 24, such that the prepared beverage can be received by an outlet (Para. 0039); and, the water connection 36 provides water to the brewing cylinder for brewing the beverage (Para. 0039), and not for “discharging the prepared beverage” as stated in Para. 0030. Revision of the Specification is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-13, 15, 16, 18, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are replete with awkward grammatical structure and use of vague pronouns such as “they”, “them”, “these”, “it”, etc. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. It is recommended that the applicant review the claim language in addition to the objections cited below to ensure the claims conform with current U.S. practice.
Claim 1, line 5, recites “wherein the said pistons are positioned in such a way that they are each drawn into and out of a brewing cylinder”, which should be revised to:
-- wherein the said at least two pistons are positioned such that they are each drawn into and out of a respective brewing cylinder --;
Claim 1, line 10, “the extraction pistons” should be revised to:
-- the at least two extraction pistons--;
Claim 2 should be revised as follows for sake of clarity and consistency of the claim language:
--wherein after the at least two pistons have each moved out and pivoted away from [[a]] the respective brewing cylinders, and each moved upwards into a respective adjacent brewing cylinder which is to be loaded, then, by means of the at least two extraction pistons, the extracted cake in the respective brewing cylinders which [[has]] have been released by the at least two pistons [[is]] are then expelled downwards --;
Claim 3, lines 2-6, should be revised as follows for sake of clarity and consistency:
--the at least two pistons are each inserted into a respective one of the brewing cylinders, wherein [[they]] the at least two pistons remain in [[these]] the respective brewing cylinders in [[the]] an inserted state , wherein in the inserted state the at least two pistons and the respective brewing cylinders are lowered, pivoted into [[the]] a next position, and then raised again, until the respective brewing cylinders moved by the at least two pistons are each inserted into the at least two extraction pistons.
Claim 4, lines 2-3 should be revised to:
-- wherein at least two flushing pistons for the cleaning of a respective extraction cell are arranged such that they are each inserted into and removed from a respective brewing cylinder, --
Claim 5, line 1-2, “the brewing cylinders arranged axis-parallel to one another are held in a carousel in a circular pattern” should be revised to:
-- the plurality of brewing cylinders arranged axis-parallel to one another are held in [[a]] the carousel in a circular pattern--;
Claim 6, line 1, recites “wherein six brewing cylinders are held in the carousel”, which should be revised to:
-- wherein the plurality of brewing cylinders includes six brewing cylinders which are held in the carousel --;
Claim 6, lines 2-3, recites “wherein the two feed channels and the two extraction pistons”, which should be revised to: --wherein the at least two feed channels and the at least two extraction pistons--, for sake of consistency with prior recitations;
Claim 6, line, 3-4, recites “each interact with a brewing cylinder”, which should be revised to: --each interact with a respective brewing cylinder of the six brewing cylinders--;
Claim 7, lines 2, recites “beneath the brewing cylinders” which should be revised to:
-- beneath the plurality of brewing cylinders --;
Claim 7, line 4, recites “at least the pistons are held by an additional drive unit such that they pivot on the pivot unit”, which should be revised to:
-- at least the at least two pistons are held by an additional drive unit such that [[they]] the at least two pistons pivot on the pivot unit --;
Claim 8, lines 1-3 should be revised as follows for sake of clarity:
-- wherein as a drive element of the pivot unit[[,]] in the center of the apparatus, the vertical drive spindle being rotationally connected to the pivot unit.--
Claim 9, lines 1-3 should be revised as follows for sake of clarity:
-- wherein the vertical drive spindle andare parallel to each other and extend from a lower catchment shell through the pivot unit and the carousel up to a rotary drive unit of an upper unit.--
Claim 10, lines 1-3 should be revised as follows for sake of clarity:
-- wherein the carouseland the brewing cylinders[[,]] are lowered by the , and rotated and raised into the next position.--;
Claim 11, lines 3-4, “the pistons are moved downwards and the extraction pistons are extended upwards out of the brewing cylinders” should be revised to:
-- the at least two pistons are moved downwards and the at least two extraction pistons are extended upwards out of the respective brewing cylinders --;
Claim 12, line 1, “wherein the feed channels, the extraction pistons,” should be revised to: -- wherein the at least two feed channels, the at least two extraction pistons, --;
Claim 12, line 3, “the brewing cylinders” should be revised to:
-- the plurality of brewing cylinders --;
Claim 13, line 3, “this drive” should be revised to -- [[this]] said drive --;
Claim 15, lines 1-4 should be revised to:
-- wherein each piston of the at least two pistons assigned a water connection for extracting the beverage in the respective loaded brewing cylinder, while [[at]] the at least two extraction pistons are each provided a connection respective loaded brewing cylinder. --;
Claim 16, lines 1-5, should be revised as follows:
-- a structure subdivided into four separate planes, wherein, positioned in the first plane is a modular unit with the at least two feed channels for the beverage powder, the at least two extraction pistons and the flushing piston, a second plane with the plurality of brewing cylinders, a third plane with the at least two pistons, and a fourth plane with a catchment shell.--
Claim 18, line 1, “the brewing cylinders” should be revised to: -- the plurality of brewing cylinders --;
Claim 18, line 2, “the pistons” should be revised to: -- the at least two pistons--;
Claim 19, lines 1-2, “the brewing cylinders” should be revised to: -- the plurality of brewing cylinders --;
Claim 19, line 2, “the pistons” should be revised to: -- the at least two pistons--;
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.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a locking 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites “wherein assigned to the piston in each case is a water connection for extracting the beverage in the loaded brewing cylinder, while at the extraction pistons in each case a connection is provided for discharging the prepared beverage out of the extraction cell of the brewing cylinder”. This limitation is not sufficiently described in the Specification or shown in the Drawings. The specification, Para. 0039, states:
“During the brewing process, cold, warm, or hot water from the valve-controlled water connection 36 is pressed, preferably under pressure, through at least one hole 31’ in the piston 31, and through the powder, and therefore, in particular, is brewed. The beverage produced, in particular coffee, is then conveyed through at least one hole 21” in the extraction piston 21 to the valve-controlled connection 21’, and from this to an outlet, not shown in greater detail.”
The piston 31 has a water connection that provides water for the brewing process of the beverage powder, and not for “extracting the beverage in the loaded brewing cylinder” as claimed. Para. 0030 does state “… each of the pistons 31 a valve-controlled water connection 36 is formed for discharging the prepared beverage”, however, as stated in the Specification Objection above, this is believed to be an error of terminology (possibly due to a translation error), as Para. 0030 also states the extraction pistons have a valve-controlled connection for “discharging the beverage in the extraction cells in the loaded brewing cylinder 24’”.
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 1-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Note, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Review and revision of the claims to address issues in addition to those discussed below is advised.
Claim 1, line 1, recites “in particular coffee”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the claim is requiring the “beverage” be coffee, or if the claim is merely reciting a preference that the beverage is coffee. It is unclear if the “coffee” is a part of the claimed invention or not. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1, line 3-4 recites “the beverage powder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 6-7, recites “wherein at least two feed channels are provided above the brewing cylinders”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether “the brewing cylinders” is referring to the “plurality of brewing cylinders” as a whole, referring only to the “brewing cylinders” having the “at least two pistons” beneath, or referring to a completely different set of brewing cylinders.
Claim 1, line 6, recites “at least two extraction pistons”. This renders the claim indefinite, as line 4 already introduces a singular “extraction piston”, and it is unclear if the “at least two extraction pistons” are meant to be the same as the previously introduced “extraction piston”. It is unclear how many “extraction piston” are required by the claim.
Claim 1, line 8-9, recites “the feed channels are in each case connected at least above one brewing cylinder”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is meant by “at least above one brewing cylinder” (how is something “at least above” something else? Would this just make the feed channels “above” the brewing cylinder? Did applicant intend to mean “above at least one brewing cylinder”?).
Claim 1, line 10, recites “one piston each is inserted from below”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether this “one piston” is referring to one of the “at least two pistons” recited in line 4, or a wholly separate piston.
Claim 1 and the remainder of the claims in general repeatedly utilize pronouns such as “they”, “them”, “these” when referring to previously recited elements, often leading to confusion over what limitations are being referred to and rendering the claims indefinite. It is recommended that the claim language be revised to avoid the use of the aforementioned pronouns and variants thereof.
Claim 1, line 3, recites “above this”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what “this” is referring to (the extraction cell? The carousel? The plurality of brewing chambers?);
Claim 1, line 7, recites “arranged at a distance from these”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what “these” is meant to be referring to (the at least two feed channels? The brewing cylinders?).
Claim 2, lines 1-2, recites “the pistons have moved out and pivoted away from a brewing cylinder”. This renders the claim indefinite, as the claim has not previously indicated the pistons are capable of “pivoting” away from a brewing cylinder, and has only described that they are beneath and capable of being drawn into and out of the cylinders. This results in a gap of understanding of what the apparatus encompasses, since claim is describing a function of the apparatus without describing sufficient structure that enables the function.
Claim 2, line 3-4 recites “the extracted cake”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3, line 1, recites “the position at the loading of the beverage powder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims have not previously described the “position at the loading of the beverage powder” or what it encompasses.
Claim 3 line 5-6, recites “the brewing cylinders moved by the pistons are each inserted into the extraction pistons”. This renders the claim indefinite, as claim 1, lines 10-12 recites that the “extraction pistons… are each inserted into or extracted from a brewing cylinder”. It is unclear how the brewing cylinders can be “inserted into the extraction pistons” as required by claim 3, when claim 1 requires the extraction pistons be inserted into the brewing cylinder. The recitation of claim 3 seems incompatible with/reversed from the recitation of claim 1.
Claim 4, line 3-4 recites “the extraction position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “extraction position” was previously described, and hence what it encompasses in relation to the recited structure is unclear.
Claim 5, lines 1-4, recites “wherein the brewing cylinders arranged axis-parallel to one another are held in a carousel in a circular pattern about the axis of rotation, which move by a vertical slide guide, opposite the feed channels and the extraction pistons, towards and away from them respectively”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what “opposite the feed channels and the extraction pistons” means in relation to the brewing cylinders or “vertical slide guide” (what is “opposite” the feed channels and extraction pistons?). The phrase “which move by a vertical slide guide” is also unclear as to what is being referred to as being able to move (the brewing cylinders, and/or carousel?). Furthermore, it is unclear what the term “them” is referring to in the claim. The claim is worded in an unintuitive and vague manner and should be revised.
Claim 6, lines 2-4, recites “wherein the two feed channels and the two extraction pistons, when in a specific position, each interact with a brewing cylinder, which are located opposite one another and offset by 180º”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what elements are “located opposite one another and offset by 180°” when in the “specific position”, when there are four elements being described (two feed channels and two extraction pistons) having a position interacting with the brewing cylinders (how can four elements interacting with four of six cylinders spaced at 60° intervals all be offset by 180° from each other? Is the 180° offset referring to each of the two feed channels, and a separate 180° offset for the two extraction pistons? Or is the offset referring to the positioning between a respective one of the feed channels and a respective one of the extraction pistons?).
Claim 6, line 3, recites “a specific position”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if this “specific position” is the same as the “specific position” recited in claim 1, line 8, or if it is a wholly different and separate position.
Claim 7, line 2, recites “with the at least two pistons”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what the recitation is meant to be describing in relation to the “pivot unit” (i.e. “with the at least two pistons” in what manner? Adjacent to? At a same vertical position?).
Claim 7, line 2-3, recites “that is moved up and down in a slide guide”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is being referred to as moving “up and down in a slide guide” (the pivot unit? the brewing cylinders, the at least two pistons? Some combination of the three?).
Claim 8, line 1, recites “wherein as a drive element of the pivot unit”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if this “a drive element of the pivot unit” is meant to be referring to the “drive element” previously recited in claim 7, line 3-4, or is a wholly different element for a “vertical drive spindle”.
Claim 10, line 2, recites “wherein the carousel, with the brewing cylinders, are lowered by the operationally-connected pivot unit or the pistons respectively”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what “pistons” are being referred to (the “at least two pistons” or the “extraction pistons”?). It is also unclear what the term “respectively” is implying in the claim.
Claim 11, line 1, recites “the carousel held by the pivot unit…”. This renders the claim indefinite, as there was no previous recitation or suggestion that the carousel is being “held” by the pivot unit, and consequently, what the limitation of claim 11 is attempting to describe is unclear.
In claim 11, claim limitation “a locking means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The instant Specification does not describe what the “locking means” is, and explicitly states the locking means is “not shown in any greater detail” (Para. 0040), which results in no description of what the applicant intends for the locking means to encompass, or what structure is intended to fulfill the function of locking the carousel “in a detachable manner in a high position” as recited in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 12, line 2, recites “the flushing pistons”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The “flushing pistons” were introduced in claim 4, which claim 12 does not depend from.
Claim 14, line 2 recites “the vertical drive spindle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. A “vertical drive spindle” was introduced in claim 8, which claim 14 does not depend from.
Claim 15 recites “wherein assigned to the piston in each case is a water connection for extracting the beverage in the loaded brewing cylinder, while at the extraction pistons in each case a connection is provided for discharging the prepared beverage out of the extraction cell of the brewing cylinder”. This renders the claim indefinite, as the phrases “extracting the beverage in the loaded brewing cylinder” and “discharging the prepared beverage out of the extraction cell of the brewing cylinder” seem to be describing the same process, except in the context of the piston and the extraction piston respectively. It is unclear how a “water connection” in the piston can “extract the beverage in the loading brewing cylinder” while the extraction pistons also “discharge the prepared beverage out of the extraction cell of the brewing cylinder”.
Claim 16, line 3, recites “the flushing piston”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The limitation “at least two flushing pistons” was introduced in claim 4, upon which claim 16 does not depend.
Claim 17, line 2-3, recites the limitations “the vertical drive spindle” and “the slide guide”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. These limitations were previously introduced in claims 7 & 8, upon which claim 17 does not depend.
Claim 17, lines 3-4, recites “extending between them” and “are held by them”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is being referred to by the term “them”.
Claim 19, line 1 recites “a carousel”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be the same as the “carousel” introduced in claim 1, line 2, or if it is a wholly different and separate structure.
Claims 8, 9, 13, 15 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 1, 7, 12, respectively.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 5, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luessi (EP 0528759 A1, cited in the 06/28/2024 Information Disclosure Statement, see the English translation provided by the applicant).
Regarding independent claim 1, Luessi discloses an apparatus for producing a beverage, in particular coffee (Para. 0001, Fig. 1), which comprises
a plurality of brewing cylinders 9, 9’ in the form of a carousel (Fig. 1 & 4, the cylinders are arranged circumferentially about a central rotating spindle 5), which are adjusted about an axis of rotation (the spindle rotates about an axis and the position of the plurality of brewing cylinders is adjusted, Para. 0011), each with an extraction cell 2 (the cavity of the brewing cylinder, Fig. 1), above this at least one feed channel 16 for the beverage powder (filling funnel, Para. 0010), an extraction piston 10 (Para. 0009, Fig. 1), and at least two pistons 11, 11’ beneath the brewing cylinders (Fig. 1, Para. 0009),
wherein the said pistons 11, 11’ are positioned in such a way that they are each drawn into and out of a brewing cylinder (Para. 0009, “The lower piston 11, 11′ is held to be longitudinally displaceable within its brewing cylinder 9, 9′”; Para. 0012, the pistons 11,11’ have cylindrical shaft 12,12’ drawn into and out of the brewing cylinders),
wherein at least two feed channels 16, 16’ are provided above the brewing cylinders 9, 9’ (Fig. 1), and arranged at a distance from these are at least two extraction pistons 10, 10’ (Fig. 1, Para. 0009, 0011), wherein, in a specific position of the brewing cylinders 9, 9’, the feed channels 16, 16’are in each case connected at least above one brewing cylinder 9, 9’ for the loading of the beverage powder (Fig. 1, Para. 0010), into which one piston 11, 11’ each is inserted from below (Fig. 1, Para. 0009, the pistons extend into the brewing chambers from below as shown), while the extraction pistons 10, 10’ are arranged such that they are each inserted into or extracted from a brewing cylinder 9, 9’ adjacent to the brewing cylinder 9, 9’ which is loaded (Para. 0011, the extraction pistons are inserted into the brewing chambers after each brewing cylinder is loaded by feed channels 16, 16’, and are all adjacent to another brewing cylinder that has also been loaded, Para. 0017, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Luessi discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the brewing cylinders 9, 9’ arranged axis-parallel to one another (Fig. 1) are held in a carousel 17, 17’ in a circular pattern about the axis of rotation (Fig. 4), which move by a vertical slide guide (Fig. 1, Para. 0011, “second guide means not visible in the figures”), opposite the feed channels 16, 16’ and the extraction pistons 10, 10’, towards and away from them respectively (Para. 0011, the carousel 17, 17’ interact with the drive spindle 5 to move the brewing cylinders up and down along the drive spindle, and thus towards/away from the feed channels and extraction pistons).
Regarding claim 15, Luessi discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, and wherein assigned to the piston 11, 11’ in each case is a water connection 19, 19’ for extracting the beverage in the loaded brewing cylinder (“extracting the beverage” interpreted as “brewing the beverage from the beverage powder”, Para. 0011, the “first connection nipples 19, 19’” provide hot water to the brewing cylinders), while at the extraction pistons 10, 10’ in each case a connection 20, 20’(“second connection nipples”) is provided for discharging the prepared beverage out of the extraction cell of the brewing cylinder (Para. 0011, “The coffee produced is discharged via the second connection nipples 20, 20′”).
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesare (CH 559028 A5, see attached English translation) in view of Luessi.
Regarding independent claim 1, Cesare discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1) for producing a beverage, in particular coffee (Para. 0004), which comprises
a plurality of brewing cylinders 13 in the form of a carousel 5 (Fig. 1, Para. 0021, three metal cylinders that are housed on a rotor disc 5 that rotates), which are adjusted about an axis of rotation (Para. 0021), each with an extraction cell (the internal chamber of each cylinder 13, Fig. 1, 3, 4), above this at least one feed channel 47 for the beverage powder (funnel, Para. 0023, Fig. 1), an extraction piston 18 (Para. 0033), and a piston 28 beneath the brewing cylinders (Fig. 1, 3, 4, Para. 0023),
wherein the said piston 18 is positioned in such a way that they are each drawn into and out of a brewing cylinder 13 (see Fig. 3 & 4, Para. 0033, the piston is pushed into the cylinder 13 during operation),
wherein a feed channel 47 is provided above the brewing cylinders (Fig. 1), and arranged at a distance from this is an extraction piston 18 (or ejector piston 35, Fig. 1), wherein, in a specific position of the brewing cylinders 13, the feed channel 47 is in each case connected at least above one brewing cylinder for the loading of the beverage powder (when one of the cylinders 13 is in a position 15 shown in Fig. 2, Para. 0023), into which one piston 18 is inserted from below (Fig. 3 & 4, at the position 16, Para. 0032-33), while the extraction piston 18/35 is arranged such that they are each inserted into or extracted from a brewing cylinder 13 adjacent to the brewing cylinder which is loaded (inserted into the cylinder 13 in the position 16, shown in Fig. 2, which is adjacent the position 15 of the cylinder 13 being loaded by feed channel 47).
Cesare fails to disclose the piston is at least two pistons, and the feed channel is at least two feed channels, and the extraction piston is at least two extraction pistons.
Luessi teaches an apparatus for producing a beverage, particularly coffee (Para. 0001), comprising a plurality of brewing cylinders 9, 9’ (Fig. 1, 4), having at least two feed channels 16, 16’, at least two pistons 11, 11’, and at least two extraction pistons 10, 10’.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus of Cesare to include at least two feed channels, at least two pistons, and at least two extraction pistons, as taught by Luessi, in order to permit the apparatus to brew more than one beverage simultaneously and jointly, by performing multiple steps of loading, brewing, and extracting simultaneously using the same apparatus and using a single shared drive mechanism (Luessi Para. 0003, 0004, 0005). Cesare also discusses the possibility of dispensing one or two or more cups of coffee at the same time (Cesare Para. 0008). While Luessi’s apparatus is arranged differently than that of Cesare, one skilled in the art would recognize from Luessi, the benefit of having multiples of the brewing components performing their functions simultaneously while sharing a single drive unit. It has been held in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), “the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (see MPEP 2144.04, Section VI(B)). In this case, the piston, feed channel, extraction piston, and respective brewing cylinders of Cesare could be duplicated within the apparatus of Cesare to achieve simultaneous steps of loading, brewing, and extracting similar to that shown in Luessi.
Regarding claim 2, Cesare in view of Luessi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, and Cesare further teaches wherein after the pistons 28 have moved out and pivoted away from a brewing cylinder 13 (e.g. when the carousel 5 has rotated the brewing cylinders away from the pistons 28 from position 16 to position 17), and moved upwards into a respective adjacent brewing cylinder 13 which is to be loaded (into the cylinder in position 16), then, by means of the extraction pistons 35 (ejector piston), the extracted cake in the brewing cylinder which has been released by the piston (now in position 17) is then expelled downwards (Para. 0032, “The piston 36 which is above the hole 17 moves downwards, pushing the ejector piston 35 up to the level of the plate 2, expelling downwards the exhausted coffee powder existing in the cylinder 13 above the hole 17 (fig. 2)”).
Regarding claim 4, Cesare in view of Luessi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, and Cesare further teaches wherein a flushing piston 35 (ejector piston) for the cleaning of a respective extraction cell (Fig. 1, Para. 0023, 0032) is arranged such that they are inserted into and removed from a brewing cylinder (the piston 35 is pushed into the respective brewing cylinder in position 17 shown in Fig. 2, for “expelling downwards the exhausted coffee powder”), in each case adjacent to a brewing cylinder 13 in the extraction position (adjacent the brewing cylinder in position 16 shown in Fig. 2).
Cesare in view of Luessi fails to teach the flushing piston is at least two flushing pistons.
However, as discussed in claim 1 above, it has been held in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), “the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (see MPEP 2144.04, Section VI(B)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus of Cesare in view of Luessi to include at least two flushing pistons, in order to permit the apparatus to perform the brewing cycle for more than one beverage simultaneously and jointly, by performing multiple steps of cleaning respective brewing cylinders after they have been used in the brewing step simultaneously using the same apparatus. As discussed in claim 1 above, the apparatus of Cesare in view of Luessi would comprise at least two feed channels, at least two pistons, and at least two extraction pistons to achieve simultaneous steps of feeding, brewing, and extracting the beverage, and naturally, one skilled in the art would also duplicate the flushing piston of Cesare to clean out the respective brewing cylinders after the extraction step, in order to prepare the brewing cylinders for the next loading step.
Regarding claim 12, Cesare in view of Luessi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, and Cesare further teaches wherein the feed channels 47, the extraction pistons 18, and the flushing pistons 35 (interpreted as the ejector piston 35, which flushes/removes the spent beverage cake from the brewing cylinder, Fig. 1, Para. 0023, 0032) are arranged alternatingly about the axis of rotation (Fig. 1 & 2, they are arranged such that they correspond with the openings 15, 16 & 17 in the upper plate, respectively), in a modular unit (the overall apparatus in Fig. 1 is modular, including an upper module having plate 1 with the feed channels, extraction pistons, and flushing pistons; the second module with the carousel 5 and brewing cylinders 13; and a third module connected to plate 2 having the pistons 28 and a hydraulic piston 11) such that they interact with the brewing cylinders 13 (Para. 0021, Fig. 1, the feed channels, extraction pistons, and flushing pistons naturally interact with the brewing cylinders as shown and described).
Regarding claim 13, Cesare in view of Luessi teaches the apparatus according to claim 12, further comprising at least one grinding device 85 installed in the modular unit (Para. 0023, Fig. 5-6, the grinder is in the upper portion of the unit above the plate 1), with a drive 68 (Para. 0042, “relay 68 (fig. 9) is energized, which sets in motion grinder 85 which grinds the coffee”) and at least one connecting piece 37 (plate) leading away from this drive (Fig. 5, Para. 0023), for delivering the beverage powder into the feed channels 47 (Para. 0023, the plate 37 carries dosing containers 38 with hinged doors 39 that open to feed the coffee grinds to the feed channel 47).
Regarding claim 14, Cesare in view of Luessi teaches the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein arranged in the modular unit is a rotary drive unit 8, 9, 11 (drum 8 with pins 9 and a hydraulic piston 11) for the vertical drive spindle 4 (centered pin connected to the carousel 5) mounted in the modular unit (Para. 0021, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Cesare in view of Luessi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, and Cesare further teaches wherein assigned to the piston 28 in each case is a water connection 31 for extracting the beverage in the loaded brewing cylinder (“dispensing spout”, Para. 0023, 0041, Fig. 1), while at the extraction pistons 18 in each case a connection 19, 23 is provided for discharging the prepared beverage out of the extraction cell of the brewing cylinder (a shower 19 is connected to water fitting 23, provides hot water to the beverage powder in the brewing cylinder which is then prepared and discharged when the extraction piston 18 is pressed into the brewing cylinder in the position shown in Fig. 4; the connection 19, 23 facilitates brewing and consequently the discharging of the beverage by providing the hot water necessary to prepare the beverage to fluidly flow out the outlet connection 31).
Regarding claim 16, Cesare in view of Luessi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a structure (Fig. 1) subdivided into four separate planes, wherein, positioned in the first plane (a plane of plate 1, Fig. 1) is a modular unit with the feed channels 47 for the beverage powder, the extraction piston 18 and the flushing piston 35 (interpreted as the ejector piston 35, which flushes/removes the spent beverage cake from the brewing cylinder, Fig. 1, Para. 0023, 0032), a second plane (along the disk/carousel 5) with the brewing cylinders 13, a third plane (below the plate 2) with the pistons 28 (Fig. 1), and a fourth plane (a plane of the plate 2) with a catchment shell 2 (Para. 0021, 0023).
Regarding claim 17, Cesare in view of Luessi teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, and Cesare further teaches wherein the modular unit of the first plane (plate 1) and the catchment shell of the fourth plane (plate 2) are arranged as stationary (the plates 1 & 2 are stationary, as they contain the openings 15, 16, 17 that determine the step of the brewing process), and the vertical drive spindle 4 (pin, Fig. 1) and the slide guide (interpreted the bushing surrounding the pin 4 between the plates 1 & 2 that supports the carousel/rotor disc 5, preventing vertical/sliding movement of the rotor disc; see rejection under 112(b) above) are arranged extending between them and are held by them (“them” interpreted as the modular unit and catchment shell 2; the spindle 4 and the “slide guide” extends between the plates 1 & 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 18, Cesare in view of Luessi teaches the apparatus according to claim 17, and Cesare further teaches wherein the brewing cylinders 13 are arranged in the second plane (the plane of the carousel/rotor disc 5) and the pistons 28 in the third plane in a height adjustable manner in different specific positions (the pistons 28 are height adjustable to move into and out of the brewing cylinder at the position 16, Para. 0023, 0033).
Regarding claim 19, Cesare in view of Luessi teaches the apparatus according to claim 17, further comprising a carousel 5 (interpreted as the same carousel as claim 1) with the brewing cylinders 13 arranged in the second plane (the plane of the carousel 5, Fig. 1) and a pivot unit 4, 8, 9 with the pistons 28 is arranged in the third plane (Fig. 1, a pivot unit 4, 8, 9 responsible for rotating the carousel, Para. 0021, is at the same plane level as the piston as shown when the piston is not inserted into a brewing cylinder, i.e. a plane below the plate 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luessi.
Regarding claim 6, Luessi discloses the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the two feed channels 16, 16’ and the two extraction pistons 10, 10’, when in a specific position (Fig. 1), each interact with a brewing cylinder 9, 9’, which are located opposite one another and offset by 180º (as best understood, Fig. 1 & 4 shows the brewing cylinders are on opposite sides of the apparatus and thus offset by 180° as shown; the pairs of feed channels 16, 16’ are on opposite sides of the apparatus, and thus 180° offset from each other; likewise for the pair of extraction pistons 10, 10’; see rejection under 112(b) above).
Luessi fails to disclose wherein six brewing cylinders are held in the carousel at a distance interval of 60º in relation to one another. Luessi does depict four brewing cylinders in Fig. 4 at a distance of 90° in relation to one another, and teaches more than two brewing cylinders can be evenly distributed around the circumference of the drive spindle 5 (Para. 0017).
With regards to the limitations “six brewing cylinders” that Luessi fails to teach, it has been held In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VIB. Accordingly, since the applicant has submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable result of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the mere duplication of parts.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus of Luessi to include six brewing cylinders, as a mere duplication of parts, providing additional simultaneous brewing of coffee using the same drive spindle (Luessi Para. 0003-5). Since Luessi discusses the brewing cylinders being evenly distributed about the drive spindle, providing six brewing cylinders would result in the brewing cylinders being spaced 60° apart from each other about the rotation axis of the drive spindle 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, as best understood (see rejections under 112(b) above), the closest prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in combination with other claimed limitations, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in the position at the loading of the beverage powder, the two pistons are each inserted into one of the brewing cylinders, wherein the two pistons remain in the respective brewing cylinders in an inserted state, the two pistons moving the brewing cylinders such that the brewing cylinders and inserted pistons are lowered together, pivoted into a next position together, and then raised again together, positioning the brewing cylinders such that the extraction pistons are now inserted into the brewing cylinders with the two pistons still in the inserted state.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood (see rejections under 112(b) above) the closest prior art of record fails to teach or suggest in combination with other claimed limitations, the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a pivot unit positioned beneath the brewing cylinders, near the at least two pistons that are also beneath the brewing cylinders, the pivot unit movable up and down in a slide guide, wherein the pivot unit is at least height adjustable by means of a drive element, and at least the at least two pistons are held by an addition drive unit such that the at least two pistons pivot on the pivot unit.
Claims 8-11 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 7.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rota (US 2910928), Frei (US 5622099 A), Gottner (WO 2007022860 A1) teaches a coffee brewing apparatus having a rotating carousel of brewing cups.
Levi (US 20230028384 A1) teaches a beverage brewing apparatus with multiple brewing cylinders and feed channels.
Lussi (US 5316781 A), Lussi (US 5333537 A) teaches a similar apparatus for brewing coffee as Luessi cited above, except in a singular form. Lussi does discuss how the brewing steps are performed in more detail.
Radhakrishnan (US 9259115 B2) teaches a brewing apparatus with a brewing cylinder, extraction piston, and lower piston that move vertically via a spindle.
Zehnder (CH 674703 A5) teaches a double piston coffee brewing apparatus with pivoting brewing cylinders that can brew simultaneous cups of coffee.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on 571 272 7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741