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 Objections
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of different configurations different from one another” should be “the plurality of different configurations are different from one another.”
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the longitudinal a lot” should be “the longitudinal slot.”
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the filter” should be “a filter” as this is the first instance of “filter” being recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maurer (US2009/0004351).
Regarding claim 1, Maurer teaches a drip coffee maker (para. 0021), comprising:
a brew basket (Fig. 1; basket 10) configured to house coffee grounds during brewing (para. 0007), the brew basket including an outlet (18) proximate a bottom thereof through which coffee is dispensed;
a water dispenser disposed upstream of the brew basket and configured to supply heated water to the brew basket to bring the heated water into contact with the coffee grounds to perform a drip coffee brewing operation (para. 0021 and 0023) (The water dispenser is not shown in the drawings. However, such a dispenser is mentioned in the cited paragraphs for supply hot water to the grounds placed in the filter F in order to produce brewed coffee. Accordingly, a water dispenser as claimed is explicitly or inherently disclosed.); and
a transformable filter support (30) disposed in the brew basket (10) to support a filter (F), the transformable filter support (30) configured to transform between a plurality of different configurations (para. 0025 and 0026; filter support 30 moves between a first operating position where the filter chamber 16 has a first radial dimension and a second operating position where the coffee filter chamber has a second, smaller, radial dimension.) for use with different coffee brewing operations (The phrase “for use with different coffee brewing operations” recites the intended use of the filter support movement. The filter support 30 of Maurer, being configured to operate between different operating positions, where the filter chamber 16 changes size/shape, would also allow, at least partially, for use with different brewing operations. For instance, a first brewing operation using the first operating position and a second brewing operation using the second operating position. See also MPEP 2112 and 2114).
Regarding claim 2, Maurer teaches the claimed coffee maker, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of different configurations different from one another based on cross-sectional profile (See citations above, the first and second operating positions produce a filter chamber 16 having different radial dimensions. Accordingly, the movement of the filter support would produce different cross-sectional profiles.).
Regarding claim 3, Maurer teaches the claimed coffee maker, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of different configurations different from one another based on brewing operation type (See citations above, the first and second operating positions produce a filter chamber 16 having different radial dimensions. Accordingly, the movement of the filter support would produce different configurations based on the brewing operation type; i.e., the first operating and the second operating positions).
Regarding claim 4, Maurer teaches the claimed coffee maker, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of different configurations different from one another based on brewing volume (See citations above, the first and second operating positions produce a filter chamber 16 having different radial dimensions. Accordingly, the movement of the filter support would produce different volumes for the filter chamber 16).
Regarding claim 5, Maurer teaches the claimed coffee maker, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of different configurations different from one another based on size and/or shape of filter supported by the transformable filter support (See citations above, the first and second operating positions produce a filter chamber 16 having different radial dimensions. Accordingly, the movement of the filter support would allow for different sized/shaped filters F to be supported by 30).
Additionally, the filter is not positively recited as a structural component of the claimed coffee maker.
Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
In Otto, the claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers (i.e., a particular device) and a method of making the core member (i.e., a particular method of making that device) and “not to a method of curling hair wherein th[e] particular device is used.” 312 F.2d at 940. The court held that patentability of the claims cannot be based “upon a certain procedure for curling hair using th[e] device and involving a number of steps in the process.” The court noted that “the process is irrelevant as is the recitation involving the hair being wound around the core” in terms of determining patentability of the particular device. Id. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
In Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable.
In In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), an apparatus claim recited “[a] taping machine comprising a supporting structure, a brush attached to said supporting structure, said brush being formed with projecting bristles which terminate in free ends to collectively define a surface to which adhesive tape will detachably adhere, and means for providing relative motion between said brush and said supporting structure while said adhesive tape is adhered to said surface.” An obviousness rejection was made over a reference to Kienzle which taught a machine for perforating sheets. The court upheld the rejection stating that “the references in claim 1 to adhesive tape handling do not expressly or impliedly require any particular structure in addition to that of Kienzle.” Id. at 580-81. The perforating device had the structure of the taping device as claimed, the difference was in the use of the device, and “the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” Id. at 580.
In this case, the filter, and the size/shape thereof, refers to the martial or article worked upon by the claimed filter support. The size/shape of the filter received within the basket does not recite, nor require, a structural distinction over the claimed basket or filter support. As claimed, any number of differently size/shaped filters are structurally capable of being placed within the basket and supported by the filter support. Accordingly, the limitation of “size and/or shape of filter supported by the transformable filter support” is not considered to impart patentability.
Regarding claim 6, Maurer teaches the claimed coffee maker, as applied in claim 5, and further teaches wherein the plurality of different configurations include a first configuration configured to support a narrow-profile cone filter and a second configuration configured to support a wide-profile basket filter (See citations above, the first and second operating positions produce a filter chamber 16 having different radial dimensions. Accordingly, the movement of the filter support would allow for different sized/shaped filters F to be supported by 30) (Additionally, as detailed above in claim 5, the filter is not a positively recited structural component, but rather recited as the article worked upon by the claimed filter support. The basket and support of Maurer is capable of supporting variously sized conical filters).
Regarding claim 6, Maurer teaches the claimed coffee maker, as applied in claim 5, and further teaches wherein the and further teaches wherein the plurality of different configurations includes first and second configurations (as detailed in claim 1, above), and wherein the transformable filter support further (30) includes an automatic lift mechanism including an electronically- controlled drive (electromechanical solenoid 30 or other drive mechanisms to move 30-para. 0026) configured to move the transformable filter support (30) between the first and second configurations (para. 0026).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer.
Regarding claim 7, Maurer teaches substantially the claimed coffee maker, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the transformable filter support includes a frame, the frame including: a top member; a bottom member; and a plurality of hinged legs, each hinged leg secured to and extending between the top and bottom members and including inwardly-facing surfaces configured to support the filter in the transformable filter support.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Maurer (annotated)
Maurer teaches, in an alternative embodiment (Figs. 3-5), the transformable filter support (130) including a frame, the frame including: a top member (as annotated above, taken as the top portions of each leg 130); a bottom member (as annotated above, taken as the bottom portions of each leg 130); and a plurality of hinged legs (legs 130 hinged at 132), each hinged leg secured to and extending between the top and bottom members and including inwardly-facing surfaces (surfaces shown in Figure 3 that receive filter F) configured to support the filter (F; not shown in Figure 3, but in Fig. 1. Support 130 moves between different configurations, similar to that detailed in Figure 1, as shown in Figure 4 and indicated by the solid and dotted lines outlining 130) the transformable filter support.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Maurer (Fig. 1) with Maurer (Figs. 3-5), by replacing the filter support of Maurer (Fig. 1) with that of Maurer (Figs. 3-5), for in doing so would provide an alternative filter support that allows for use in differently shaped brew baskets and that can receive a differently shaped and well known filter (see para. 0036).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer in view of Campbell (US5290444).
Regarding claim 11, Maurer teaches substantially the claimed coffee maker, as applied in claim 7, except for wherein the transformable filter support further includes a liner supported within the frame and including a flexible sidewall and an outlet configured to convey brewed coffee to the outlet of the brew basket.
Campbell relates to a device for securing a coffee filter (Fig. 2, 2) within a brew basket (Fig. 2, basket 3) and teaches a liner (1) including a flexible sidewall (defined by 6) (2:18-21; thermoplastic material having shape retention and resiliency) and an outlet (central opening defined by 5; Fig. 1) configured to convey brewed coffee to the outlet of the brew basket (2:30-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Maurer with Campbell, by adding to the frame of the filter support of modified Maurer, with the liner taught by Campbell, for in doing so would provide a means for securing the filter such that the filter conforms to the shape of the filter support (see Campbell, 2:30-41), which would aid in preventing the filter from collapsing during use.
Regarding claim 12, Maurer teaches substantially the claimed coffee maker, as applied in claim 11, including wherein the liner is secured to each of the plurality of hinged legs (The claim does not recite, nor require any additional structures for securing the liner to the legs. The plain and ordinary meaning of “secured” is “to make firm or tight; fasten.” See freedictionary.com/secured, viewed on 02/07/2026. As the claim does not recite any specific structure(s) for making firm or tight, or for fastening, the liner to the legs, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is understood to include arrangements in which no additional structures are required. In this case, the combination of Maurer and Campbell seeks to incorporate the liner of Campbell onto the filter support of Maurer to maintain the filter in contact with the surfaces of each leg 130, thereby preventing the filter from collapsing. The shape retention and resiliency of the liner of Campbell means that the liner has sufficient flexibility to move with the legs of the filter support and sufficient rigidity to remain in place when no external force is acting upon it. As such, this shape retention would provide a way to “make firm” the liner onto the legs).
Regarding claim 13, Maurer teaches substantially the claimed coffee maker, as applied in claim 11, including wherein the liner (Campbell, 1) is formed from an elastic material (thermoplastic) and is biased to a first configuration of the plurality of different configurations when in an undisturbed state such that transformation of the transformable filter support to a second configuration of the plurality of different configurations deforms and loads the liner (The combination seeks to incorporate the liner of Campbell onto the filter support of Maurer to maintain the filter in contact with the surfaces of each leg 130, thereby preventing the filter from collapsing. As Maurer teaches different configurations including an undisturbed state, that is, when the outer surfaces are at rest against the inner surface of the basket as shown by the solid object lines in Fig. 4, and a second configuration, indicated by the dotted lines in Fig. 4, the liner would also follow these positions. As such, the liner would be biased into the first configuration when in an undisturbed state such that transformation of the transformable filter support to a second configuration of the plurality of different configurations deforms and loads the liner, as claimed).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer in view of Anson (US5064533)
Regarding claim 17, Maurer teaches substantially the claimed coffee maker, as applied in claim 1, including wherein the plurality of different configurations includes first and second configurations, wherein the transformable filter support is biased to the first configuration (as detailed above in claim 1; the filter support is moved between various positions using an electromechanical solenoid 32).
Maurer is silent on the transformable filter support further includes a hook and release mechanism configured to releasably hold the transformable filter support in the second configuration.
Anson relates to a filter support (Abstract; Figs. 1-6; support 34 that supports filter 36 within basket 22) and teaches the filter support (34) further including a hook and release mechanism (66 including hooks 72) configured to releasably hold the filter support (34) in a second configuration (4:15-20 and 30-35 describe 66 as a compressible fork for engaging 80/82) (Figure 6, 5:8-20 and 5:35-45 describe compressing 66 to place the filter support 34 in various configurations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Maurer with Anson, by adding to the filter support of Maurer, with the hook and release mechanism taught by Anson, for in doing so would provide a means for attaching the filter support to the basket in a releasable manner.
Regarding claim 18, Maurer teaches substantially the claimed coffee maker, as applied in claim 1, including wherein the plurality of different configurations includes first and second configurations, wherein the transformable filter support is biased to the first configuration (as detailed above in claim 1; the filter support is moved between various positions using an electromechanical solenoid 32).
Maurer is silent on the transformable filter support further including a press release loop mechanism configured to toggle the transformable filter support between the first and second configurations when pressed.
Anson relates to a filter support (Abstract; Figs. 1-6; support 34 that supports filter 36 within basket 22) and teaches the filter support (34) further including a press release mechanism (66 including hooks 72) configured to toggle the filter support between the first and second configurations when pressed (4:15-20 and 30-35 describe 66 as a compressible fork for engaging 80/82) (Figure 6, 5:8-20 and 5:35-45 describe compressing 66 to place the filter support 34 in various configurations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Maurer with Anson, by adding to the filter support of Maurer, with the hook and release mechanism taught by Anson, for in doing so would provide a means for attaching the filter support to the basket in a releasable manner.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer in view of Campbell (US5290444).
Regarding claim 20, Maurer teaches a transformable filter support (Figs. 3-5) for use in a brew basket (110) of a drip coffee maker, comprising:
a frame configured to be received in the brew basket, the frame including:
PNG
media_image1.png
436
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Maurer (annotated)
a top member (annotated above, taken to be the top members of legs 130);
a bottom member (annotated above, taken to be the bottom members of legs 130); and
a plurality of hinged legs (each of 130, hinged via axle 132), each hinged leg secured to and extending between the top and bottom members (as shown in Figs. 3-5) and including inwardly-facing surfaces (Best shown in Figure 3, the inwardly facing surfaces are taken as the surfaces of each of 130 shown that contact a filter. The Filter is not shown in this embodiment, but is shown in Fig. 1. A filter would also be placed on 130) configured to support the filter in the transformable filter support; and
wherein the top and bottom members are movable relative to one another to transform the transformable filter support between a plurality of different configurations for use with different coffee brewing operations (Support 130 moves between different configurations, similar to that detailed in Figure 1, as shown in Figure 4 and indicated by the solid and dotted lines outlining 130. See also paragraphs 0033 and 0035).
Maurer is silent on a liner supported within the frame and including a flexible sidewall and an outlet configured to convey brewed coffee to an outlet of a brew basket;
Campbell relates to a device for securing a coffee filter (Fig. 2, 2) within a brew basket (Fig. 2, basket 3) and teaches a liner (1) including a flexible sidewall (defined by 6) (2:18-21; thermoplastic material having shape retention and resiliency) and an outlet (central opening defined by 5; Fig. 1) configured to convey brewed coffee to the outlet of the brew basket (2:30-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Maurer with Campbell, by adding to the frame of the filter support of Maurer, with the liner taught by Campbell, for in doing so would provide a means for securing the filter such that the filter conforms to the shape of the filter support (see Campbell, 2:30-41), which would aid in preventing the filter from collapsing during use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose “the first leg segment rotatably coupled to the top member and the second leg segment rotatably coupled to the bottom member” as required in dependent claim 8.
Additionally, the prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose
“wherein each hinged leg further includes a longitudinal slot, and the transformable filter support further includes an alignment ring extending through the longitudinal a lot [sic] of each hinged leg to align the plurality of legs with one another” as required in dependent claim 9.
Additionally, the prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose “wherein the top member includes a top ring and the bottom member includes a bottom ring, wherein the first leg segment of each leg is rotatably coupled to the top ring and the second leg segment of each leg is rotatably coupled to the bottom ring” as required in dependent claim 10.
The prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose “wherein the first configuration is an extended configuration and the second configuration is a compressed configuration, wherein when in the extended configuration the top member is further away from the bottom member than when in the compressed configuration” as required in dependent claim 14.
The prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose “wherein the brew basket includes a plurality of inwardly-projecting vertical columns and the top member includes a plurality of slots configured to receive the plurality of inwardly-projecting vertical columns when the transformable filter support is transforming between the first and second configurations, wherein at least a portion of the top member is rotatable about a substantially vertical axis when the transformable filter support is in the second configuration to move the plurality of slots out of alignment with the plurality of inwardly- projecting vertical columns and thereby maintain the transformable filter support in the second configuration” as required in dependent claim 15.
The prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose “wherein each of the plurality of inwardly- projecting vertical columns includes an intermediate slot configured to maintain the transformable filter support in a third configuration that is intermediate the first and second configurations” as required in dependent claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GB2494691 to Saba relates to an insert for a coffee machine and hopper that changes the internal size or shape to support different sized or shaped filters (Abstract; Figs. 6-9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761