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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment presents claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
The amendment is sufficient in overcoming the previously indicated claim objections and prior art rejections.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saba (GB2494691; cited in previous Office action).
Regarding claim 1, Saba teaches a drip coffee maker (Figs. 1-3; 100) (1:3-5; “The present invention relates to filter coffee machines of the type where hot water is filtered through coffee beans held in a filter, and in particular, although not exclusively, to a hopper for holding the filter.”), comprising:
a brew basket (200) configured to house coffee grounds during brewing (1:7-11; “ the machine includes a hot water supply that is ejected or sprayed from a top of the machine into a hopper. The hopper is arranged to hold a filter within which ground coffee beans are inserted. The hot water infuses through the ground beans as it filters under gravity and into a receptacle for consumption.”), the brew basket including an outlet proximate a bottom thereof through which coffee is dispensed (an outlet is not shown in the drawings but one must exist in order for the infused beverage to exit 200 and enter into carafe 130);
a water dispenser (dispensing nozzle 124) disposed upstream of the brew basket (200) 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 (4:30-5:1; “ dispensing nozzle 124 that is connected to the first water tank for dispensing the heated water there from”); and
a transformable filter support (Fig. 6; insert 220) (Figs. 7-9 similarly show a filter support deployable in different positions) disposed in the brew basket (200) to support a filter, the transformable filter support configured to transform between a plurality of different configurations for use with different coffee brewing operations, wherein the plurality of different configurations include at least first and second configurations (6:13-7:3; “The insert 220 is suitable for adapting the hopper body 210 to support a different filter size or shape. For instance, the hopper body is substantially as described above and adapted for receiving a first sized of filter cone, that when fitted lines the sides of the hopper body 210. The insert 220 is able to be arranged in a deployed position (as shown in Figure 6) wherein the insert is arranged to change the size or shape of the inside of the hopper. Whilst the insert may rest against the sides of the hopper, relying on the tapered nature of the hopper body to retain it in place, suitably, and so as to allow the insert to positively located in a correct position, the inside of the hopper body may be provided with a support such as a ledge or stop for supporting the insert. In the exemplary embodiment shown in Figure 6, the insert 220 is adapted to provide a flat surface to allow a cup cake filter to be correctly supported. The insert 220 may be adapted to replicate a flat surface of known hoppers adapted to support cup cake filters.
Consequently, by deploying the insert 220, the hopper body 210 can be adapted from being suitable for supporting a cone filter to being suitable for supporting a cup cake filter by deploying the insert. Consequently, manufacturers of filter coffee machines can manufacture a single hopper and adapt the hopper for a particular market by providing an insert. It will be appreciated from the description herein that the insert may have different configurations dependant on the application. Furthermore, two or more inserts may be provided so that the hopper body can be adapted to be suitable for supporting three or more types or sizes of filter.”), and wherein the transformable filter support (220) is configured to maintain the first configuration throughout a first coffee brewing operation, and to maintain the second configuration throughout a second coffee brewing operation ([This limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is understood to refer to different brewing operations using the first and second configuration, respectively. As such, the claim is not limited to situations in which both operations and both configurations occur simultaneously or sequentially. Rather, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language includes situations in which either configuration is used in a respective brewing operation and that the filter support has the necessary structure to be used in different positions and operations.] Here, the first and second configuration are configured to support different sized filters, cone or cake, such that in each configuration the support 220 is maintained in that position during the respective brewing operation. In other words, when in the configuration to accept a cone filter, the support 220 remains in an undeployed position during brewing and when in the configuration to accept a cake filter, the support 220 remains in the deployed position during brewing.).
Regarding claim 2, Saba teaches the claimed drip coffee maker, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of different configurations are different from one another based on cross-sectional profile (see above in claim 1 detailing for use with conical or cake filters.).
Regarding claim 3, Saba teaches the claimed drip coffee maker, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of different configurations are different from one another based on brewing operation type (see above in claim 1 detailing for use with conical or cake filters. In this case, using one filter over the other corresponds to a different brewing operation type; i.e., one brewing operation using cone filters and another brewing operation using cake filters, which provide a user with the ability to tailor the resulting beverage profile.).
Regarding claim 4, Saba teaches the claimed drip coffee maker, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of different configurations are different from one another based on brewing volume (the filter support 220 alters the internal volume of the hopper such that the resulting brewing volume between the configurations is different.).
Regarding claim 5, Saba teaches the claimed drip coffee maker, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of different configurations are different from one another based on size and/or shape of filter supported by the transformable filter support (see claim 1, above, detailing using cone and cake filters).
Regarding claim 6, Saba teaches the claimed drip coffee maker, as applied in claim 5, and further teaches wherein the plurality of different configurations include a first configuration is configured to support a narrow- profile cone filter (cone filter detailed above) and the second configuration is configured to support a wide-profile basket filter (cake filter detailed above).
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 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saba in view of Maurer (US2009/0004351).
Regarding claim 7, Saba teaches the claimed drip coffee maker, as applied in claim 1, including for wherein the transformable filter support includes a frame, the frame including: a top member and a bottom member (Fig. 6, top and bottom surfaces of 220) (additionally, Figs 8-9 show 220 including first and second portions defining upper and lower members).
Saba is silent on the frame including 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.
Maurer relates to a drip coffee maker (para. 0021) and teaches the coffee maker having a brew basket (Fig. 1; 10), a water dispenser (para. 0021 and 0023) and a transformable filter support (130).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Maurer (annotated)
Maurer teaches, in (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 Saba with Maurer by replacing the filter support of Saba with that of Maurer 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).
Regarding claim 6, Saba teaches the claimed coffee maker, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the transformable filter support further includes an automatic lift mechanism including an electronically- controlled drive configured to move the transformable filter support between the first and second configurations.
Maurer relates to a drip coffee maker (para. 0021) and teaches the coffee maker having a brew basket (Fig. 1; 10), a water dispenser (para. 0021 and 0023) and a transformable filter support (30).
Maurer teaches 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Saba with Maurer by adding to the filter support of Saba with the electronic drive of Maurer for in doing so would provide a means for automatically actuating the filter support rather than relying on manual implementation. Additionally, in In re Venner 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04-III.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saba in view of Maurer and in further view of Campbell (US5290444).
Regarding claim 11, the primary combination 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 Saba, as modified by Maurer, with Campbell, by adding to the frame of the filter support of modified Saba, 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, the primary combination 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 Saba, Maurer, and Campbell seeks to incorporate the liner of Campbell onto the filter support of modified Saba 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, the primary combination 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 modified Saba to maintain the filter in contact with the surfaces of each leg 130, thereby preventing the filter from collapsing. As modified Saba 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 Saba in view of Anson (US5064533)
Regarding claim 17, Saba 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).
Saba 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 Saba with Anson, by adding to the filter support of Saba, 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, Saba 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).
Saba 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 Saba with Anson, by adding to the filter support of Saba, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 20 are allowed.
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 the combination of features recited in claim 20 including the transformable filter comprising a frame including a plurality of hinged legs and “wherein a first distance between the top and bottom members when the transformable filter support is in a first configuration of the plurality of different configurations is different from a second distance between the top and bottom members when the transformable filter support is in a second configuration of the plurality of different configurations.” Here, the prior art of record suggests that a transformable filter support can include a frame having a plurality of legs (as detailed in Maurer). However, the frame in Maurer has a different structural arrangement as the distance between the top and bottom members remains unchanged between the configurations as a result of the hinged connection. As such, the inclusion of “wherein a first distance between the top and bottom members when the transformable filter support is in a first configuration of the plurality of different configurations is different from a second distance between the top and bottom members when the transformable filter support is in a second configuration of the plurality of different configurations” in claim 20 requires a distinct structural arrangement between the top member, the bottom member, and the hinged legs which is not found in the prior art of record.
Claims 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 “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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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. 12:00-8:00 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
Prosecution Insights