DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner attempted to contact Attorney Grant Peters on 08/19/2026 regarding proposed Examiner’s Amendments and left voicemail messages. The Examiner was unable to reach Attorney Peters.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 06/01/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1-4 have been amended; claims 5-20 have been newly added.
With respect to Drawings Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings filed on 06/01/2026 have overcome the Drawings Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 01/30/2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/01/2026 have created another Drawings Objections, see details below in the Drawings Objections section.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/01/2026 have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 01/30/2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/01/2026 have created another Claim Objections, see details below in the Claim Objections section.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/01/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 01/30/2026.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/01/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claims Rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 01/30/2026, except for the limitations “a more consistent dispensed beverage” recited in claim 3, and “a reservoir” recited in claim 4. Additionally, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/01/2026 have created another 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections, see details below in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Claim Rejections:
Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Specifically, in view of the amendments to claim 1 filed on 06/01/2026, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 Claim Rejections set forth in the previous office action dated 01/30/2026 has been withdrawn. The amended claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandsma (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0000306 A1, previously cited) in view of Stover (U.S. Patent No. 4,676,149 A, newly cited) and further in view of Stearns et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0286262 A1, newly cited). To be more specific, the newly cited prior arts Stover (U.S. Patent No. 4,676,149 A, newly cited) and Stearns et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0286262 A1, newly cited) have been added to this office action to teach the newly added limitations recited in the independent claim 1. Regarding the amended claim 1, Examiner acknowledges that the prior art Brandsma (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0000306 A1, previously cited) does not explicitly disclose: each of the plurality of reservoirs including a reservoir port on a lower portion thereof, the reservoir port engaging the corresponding docking port on the docking tray to provide a path from an internal cavity of each of the plurality of reservoirs through the reservoir port and into the docking port; and a dispensing valve communicating with each pump communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs through the docking port, the pump controllably operated by the controller to dispense the predetermined beverage to a dispensing point associated with the housing, as newly added to the independent claim 1. In this case, Stover (U.S. Patent No. 4,676,149 A, newly cited) is relied upon for teaching the limitation the reservoir including a reservoir port on a lower portion thereof, the reservoir port engaging the corresponding docking port on the docking tray to provide a path from an internal cavity of the reservoir through the reservoir port and into the docking port, as newly added to the amended claim 1; and Stearns et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0286262 A1, newly cited) is relied upon for teaching the limitation a dispensing valve communicating with each pump communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs through the docking port, the pump controllably operated by the controller to dispense the predetermined beverage to a dispensing point associated with the housing, as newly added to the amended claim 1. See detailed rejection of the independent claim 1 below in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section.
Furthermore, in view of the amendments to dependent claims 2-4 filed on 06/01/2026, the rejection of claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102 Claim Rejections set forth in the previous office action dated 01/30/2026 has been withdrawn. See details below in the Allowable Subject Matter section.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“dispensing valve” as recited in claim 1 (It is noted that Fig.8 shows the valve 88. However, the valve 88 is not dispensing valve. Specifically, valve 88 is a check valve provided on the air line 86 to prevent the backflow of liquid into the air line 86 when the pump 85 is not operated, as indicated by specification Par.0033.);
“dispensing valve communicating with each pump communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs through the docking port” as recited in claim 1.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “liquids” in line 8. This should be changed to “liquid”.
Claims 3-4 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the solids and fines” in line 6. This should be changed to “solids and fines”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the reservoir” in line 3. This should be changed to “one of the plurality of reservoirs” or “each of the plurality of reservoirs” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited in claim 1 (line 10).
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the apparatus” in line 3. This should be changed to “the beverage making and dispensing apparatus” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited in claim 5 (line 1).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the apparatus” in line 8. This should be changed to “the beverage making and dispensing apparatus” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited in claim 13 (line 1).
Claims 14-20 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are 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 1 recites the limitation “a dispensing valve communicating with each pump communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs through the docking port” in lines 19-20. This claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification or the drawings of the Instant Application. Specifically, Par.0031 of the specification describes: “As shown in Figure 5, the docking ports 52, 54 engage one another to allow the normally biased closed reservoir port 52 having a displaceable closure 56 to be biased upwardly by a protruding portion 55 to allow the passage of beverage retained in the reservoir 40 from the reservoir and through the docking port 54. Coffee is retained in this passage until it is controllably pumped by the pumps 60 and corresponding plumbing 62 to move the coffee from the reservoir 40 to the dispensing point 30.”; therefore, according to Par.0031 of the specification, the reservoir port 52 engages corresponding docking port 54 to establish a passage for beverage retained in the reservoir 40, and that the beverage is controllably pumped by pumps 60 and corresponding plumping 62 from the reservoir to dispensing point 30. However, the specification does not describe that each individual pump 60 communicates with each of the plurality of reservoirs, as required by claim 1. The drawings do not provide support for the newly claimed “a dispensing valve communicating with each pump communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs through the docking port” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “conductive contact points on a portion of each of the plurality of reservoirs” in lines 1-2. This claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification or the drawings of the Instant Application. Specifically, the specification describes “FIG. 6 is a bottom view of the reservoir as shown in Figure 4 illustrating the displaceable member described with regard to Figure 5 and also illustrating conductive contact points on the bottom of the reservoir for mating with corresponding conductive points in the docking tray as shown in Figure 3” in Par.0017, and the drawings illustrate conductive contact points on the bottom of the reservoir in Fig.6. However, the claim recites “a portion” of the reservoir, not “bottom” of the reservoir as indicated by the specification and the drawings of the Instant Application. It is noted that “a portion” is boarder and can include side portion, top portion that are not supported by the specification or the drawings of the Instant Application. Accordingly, claim 6 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 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 1-4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the corresponding docking port” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “docking port” recited previously.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the docking tray” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “docking tray” recited previously.
Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the agitation system” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “agitation system” recited previously.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “agitate the predetermined beverage produced by the retained therein” in lines 5-6. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear what “the retained therein” means. Specifically, “retained” does not identify structure, material, or other antecedent to which “the” may refer.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an air pump controllably operated by the controller to inject air into each of the plurality of reservoirs” in lines 4-5. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 3 depends on claim 2; however, claim 2 already recites “an air pump attached to the air injection line and controllably operated by the controller to inject air through the air injection line into the dispensing line and into each of the plurality of reservoirs” in lines 6-7. Therefore, it is unclear if “an air pump” recited in claim 3 refers to “an air pump” recited previously in claim 2, or “an air pump” recited in claim 3 refers to a different air pump. For examination purposes, “an air pump” recited in claim 3 will be interpreted as to refer to “an air pump” recited previously in claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a more consistent dispensed beverage” in line 7. The term “a more consistent” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a more consistent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is understood what consistent means. It is unclear under what conditions, the dispensed beverage is considered to be more consistent than “consistent”. For examination purposes, the limitation “a more consistent dispensed beverage” as recited in claim 3 (line 7) will be interpreted as “consistent dispensed beverage”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a reservoir” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 4 depends on claim 2; claim 2 depends on claim 1. However, claim 1 already recites the limitation “at least a plurality of reservoirs” in line 10. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “a reservoir” recited in claim 4 (line 2) refers to one of the plurality of reservoirs recited previously in claim 1 (line 10), or the limitation “a reservoir” recited in claim 4 (line 2) refers to a different reservoir. For examination purposes, the limitation “a reservoir” recited in claim 4 (line 2) will be interpreted as refer to one of the plurality of reservoirs recited previously in claim 1 (line 10).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the agitation system” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “agitation system” recited previously in claims 1, 2, or 4, since claim 4 depends on claim 2, and claim 2 depends on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “an air pump controllably operated by the controller to inject air into the cleaning product in each of the plurality of reservoirs” in lines 3-4. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 4 depends on claim 2; however, claim 2 already recites “an air pump attached to the air injection line and controllably operated by the controller to inject air through the air injection line into the dispensing line and into each of the plurality of reservoirs” in lines 6-7. Therefore, it is unclear if “an air pump” recited in claim 4 refers to “an air pump” recited previously in claim 2, or “an air pump” recited in claim 4 refers to a different air pump. For examination purposes, “an air pump” recited in claim 4 will be interpreted as to refer to “an air pump” recited previously in claim 2.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a docking tray” in line 1. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 17 depends on claim 13; however, claim 13 already recites the limitation “a docking tray” in lines 12-13. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “a docking tray” recited in claim 17 (line 1) refers to “a docking tray” recited previously in claim 13 (lines 12-13), or the limitation “a docking tray” recited in claim 17 (line 1) refers to a different docking tray. For examination purposes, the limitation “a docking tray” recited in claim 17 (line 1) will be interpreted as refer to “a docking tray” recited in claim 13 (lines 12-13).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a lower section” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 17 depends on claim 13; however, claim 13 already recites the limitation “a lower section” in line 13. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “a lower section” recited in claim 17 (line 2) refers to “a lower section” recited previously in claim 13 (line 13), or the limitation “a lower section” recited in claim 17 (line 2) refers to a different lower section. For examination purposes, the limitation “a lower section” recited in claim 17 (line 2) will be interpreted as refer to “a lower section” recited in claim 13 (line 13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandsma (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0000306 A1, previously cited) in view of Stover (U.S. Patent No. 4,676,149 A, newly cited) and further in view of Stearns et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0286262 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Brandsma discloses a beverage making and dispensing apparatus (beverage maker 40, Brandsma Figs.1-4) for controllably preparing batches of beverage (Brandsma Abstract discloses: “A parameter or parameters within a receiving or dispensing container is/are autonomously monitored to determine level, demand for additional beverage, beverage age, and or/other information, and responsive to the monitored information or an inputted command, the beverage maker autonomously adapts the beverage making operation or executes predetermined steps, such as, but are not limited to, making more or fewer beverage batches, or signals to dispose of existing beverage.”), the beverage making and dispensing apparatus (beverage maker 40, Brandsma Figs.1-4) comprising:
a housing (the entire housing of the beverage maker 40, Brandsma Figs.1-4; or as shown in Brandsma annotated Fig.2 below);
a controller (controller 68, Brandsma Fig.1);
a user interface (user interface 70, Brandsma Fig.1) carried on the housing (the entire housing of the beverage maker 40, Brandsma Figs.1-4; or as shown in Brandsma annotated Fig.2 below) and operatively associated with the controller (controller 68, Brandsma Fig.1) (Brandsma Par.0074 discloses: “a microprocessor based controller 68, which can comprise a single microprocessor or multiple ones networked, having at least one operator or user interface 70, here comprising a graphical touchpad, controller 68 being programmable to store and execute operating programs and routines for each of the beverage making devices 42, including to display desired graphics and input interfaces on user interface or interfaces 70.”);
a brew engine (two beverage making devices 42, Brandsma Fig.4 & Pars.0071-0072) (two beverage making devices 42 are brew engine because Brandsma Par.0071 discloses: “Beverage maker 40 is configured to include two beverage making devices 42”, and Brandsma Par.0072 discloses: “Beverage maker 40 illustrated and described herein is configured to quickly brew successive batches of substantially uniform quality and consistency coffee or tea”) associated with the housing (the entire housing of the beverage maker 40, Brandsma Figs.1-4; or as shown in Brandsma annotated Fig.2 below) and controllably operated by the controller (controller 68, Brandsma Fig.1) (Brandsma Par.0074 discloses: “controller 68 being programmable to store and execute operating programs and routines for each of the beverage making devices 42”), the brew engine (two beverage making devices 42, Brandsma Fig.4 & Pars.0071-0072) controllably receiving a predetermined quantity of beverage making substance (“a predetermined quantity of the beverage making substance or substances (e.g., ground coffee, tea)”, Brandsma Par.0076) and a predetermined volume of beverage making liquid (“a predetermined initial quantity of the liquid medium (hot water)”, Brandsma Par.0076) for producing a predetermined beverage (“for brewing small, consistently high quality batches of coffee”, Brandsma Par.0076) (Brandsma Par.0074 discloses: “a microprocessor based controller 68, which can comprise a single microprocessor or multiple ones networked, having at least one operator or user interface 70, here comprising a graphical touchpad, controller 68 being programmable to store and execute operating programs and routines for each of the beverage making devices 42, including to display desired graphics and input interfaces on user interface or interfaces 70.”, and Brandsma Par.0076 discloses: “General method aspects of preferred autonomous operation under control of controller 68 according to the invention for brewing small, consistently high quality batches of coffee quickly, include directing a predetermined initial quantity of the liquid medium (hot water) into a beverage making or brewing chamber of the beverage making device, along with delivering all or a portion of a predetermined quantity of the beverage making substance or substances (e.g., ground coffee, tea) into the beverage making chamber, in a manner to quickly achieve full wetting of the beverage making substance by the liquid medium to make a concentrated quantity of liquid beverage extract.”);
at least a plurality of reservoirs (two receiving containers 44, Brandsma Fig.2 & Par.0071) individually operatively associated with the beverage making and dispensing apparatus (beverage maker 40, Brandsma Figs.1-4) and retained within the housing (the entire housing of the beverage maker 40, Brandsma Figs.1-4; or as shown in Brandsma annotated Fig.2 below) (Brandsma Par.0071 discloses: “Beverage maker 40 is configured to include two beverage making devices 42 individually autonomously functioning as beverage making stations to make successive small batches of beverages responsive to one or more predetermined conditions or parameters, and discharge or drain the finished batches into an associated receiving and dispensing container 44, which here are serving decanters 46 disposed at each station in side by side relation at the front of beverage maker 40, and having manually operable dispensing faucets 48 on a front thereof usable for dispensing desired quantities of the beverage from the decanters 46, e.g., single serving or table carafe quantities.”),
each of the plurality of reservoirs (each of the two receiving containers 44, Brandsma Fig.2) controllably operatively communicating with the brew engine (each of the two beverage making devices 42, Brandsma Fig.2 & Brandsma Pars.0071-0072) to controllably, individually receive separate batches of predetermined beverage produced by the brew engine (each of the two beverage making devices 42, Brandsma Fig.2 & Brandsma Pars.0071-0072) (Brandsma Par.0071 discloses: “Beverage maker 40 is configured to include two beverage making devices 42 individually autonomously functioning as beverage making stations to make successive small batches of beverages responsive to one or more predetermined conditions or parameters, and discharge or drain the finished batches into an associated receiving and dispensing container 44, which here are serving decanters 46 disposed at each station in side by side relation at the front of beverage maker 40, and having manually operable dispensing faucets 48 on a front thereof usable for dispensing desired quantities of the beverage from the decanters 46, e.g., single serving or table carafe quantities. Beverage maker 40 illustrated and described herein is configured to quickly brew successive batches of substantially uniform quality and consistency coffee or tea, which individual batches are smaller in volume than the volume of the respective decanters 46, for restaurants, cafes, diners, bars, convenience stores, and other locations where employees and/or customers will dispense the coffee or tea from decanters 46 in various quantities also smaller than the volume of the respective decanters 46, but at high rates, e.g., several volumes of the respective decanters 46, over the course of several minutes.”); and
beverage selectively, controllably dispensable from each of the plurality of reservoirs (each of the two receiving containers 44, Brandsma Fig.2) on demand by selective controllable operation of a dispensing valve (each operable dispensing faucet 48 is associated with each receiving container 44, Brandsma Fig.2 & Par.0071) communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs (each of the two receiving containers 44, Brandsma Fig.2) (Brandsma Par.0071 discloses: “Beverage maker 40 is configured to include two beverage making devices 42 individually autonomously functioning as beverage making stations to make successive small batches of beverages responsive to one or more predetermined conditions or parameters, and discharge or drain the finished batches into an associated receiving and dispensing container 44, which here are serving decanters 46 disposed at each station in side by side relation at the front of beverage maker 40, and having manually operable dispensing faucets 48 on a front thereof usable for dispensing desired quantities of the beverage from the decanters 46, e.g., single serving or table carafe quantities.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
933
1071
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brandsma does not explicitly disclose:
each of the plurality of reservoirs including a reservoir port on a lower portion thereof, the reservoir port engaging the corresponding docking port on the docking tray to provide a path from an internal cavity of each of the plurality of reservoirs through the reservoir port and into the docking port;
a dispensing valve communicating with each pump communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs through the docking port, the pump controllably operated by the controller to dispense the predetermined beverage to a dispensing point associated with the housing.
Stover teaches a beverage making and dispensing apparatus (Stover Figs.1-2 & 4):
the reservoir (reservoir 17, Stover Fig.2) including a reservoir port (nipple 20, Stover Figs.2 & 4) on a lower portion thereof (bottom of the reservoir 17 as shown in Stover Figs.2 & 4), the reservoir port (nipple 20, Stover Figs.2 & 4) engaging the corresponding docking port (female receptacle or sump 21, Stover Figs.2 & 4) on the docking tray (support bracket 22, Stover Figs.2 & 4) to provide a path from an internal cavity of the reservoir (internal cavity of the reservoir 17, Stover Fig.2) through the reservoir port (nipple 20, Stover Figs.2 & 4) and into the docking port (female receptacle or sump 21, Stover Figs.2 & 4) (Stover Col.2 lines 38-42 teaches: “The bottom of the reservoir 17 is provided with a male discharge projection or nipple 20 which is insertable and removable with a liquid-tight fit into and from the top of a female receptacle or sump 21 mounted on a support bracket 22.”, and Stover lines 47-53 teaches: “It will be apparent that when the valve 24 is actuated to its open position, beverage from the interior of the reservoir 17 will flow by gravity from the sump 21 through right-angle fitting 23 and conduit 19 to valve 24 and discharge from the spout 25 (FIG. 1) into a cup or other container such as indicated in broken line at 26 in FIG. 2.”); and
a dispensing valve (dispensing valve 24, Stover Figs.1 & 5) communicating with the reservoir (reservoir 17, Stover Fig.2) through the docking port (female receptacle or sump 21, Stover Figs.2 & 4) (Stover Col.2 lines 38-47 teaches: “The bottom of the reservoir 17 is provided with a male discharge projection or nipple 20 which is insertable and removable with a liquid-tight fit into and from the top of a female receptacle or sump 21 mounted on a support bracket 22. The sump 21 has a bottom opening and the bottom is equipped with an outlet fitting 23 from which a connection 19 can be made to a beverage dispensing valve 24 which is solenoid-controlled and which has a bottom discharge spout 25.”)
It is noted that the primary reference Brandsma already discloses two separate reservoirs, as cited and explained above. Therefore, by making the reservoir including a reservoir port on a lower portion thereof, the reservoir port engaging the corresponding docking port on the docking tray to provide a path from an internal cavity of the reservoir through the reservoir port and into the docking port, as taught by Stover; in combination, Brandsma in view of Stover teaches that: each of the plurality of reservoirs including a reservoir port on a lower portion thereof, the reservoir port engaging the corresponding docking port on the docking tray to provide a path from an internal cavity of each of the plurality of reservoirs through the reservoir port and into the docking port, and each dispensing valve communicating with the respective reservoir through the respective docking port.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Brandsma, by making each reservoir including a reservoir port on a lower portion thereof, the reservoir port engaging the corresponding docking port on the docking tray to provide a path from an internal cavity of the reservoir through the reservoir port and into the docking port, and a dispensing valve communicating with the reservoir through the docking port, as taught by Stover, in order to provide a quick and convenient fluid-tight connection between the removable beverage container and a downstream dispensing path upon installation of the container, thereby permitting beverage to be dispensed through the apparatus while facilitating removal and replacement of the container for refilling, cleaning, or servicing.
Brandsma in view of Stover does not explicitly teach:
a dispensing valve communicating with each pump communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs through the docking port, the pump controllably operated by the controller to dispense the predetermined beverage to a dispensing point associated with the housing.
Stearns teaches a beverage making and dispensing apparatus (Stearns Fig.2):
a dispensing valve (each of valves 134a–134f, Stearns Fig.2) communicating with each pump (each of pumps 132a–132f, Stearns Fig.2) communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs (each of reservoirs 130a–130f, Stearns Fig.2) (Stearns Par.0034 teaches: “each of the flavoring reservoirs 130 a-130 f is fluidly connected to a respective pump 132 a-132 f. Each of the pumps 132 a-132 f is individually controllable. The downstream side of each of the pumps 132 a-132 f is connected to a respective valve 134 a-134 f.”) through the docking port (It is noted that Brandsma in view of Stover already teaches the dispensing valve communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs through the docking port, as cited and incorporated above. In this case, since Stearns teaches each dispensing valve communicating with each pump communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs, wherein the pump is fluidly disposed between the reservoir and the valve [see Stearns Fig.2 showing that the pumps 132a-132f are located between reservoirs 130a-130f and valves 134a-134f]; therefore, in combination, Brandsma in view of Stover and Stearns teaches a dispensing valve communicating with each pump communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs through the docking port), the pump (each of pumps 132a–132f, Stearns Fig.2) controllably operated by the controller (master controller 206, Stearns Fig.5) to dispense the predetermined beverage to a dispensing point (dispensing point at the outlet nozzle 144, Stearns Fig.3) associated with the housing (housing of the kiosk 60, Stearns Fig.1) (Stearns teaches the pump controllably operated by the controller to dispense the predetermined beverage to a dispensing point associated with the housing because Sterns Par.0034 teaches: “Each of the pumps 132 a-132 f is individually controllable. The downstream side of each of the pumps 132 a-132 f is connected to a respective valve 134 a-134 f. Each of the valves 134 a-134 f is fluidly connected to a plenum 135 that provides a flow path 138 directly into the vortex mixer 98 discussed above. The outlet line 80 provides a flow path from the steam generator vessel 70 to a steam valve 140 such that steam can be selectively provided to the plenum 135 to facilitate the transport of the selected flavoring from the plenum 135 to the vortex mixer 98 while also promoting the full discharge of the flavoring, precluding any build-up or retention of flavoring in the plenum 135.”, Stearns Par.0037 teaches: “Each of the valves 134 a-134 f is fluidly connected through respective outlet ports 131 (one visible in FIG. 3) to the plenum 135. As discussed above, the valves 134 a-134 f are individually controllable to permit selective flow of the desired flavoring to the plenum 135 and thence to the vortex mixer 98, which is mounted below the mounting bracket 142. A steam port 139 fluidly connects the plenum 135 to the steam source 70 through valve 140 (see FIG. 2) to facilitate fully dispensing the flavoring into the vortex mixer 98, sanitizing and purging the flavoring from the plenum 135. An outlet nozzle 144 overlies the serving cup 54 (FIG. 2), which receives the air/milk/steam mixture from the vortex mixer 98.”, and Stearns Par.0040 teaches: “The master controller 206 additionally receives signals 209 from a plurality of sensors 208—for example, the temperature, level, and/or pressure of the fluids and/or ingredients, e.g., water, milk, flavorings, coffee and/or steam. Status signals 211 regarding the status of the various valves, pumps, and other controllable components 210 may also be provided to the master controller 206. Using the input signals 203 from the user selection controls 202 and the sensor signals 209 and/or status signals 211, the controller 206 generates a series of control signals 212 to initiate and control the cycle for producing the selected beverage.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Brandsma in view of Stover, by adding the teaching of dispensing valve communicating with each pump communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs, the pump controllably operated by the controller to dispense the predetermined beverage to a dispensing point associated with the housing, as taught by Stearns, in order to selectively convey beverage from each respective reservoir and provide automated, controlled, and metered dispensing of a desired quantity of beverage to the dispensing point in response to a user selection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if claim 1 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action; and claim 2 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action and include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-4 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 2 if claim 1 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action; and claim 2 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action and include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and claims 3-4 are rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 2, Brandsma in view of Stover and Stearns teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Brandsma also discloses an air pump attached to an air injection line, and the air pump controllably operated by the controller. Furthermore, Brandsma in view of Stover also teaches a dispensing line communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs through the reservoir port and the docking port. However, neither Brandsma, Stover, nor Stearns disclose directing air from its air pump into the dispensing line associated with each of the plurality of reservoirs and through the docking port and reservoir port into each of the plurality of reservoirs for moving liquids retained in each of the plurality of reservoirs. Rather, Brandsma discloses that the finished beverage produced in the beverage-making region is subsequently delivered to the receiving container. Therefore, mapping the Brandsma’s air pump to the claimed air pump would require relocating or rerouting Brandsma’s air supply from the brewing portion of the apparatus to the downstream reservoir dispensing path and using the air for a different claimed purpose, for which Brandsma provides no teaching or suggestion.
Accordingly, Brandsma does not disclose that the air injection line connected to and communicating with the dispensing line; and the air pump controllably operated to inject air through the air injection line into the dispensing line and into each of the plurality of reservoirs for moving liquids retained in each of the plurality of reservoirs, as required by claim 2.
Furthermore, Gordon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,201,171 B2, newly cited) does not cure this deficiency. Gordon teaches supplying carbonating gas through a dispense line and a bottom outlet into a carbonation tank. Gordon explains that this arrangement may increase contact between the carbonating gas and precursor liquid and may purge liquid remaining in the dispense line back into the tank. Separately, Gordon teaches that a pump may pump a gas, such as air, into the tank to force precursor liquid from the tank into the dispense line for delivery to a dispensing station. Thus, while Gordon separately discloses introducing carbonating gas through a dispense line and pumping air into a tank, Gordon does not teach the claimed combination in which the air pumped by the air pump is injected through the air injection line into the dispensing line and thereafter through the reservoir connection into the reservoir for moving liquid retained therein. In Gordon’s pumped-air arrangement, the air is used to pressurize the tank so that liquid is moved from the tank into the dispensing line, rather than teaching the claimed arrangement in which pumped air is introduced through the dispensing line into the reservoir. Gordon explicitly discloses that ambient air as being pumped through the tank to cause precursor liquid to move from the tank to the dispensing station.
Accordingly, when consider Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, Applicant(s)’ claim 2 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant(s)’ claim 2 requires controllably pumping air through an air injection line into the dispensing line and through the docking port and reservoir port fluid path into each of the plurality of reservoirs for moving liquids retained in each of the plurality of reservoirs.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 2 would be allowable if claim 1 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action; and claim 2 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action and include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-4 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 2 if claim 1 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action; and claim 2 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action and include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and claims 3-4 are rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 5, 7-12 are allowed.
Claim 6 would be allowable by virtue of its dependence on claim 5 if claim 6 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph set forth in this office action.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art Brandsma (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0000306 A1, previously cited) discloses a beverage making and dispensing apparatus for controllably preparing batches of beverage, the beverage making and dispensing apparatus comprising: a housing; a controller; a brew engine associated with the housing and controllably operated by the controller for producing a predetermined beverage from a predetermined quantity of beverage making substance and a predetermined volume of beverage making liquid; a reservoir housing associated with the housing; a docking tray in a lower section of the reservoir housing; at least a plurality of reservoirs retained within the reservoir housing.
Additionally, the prior art Stover (U.S. Patent No. 4,676,149 A, newly cited) discloses a beverage making and dispensing apparatus for controllably preparing batches of beverage, the beverage making and dispensing apparatus comprising: a reservoir having a reservoir port on a lower portion thereof; a docking tray in a lower section of the reservoir housing; a docking port on the docking tray corresponding to the reservoir, the docking port engaging the reservoir port.
Furthermore, the prior art Stearns et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0286262 A1, newly cited) discloses a beverage making and dispensing apparatus for controllably preparing batches of beverage, the beverage making and dispensing apparatus comprising: a pump communicating with each reservoir for controllably dispensing the predetermined beverage from each of the plurality of reservoirs to a dispensing point associated with the housing; and the brew engine controllably communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs to controllably, individually dispense separate batches of the predetermined beverage into each of the plurality of reservoirs.
Further still, the prior art Chapuis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0022543 A1) discloses an apparatus for dispensing individual portions of beverage precursor for preparing a beverage comprising: a docking tray in a lower section of the reservoir housing, the docking tray including spaced apart rails for receiving reservoirs thereon; at least a plurality of reservoirs retained within the reservoir housing, each of the plurality of reservoirs slidable along the spaced apart rails of the docking tray for positioning within the reservoir housing.
However, neither Brandsma, Stover, Stearns, nor Chapuis discloses the docking port including a protruding portion to disengage a normally biased closed displaceable closure within the reservoir port to open a path from an internal cavity of each of the plurality of reservoirs through the reservoir port and into the docking port.
It is noted that Stover (U.S. Patent No. 4,676,149 A, newly cited) discloses a male discharge nipple projecting downwardly from the bottom of the reservoir, which is inserted into the female receptacle or sump mounted on the support bracket. Beverage is permitted to flow from the reservoir through the nipple and sump upon engagement of those components. Stover neither places a normally biased closed closure within the nipple nor provides the sump with a protruding portion configured to enter or act upon nipple to displace such a closure.
The prior art Upston et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0069279 A1, newly cited) does not cure this deficiency when its teaching is applied to Stover. Upston discloses a water tank that is inserted into the espresso machine in a substantially horizontal direction and a spring-biased plunger valve configured for connection in that horizontal direction to a machine-side valve coupling element. In the disclosed structure of Upston, the tank-side release valve assembly is brought toward machine-side coupling element until spring-biased valve engages abutment surface, thereby moving valve to its open position. Removal of the tank separates the valve from abutment surface and permits the valve to return to its closed position.
Simply incorporating the spring-biased valve of Upston into Stover would not result in the claimed arrangement. Stover’s nipple is itself the male projecting member and sump is the female member that receives nipple. In order to arrive at claim 5, however, Stover’s reservoir-side nipple would have to be further reconstructed to contain a normally biased closed moveable closure, while Stover’s female sump would have to be reconstructed to include an appropriately positioned protruding actuator extending toward or into nipple so that engagement between the nipple and the sump causes that actuator to displace the closure within the nipple. Neither Stover nor Stover discloses that reconstruction of Stover’s nipple/sump interface. Additionally, merely placing Upston’s spring-biased valve somewhere within Stover’s nipple would not be sufficient. Without additionally changing sump to provide the specifically positioned protruding actuating structure required by the claim, the valve would remain biased closed and would obstruct the gravity-flow that Stover establishes through the nipple and sump. Conversely, merely providing an actuating structure in the sump without redesigning the nipple to accommodate the movable closure and permit the actuating structure to reach and displace that closure would not produce an operable fluid connection. Furthermore, even if substituting the releasable valve coupling arrangement of Upston for the reservoir nipple/sump arrangement of Stover, the modification would fail to result in the claimed configuration. Stover is relied upon for reservoir having a bottom reservoir port, namely nipple, engaging a corresponding docking port, namely sump, to establish a fluid path from the reservoir into the downstream dispensing system. Replacing that engagement structure with the coupling arrangement of Upston would remove the nipple/sump relationship relied upon from Stover. A substitution of Upston coupling for Stover nipple/sump would exchange one incomplete arrangement for another. Retaining Stover’s coupling fails to provide the claimed normally biased closure and docking port protruding portion, while replacing Stover’s coupling with Upston’s arrangement eliminates the Stover structure relied upon for the claimed reservoir port and docking port relationship without Upston supplying the remaining claimed relationships.
Accordingly, when consider Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, Applicant(s)’ claim 5 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant(s)’ claim 5 recites: “the docking port including a protruding portion to disengage a normally biased closed displaceable closure within the reservoir port to open a path from an internal cavity of each of the plurality of reservoirs through the reservoir port and into the docking port”.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 5 is allowed.
Claims 7-12 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 5.
Claim 6 would be allowable by virtue of its dependence on claim 5 if claim 6 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph set forth in this office action.
Claims 13-16, 18-20 are allowed.
Claim 17 would be allowable by virtue of its dependence on claim 13 if claim 17 is rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art Brandsma (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0000306 A1, previously cited) discloses a beverage making and dispensing apparatus for controllably preparing batches of beverage, the beverage making and dispensing apparatus comprising: a housing; a controller; a brew engine associated with the housing and controllably operated by the controller for producing a predetermined beverage from a predetermined quantity of beverage making substance and a predetermined volume of beverage making liquid; at least a plurality of reservoirs individually operatively associated with the apparatus and retained within the housing, each of the plurality of reservoirs receiving the predetermined beverage from the brew engine; an air injection line connected to and communicating with a dispensing line; an air pump attached to the air injection line and controllably operated by the controller.
Additionally, the prior art Stover (U.S. Patent No. 4,676,149 A, newly cited) discloses a beverage making and dispensing apparatus for controllably preparing batches of beverage, the beverage making and dispensing apparatus comprising: a dispensing line directly communicating with contents of each of the plurality of reservoirs through a reservoir port on a lower portion of each of the plurality of reservoirs and a docking port on a docking tray in a lower section of the housing
It is noted that Brandsma in view of Stover also teaches a dispensing point communicating with each of the plurality of reservoirs through the dispensing line for dispensing the predetermined beverage on demand.
However, neither Brandsma nor Stover disclose directing air from its air pump into the dispensing line associated with each of the plurality of reservoirs and through the docking port and reservoir port into each of the plurality of reservoirs, the air following a path of least resistance upwardly through the dispensing line into each of the plurality of reservoirs for agitating contents retained therein. Rather, Brandsma discloses that the finished beverage produced in the beverage-making region is subsequently delivered to the receiving container. Therefore, mapping the Brandsma’s air pump to the claimed air pump would require relocating or rerouting Brandsma’s air supply from the brewing portion of the apparatus to the downstream reservoir dispensing path and using the air for a different claimed purpose, for which Brandsma provides no teaching or suggestion.
Accordingly, Brandsma does not disclose that the air injection line connected to and communicating with the dispensing line; and the air pump attached to the air injection line and controllably operated to inject air through the air injection line into the dispensing line, the air following a path of least resistance upwardly through the dispensing line into each of the plurality of reservoirs for agitating contents retained therein, as required by claim 13.
Furthermore, Gordon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,201,171 B2, newly cited) does not cure this deficiency. Gordon teaches supplying carbonating gas through a dispense line and a bottom outlet into a carbonation tank. Gordon explains that this arrangement may increase contact between the carbonating gas and precursor liquid and may purge liquid remaining in the dispense line back into the tank. Separately, Gordon teaches that a pump may pump a gas, such as air, into the tank to force precursor liquid from the tank into the dispense line for delivery to a dispensing station. Thus, while Gordon separately discloses introducing carbonating gas through a dispense line and pumping air into a tank, Gordon does not teach the claimed combination in which the air pumped by the air pump is injected through the air injection line into the dispensing line and thereafter through the reservoir connection into the reservoir, the air following a path of least resistance upwardly through the dispensing line into each of the plurality of reservoirs for agitating contents retained therein. In Gordon’s pumped-air arrangement, the air is used to pressurize the tank so that liquid is moved from the tank into the dispensing line, rather than teaching the claimed arrangement in which pumped air is introduced through the dispensing line into the reservoir. Gordon explicitly discloses that ambient air as being pumped through the tank to cause precursor liquid to move from the tank to the dispensing station.
Accordingly, when consider Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, Applicant(s)’ claim 13 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant(s)’ claim 13 requires controllably pumping air through an air injection line into the dispensing line and through the docking port and reservoir port fluid path into each of the plurality of reservoirs, the air following a path of least resistance upwardly through the dispensing line into each of the plurality of reservoirs for agitating contents retained therein.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 13 is allowed.
Claims 14-16, 18-20 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 13.
Claim 17 would be allowable by virtue of its dependence on claim 13 if claim 17 is rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
McLaughlin (U.S. Patent No. 8,616,116 B2) discloses a multi-brewer apparatus including a plurality of brew groups that are configured to be selectively operated either in a ganged mode, wherein plurality of brew groups cooperate to rapidly produce a larger quantity of brewed beverage at a single dispensing location, or in an independent mode wherein the plurality of brew groups operate independently and dispense brewed beverage spaced apart dispensing locations.
Bombeck et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,413,112 B2) discloses a beverage brewing machine including brew vessel, boiler, temperature sensor, flow meter, steam control valve, water control valve, cooling water mixer valve, microprocessor-controller, user interface, fresh water inlet valve, and network communication port. Bombeck further discloses up to four of brew vessels may be used with the beverage brewing machine, those skilled in the art will recognize that more or less than four brew vessels might be incorporated into the beverage brewing machine. Each brew vessel may be used simultaneously brew multiple but distinct cups of a beverage, each with its own set of brewing parameters.
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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 08/21/2026
Prosecution Insights