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 .
Drawings
The drawings are not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the apparatus” in lines 11-12. It is understood that the limitation “the apparatus” herein refers to the “beverage making and dispensing apparatus” recited previously in claim 1 (line 1). Therefore, the limitation “the apparatus” recited in claim 1 (lines 11-12) should be changed to “the beverage making and dispensing apparatus” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 1).
Claim 1 (lines 12, 15, 16-17), Claim 2 (line 3) recites the limitation “each reservoir”. This should be changed to “each of the plurality of reservoirs” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 11).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “beverage” in “separate batches of beverage” in line 14, and the limitation “beverage” in line 15. The limitation “beverage” should be changed to “the predetermined beverage” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 10).
Claims 2-4 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 3-4 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Claim 2 recites “The beverage making and dispensing apparatus for controllably preparing batches of beverage of claim 1, the beverage making and dispensing apparatus further comprising: an agitation system for moving liquids retained in each reservoir.” in lines 1-3. This should be changed to “The beverage making and dispensing apparatus for controllably preparing batches of beverage of claim 1,
Claims 3-4 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Claim 3 recites “The beverage making and dispensing apparatus for controllably preparing batches of beverage of claim 2, the beverage making and dispensing apparatus wherein the liquid is the beverage produced by the beverage making engine and dispensed into the reservoir with the agitation system mixing the solids and fines in the produced beverage for a more consistent dispensed beverage.” in lines 1-5. This should be changed to “The beverage making and dispensing apparatus for controllably preparing batches of beverage of claim 2,
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the beverage” in “the beverage produced” in line 3 and the limitation “the produced beverage” in line 4. These limitations should be changed to “the predetermined beverage” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 10).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the reservoir” in lines 3-4. This should be changed to “each of the plurality of reservoirs” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 11).
Claim 4 recites “The beverage making and dispensing apparatus for controllably preparing batches of beverage of claim 2, the beverage making and dispensing apparatus wherein the liquid is a cleaning product that is dispensed into a reservoir for cleaning the reservoir.” in lines 1-3. This should be changed to “The beverage making and dispensing apparatus for controllably preparing batches of beverage of claim 2, .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“agitation system for moving liquids retained in each reservoir” in claim 2 (line 3) and “agitation system mixing the solids and fines in the produced beverage for a more consistent dispensed beverage” in claim 3 (lines 4-5). These limitations use generic placeholder “system” (Prong A); the term “system” is modified by functional language: “for moving liquids retained in each reservoir” as recited in claim 2 (line 3) and “mixing the solids and fines in the produced beverage for a more consistent dispensed beverage” as recited in claim 3 (lines 4-5) (Prong B); and the term “system” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “agitation system” will be interpreted as “air pump” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0019: “air agitation being provided as a result of an air pump controllably operated by a controller associated with the apparatus to facilitate controlled movement of air through the air passage into the dispensing line with the air following the path of least resistance upwardly through the dispensing line into the reservoir, agitation of the air in the liquid beverage causing mixing of the dissolved solids with the beverage as described”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 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 “at least a plurality of reservoirs” in line 11. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because plurality already means being plural, thus, it is unclear what is meant by at least a plurality, to be more specific, it is unclear what can be more than a plurality.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the brew engine” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “brew engine” recited previously. Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation “the brew engine” recited in claim 1 (line 8) refers to the limitation “the beverage making engine” recited previously in claim 1 (line 7), or the limitation “the brew engine” recited in claim 1 (line 8) refers to a different engine. For examination purposes, the limitation “the brew engine” recited in claim 1 (line 8) will be interpreted as to refer to the limitation “the beverage making engine” recited previously in claim 1 (line 7).
Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the liquid” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 3 depends on claim 2; claim 2 depends on claim 1. However, two different kinds of liquid(s) were recited previously in claim 1 and in claim 2; therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “the liquid” recited in claim 3 (line 2) refers to the “beverage making liquid” recited previously in claim 1 (line 9), or the limitation “the liquid” recited in claim 3 (line 2) refers to the limitation “liquids” recited previously in claim 2 (line 3), or the limitation “the liquid” recited in claim 3 (line 2) refers to a different liquid. If the limitation “the liquid” recited in claim 3 (line 2) refers to the “liquids” recited previously in claim 2 (line 3), does it refer to one of the “liquids” recited previously in claim 2 or all of the “liquids” recited previously in claim 2? For examination purposes, the limitation “the liquid” recited in claim 3 (line 2) will be interpreted as liquid that is produced by the beverage making engine.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the solids and fines” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “solids and fines” recited previously. It is unclear what “the solids and fines” herein refers to. For examination purposes, the limitation “the solids and fines” as recited in claim 3 (line 4) will be interpreted as solids and fines contained in the beverage.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “agitation system mixing the solids and fines in the produced beverage for a more consistent dispensed beverage” in lines 4-5. 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 “agitation system mixing the solids and fines in the produced beverage for a more consistent dispensed beverage” as recited in claim 3 (lines 4-5) will be interpreted as “agitation system mixing the solids and fines in the produced beverage for a consistent dispensed beverage”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a reservoir” in line 3. 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 11. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “a reservoir” recited in claim 4 (line 3) refers to one of the plurality of reservoirs recited previously in claim 1 (line 11), or the limitation “a reservoir” recited in claim 4 (line 3) refers to a different reservoir. For examination purposes, the limitation “a reservoir” recited in claim 4 (line 3) will be interpreted as any reservoir contained in the beverage making and dispensing apparatus.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the liquid” 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, two different kinds of liquid(s) were recited previously in claim 1 and in claim 2; therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “the liquid” recited in claim 4 (line 2) refers to the “beverage making liquid” recited previously in claim 1 (line 9), or the limitation “the liquid” recited in claim 4 (line 2) refers to the “liquids” recited previously in claim 2 (line 3), or the limitation “the liquid” recited in claim 4 (line 2) refers to a different liquid. If the limitation “the liquid” recited in claim 4 (line 2) refers to the “liquids” recited previously in claim 2 (line 3), does it refer to one of the “liquids” recited previously in claim 2 or all of the “liquids” recited previously in claim 2? For examination purposes, the limitation “the liquid” recited in claim 4 (line 2) will be interpreted as beverage making liquid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brandsma (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0000306 A1).
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 beverage making engine (two beverage making devices 42, Brandsma Fig.2 & Brandsma Pars.0071-0072) 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.2 & Brandsma Pars.0071-0072) (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above for the limitation “the brew engine”) 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 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 apparatus (beverage maker 40, Brandsma Figs.1-4) and retained in 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 reservoir (each of the two receiving containers 44, Brandsma Fig.2) controllably operatively communicating with the beverage making engine (each of the two beverage making devices 42, Brandsma Fig.2 & Brandsma Pars.0071-0072) to controllably, individually receive separate batches of beverage produced by the beverage making 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 reservoir (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 reservoir (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
Regarding claim 2, Brandsma discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Brandsma also discloses
the beverage making and dispensing apparatus (beverage maker 40, Brandsma Figs.1-4) further comprising: an agitation system (air pump 122, Brandsma Fig.4 & Par.0083) (see the Claim Interpretation section above for the interpretation of the limitation “agitation system”) for moving liquids retained in each reservoir (each of the receiving containers 44, Brandsma Fig.2) (Brandsma Par.0083 discloses: “As an optional feature, as noted above, additional air pressure can be generated in the main mixing region using an air pump to sustain and/or increase the pressure differential, to facilitate flow of the beverage into the receiving container 44. This can optionally be delivered through aspects of the liquid medium delivery mechanism as denoted by arrow 124, by connection of an air pump 122 in conjunction therewith, as will be explained, or separately.”).
Regarding claim 3, Brandsma discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 2, Brandsma also discloses
the beverage making and dispensing apparatus (beverage maker 40, Brandsma Figs.1-4) wherein the liquid (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above for the limitation “the liquid”. In this case, the limitation “the liquid” is interpreted as liquid that is produced by the beverage making engines 42.) is the beverage produced by the beverage making engine (two beverage making devices 42, Brandsma Fig.2 & Brandsma Pars.0071-0072) and dispensed into the reservoir (two receiving containers 44, Brandsma Fig.2 & Par.0071) (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.”) with the agitation system (air pump 122, Brandsma Fig.4 & Par.0083) mixing the solids and fines (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above for the limitation “the solids and fines”) in the produced beverage for a more consistent dispensed beverage (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above for the limitation “a more consistent”. In this case, Brandsma Par.0083 discloses: “Receiving container 44 will be at ambient pressure. Thus, a higher pressure condition will exist in the main mixing region of device 42, and a lower pressure condition will exist in the receiving container 44, thereby creating a pressure differential across the filter medium, such that the additional hot water will mix with and press the initial extract through the coffee grounds and filter medium. As an optional feature, as noted above, additional air pressure can be generated in the main mixing region using an air pump to sustain and/or increase the pressure differential, to facilitate flow of the beverage into the receiving container 44. This can optionally be delivered through aspects of the liquid medium delivery mechanism as denoted by arrow 124, by connection of an air pump 122 in conjunction therewith, as will be explained, or separately.”; therefore, the air pump 122 is capable of mixing the solids and fines in the produced beverage for a consistent dispensed beverage).
Regarding claim 4, Brandsma discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 2, Brandsma also discloses
the beverage making and dispensing apparatus (beverage maker 40, Brandsma Figs.1-4) wherein the liquid (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above for the limitation “the liquid”. In this case, the limitation “the liquid” is interpreted as beverage making liquid) is a cleaning product that is dispensed into a reservoir (beverage making chamber 106, Brandsma Fig.4A) (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above for the limitation “a reservoir”. In this case, the limitation “a reservoir” is interpreted as beverage making chamber 106, Brandsma Fig.4A) for cleaning the reservoir (beverage making chamber 106, Brandsma Fig.4A) (Brandsma Par.0029 discloses: “Also preferably, the liquid medium will be delivered in a manner to rinse or clean a sidewall extending about and enclosing the beverage making chamber for removing remnants of beverage making substance therefrom, at appropriate times, such as at the end of a batch.”).
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Lassota (U.S. Patent No. 6,706,300 B1) discloses brewers which have removable brew baskets and servers with bypass valves to bypass beverage ingredient within the basket.
Foglia (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0021544 A1) discloses a self-cleaning coffee machine.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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 01/28/2026