BEVERAGE BREWING SYSTEM AND RELATED METHODS

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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. Claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, 14-20, 22-23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher (US10863856B2) in view of Colston (US6805041B2) and further in view of Blanc (US5755149A). PNG media_image1.png 968 596 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. 16 of Fletcher Regarding claim 1, Fletcher teaches a beverage brewing system comprising: a beverage ingredient container (10) comprising a body portion defining a cavity (22) containing a beverage ingredient (27), the body portion (10) of the beverage ingredient container being flexible (capsule 10, comprises two flexible laminate sheets 11,12) a beverage brewing apparatus (200) comprising: a support member (212) configured to support the beverage ingredient container (10) during the beverage vend; an expansion limiter (30) comprising a first wall (31) and a second wall (32) that are at least partially spaced apart from one another by a gap (33), the beverage ingredient container (10) being located within the gap (33) when supported by the support member (212) during the beverage vend (Fig. 16); and wherein the beverage brewing apparatus (200) is operable to vend a beverage (Fig. 16). Fletcher is silent on when the body portion of the beverage ingredient container is unimpeded, a volume of the cavity is configured to expand from an initial volume to a maximum volume during a beverage vend in which a liquid is introduced into the cavity; a first mode whereby the first and second walls are spaced apart by a first maximum distance that is sufficient to enable the volume of the cavity of the beverage ingredient container to expand to the maximum volume during the beverage vend; and a second mode whereby the first and second walls are spaced apart by a second maximum distance that prevents the volume of the cavity of the beverage ingredient container from expanding to the maximum volume during the beverage vend, the second maximum distance being less than the first maximum distance, wherein in both the first mode and the second mode the first and second walls are not in compressive contact with the beverage ingredient container during initial introduction of liquid into the cavity such that the beverage ingredient container is permitted to expand from the initial volume during the beverage vend. PNG media_image2.png 656 658 media_image2.png Greyscale Fig. 5B,C of Colston Colston teaches when the body portion (66) of the beverage ingredient container (68) is unimpeded, a volume of the cavity is configured to expand from an initial volume (Fig. 5B) to a maximum volume (Fig. 5C) during a beverage vend in which a liquid is introduced into the cavity (Fig. 5B-C Col. 4 lines 25-65 the resulting taut, smooth back face 67 is efficiently pierced by the injector needle 63. Water at 90° C. and 12 bar pressure is then injected into the sachet to brew espresso-style coffee in the sachet), a first mode (Fig. 5C) whereby the first (61) and second walls (70) are spaced apart by a first maximum distance (Fig. 5C) that is sufficient to enable the volume of the cavity (72) of the beverage ingredient container (68) to expand to the maximum volume during the beverage vend (Fig.5C); and a second mode (Fig. 5B) whereby the first (61) and second walls (70) are spaced apart by a second maximum distance (Fig. 5b, the distance when the hydraulic reservoir 70 of the deformable clamp member is pressurized to about 12 bar) that prevents the volume of the cavity of the beverage ingredient container (68) from expanding to the maximum volume during the beverage vend (Fig. 5B), Fletcher and Colston are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of beverage systems. It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher to incorporate the teachings of Colston to have a body portion that allows the beverage ingredient container to expand as liquid is introduced, where in one mode the beverage ingredient container expands to a maximum volume and in another mode, the beverage ingredient container does not expand to a maximum volume so that the beverage container may be shaped to the optimal shape for brewing of the beverage, which may dynamically change, allowing for a high amount of pressure to be developed within the beverage container without bursting the container (Colston Col. 4 lines 25-65). Fletcher and Colston are silent on wherein in both the first mode and the second mode the first and second walls are not in compressive contact with the beverage ingredient container during initial introduction of liquid into the cavity such that the beverage ingredient container is permitted to expand from the initial volume during the beverage vend. Blanc teaches wherein in both the first mode and the second mode the first and second walls (14, 15) are not in compressive contact with the beverage ingredient container (12, Fig. 8 and 9) during initial introduction of liquid into the cavity (Fig 8) such that the beverage ingredient container (12) is permitted to expand from the initial volume during the beverage vend (Fig. 8 where container 12 has space to expand). Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of beverage systems. It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher and Colston to incorporate the teachings of Blanc to have the first and second walls be not in compressive during an initial introduction of liquid into the cavity so that beverages may be outputted more readily in response pressures surrounding the empty space of the beverage container (Blanc Col. 7 lines 1-15). Regarding claim 2, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 1, and Fletcher teaches wherein the first wall (31) is positioned adjacent to a front surface of the beverage ingredient container (10) and the second wall (32) positioned adjacent to a rear surface of the beverage ingredient container (10) during the beverage vend (Fig. 16), and wherein in each of the first and second modes, the first wall (31) is spaced apart from the front surface of the beverage ingredient container (10) and the second wall (32) is spaced apart from the rear wall of the beverage ingredient container (10) at a start of the beverage vend while the cavity of the beverage ingredient container (10) is at the initial volume (Fig. 16 capsule spaced apart from walls of clamp assembly 30). Regarding claim 3, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 1, and Fletcher teaches wherein when the beverage ingredient container (10) is located in the gap prior to a start of the beverage vend (Fig. 16 capsule 10 in gap between clamp assembly 16), but is silent on a minimum distance between each of the the first and second walls of the expansion limiter and the beverage ingredient container in the second mode is between 1 mm and 10 mm, and the minimum distance between the first and second walls of the expansion limiter and the beverage ingredient container in the first mode is between 10 mm and 20 mm. Colston teaches a minimum distance between the first and second walls of the expansion limiter and the beverage ingredient container in the second mode is between 1 mm and 10 mm (Col. 7 lines 1-15 depth of the recess is from about 1 mm to about 10 mm), and the minimum distance between the first and second walls of the expansion limiter and the beverage ingredient container in the first mode is between 10 mm and 20 mm (Col. 7 lines 1-15 depth of the recess is from about 1 mm to about 10 mm). It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher and Blanc to incorporate the teachings of Colston to have a minimum distance between the first and second walls be 1-10 mm or 10-20 mm so that the beverage container may be contained within the two walls, so that a portion of the container may be taut for liquid injection (Colston Col. 7 lines 1-15). Regarding claim 4, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 1, and Fletcher teaches wherein the first (31) and second walls (32) of the expansion limiter are not in contact with the beverage ingredient container (10) at a start of the beverage vend (Fig. 16) in either of the first and second modes. Regarding claim 7, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 1, and Fletcher is silent on wherein the first wall is fixed and wherein the second wall is movable towards and away from the first wall to adjust a maximum spacing distance between the first and second walls in response to user selection of the first mode or the second mode for the beverage vend. Colston teaches wherein the first wall (61) is fixed and wherein the second wall (70) is movable towards and away (Col. 14 lines 40-60 the hydraulic reservoir 70 of the deformable clamp member is pressurized to about 12 bar, some of the liquid in the hydraulic reservoir 70 is then reduced) from the first wall (61) to adjust a maximum spacing distance between the first and second walls in response to user selection of the first mode or the second mode for the beverage vend (Fig. 5B-C). It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher and Blanc to incorporate the teachings of Colston to have one fixed wall and one movable in order to shape the beverage container to the optimal shape for brewing of the beverage, which may dynamically change, allowing for a high amount of pressure to be developed within the beverage container without bursting the container (Colston Col. 4 lines 25-65). Regarding claim 9, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 1, and Fletcher teaches wherein each of the first and second walls of the expansion limiter is formed from a rigid, non-flexible material (Col. 33 lines 1-20 first clamp member 31 is formed from metal or similar rigid material; The second clamp member comprises a rigid frame 32) and wherein inner surfaces of the first (31) and second (32) walls which faces the beverage ingredient container are rigid (10, Col. 33 lines 1-20 where member 31 is rigid and has an inner surface facing the capsule 19, and member 32 has a rigid frame, that has an inner surface facing capsule 10). Regarding claim 10, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 1, and Fletcher teaches wherein each of the first (31) and second (32) walls comprises a front surface that faces the gap (Fig. 16), the front surfaces of the first (31) and second walls (32) comprising concave portions (33, 54) that face the beverage ingredient container when the beverage ingredient container is located in the gap (Col. 36 lines 1-10 The central region 54 of the front face of the elastomeric cover 37 is generally concave to receive one side of the capsule 1). Regarding claim 14, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 1, but Fletcher is silent on wherein in the first mode, upon the volume of the beverage ingredient container expanding to the maximum volume, the first and second walls do not contact the beverage ingredient container, and wherein in the second mode, upon the volume of the beverage ingredient container reaching an intermediate volume that is less than the maximum volume, the first and second walls contact the beverage ingredient container to prevent the volume of the beverage ingredient container from expanding further. Colston teaches wherein in the first mode (Fig. 5C) , upon the volume of the beverage ingredient container (68) expanding to the maximum volume (Fig. 5C), and wherein in the second mode (Fig. 5B), upon the volume of the beverage ingredient container (68) reaching an intermediate volume that is less than the maximum volume (Fig. 5B capsule 68 at an intermediate volume), the first and second walls (67, 70) contact the beverage ingredient container (68) to prevent the volume of the beverage ingredient container (68) from expanding further (Fig 5B walls 67 and 70 are in contact with the container 68, which prevents further expansion of capsule 68). It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher to incorporate the teachings of Colston to have an intermediate maximum volume at which the first and second walls contact the beverage ingredient container so that the beverage ingredient container is shaped to the optimal shape for brewing of the desired beverage, which may dynamically change, allowing for a high amount of pressure to be developed within the beverage container without bursting the container (Colston Col. 4 lines 25-65). Fletcher and Colston are silent on the first and second walls do not contact the beverage ingredient container. PNG media_image3.png 1058 660 media_image3.png Greyscale Fig. 8 and 9 of Blanc Blanc teaches the first and second walls (14, 15) do not contact the beverage ingredient container (12, Fig, 8 and 9). It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher and Colston to incorporate the teachings of Blanc to have the first and second walls not contact each other so that beverages may be outputted more readily in response pressures surrounding the empty space of the beverage container (Blanc Col. 7 lines 1-15). Regarding claim 15, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 1, and Fletcher teaches wherein the cavity of the beverage ingredient container (10) comprises a cavity axis (vertical axis Fig. 16) but is silent on and wherein the first and second maximum distances are measured in a direction perpendicular to the cavity axis. Colston teaches wherein the first and second maximum distances (horizontal distance Figs. 5B-C) are measured in a direction perpendicular to the cavity axis (vertical axis Fig. 5B). It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher to incorporate the teachings of Colston to have the first and second maximum distance be measured perpendicular to the cavity axis so that the beverage ingredient container may expand to the optimal shape for brewing of the desired beverage, which may dynamically change, allowing for a high amount of pressure to be developed within the beverage container without bursting the container (Colston Col. 4 lines 25-65). Regarding claim 16, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 1, and Fletcher teaches wherein the first and second walls (31, 32) are in a fixed relative position upon initiation of the beverage vend in either of the first mode or the second mode (Fig. 16 clamp assembly 30 fixed spaced apart from capsule 10 at the start of brewing, understood to apply to any subsequent modes of brewing). Regarding claim 17, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 1, and Fletcher teaches wherein the beverage ingredient container (10) comprises a nozzle (230) having an inlet (233) for receiving the liquid and introducing the liquid into the cavity of the body portion (10) during the beverage vend (Col. 39 lines 1-20 tubular bore 233 extends through all of these components for receiving the water injection tube of the brewer in use), and wherein the support member (212) is configured to support the beverage ingredient container (10) by the nozzle (230) such that the body portion of the beverage ingredient container (10) hangs freely from the support member (212, Fig. 16). Regarding claim 18, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 1, and Fletcher teaches wherein the first and second walls (31, 32) of the expansion limiter (30) are spaced from the beverage ingredient container (10) at a start of the beverage vend when in either of the first and second modes (Fig. 16 clamp assembly 30 space apart from capsule 10 at the start of brewing, understood to apply to any subsequent modes of brewing), but is silent on so that a volume of the cavity of the beverage ingredient container expands during the beverage vend until reaching the maximum volume or being impeded by the first and second walls of the expansion limiter. Colston teaches so that a volume of the cavity of the beverage ingredient container (68) expands during the beverage vend until reaching the maximum volume or being impeded by the first and second walls (67, 70) of the expansion limiter (Figs. 5B, C where capsule 68 increases to a maximum volume or is impeded by walls 67, 70). It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher and Blanc to incorporate the teachings of Colston to have the first and second maximum distance be measured perpendicular to the cavity axis so that the beverage ingredient container may expand to the optimal shape for brewing of the desired beverage, which may dynamically change, allowing for a high amount of pressure to be developed within the beverage container without bursting the container (Colston Col. 4 lines 25-65). Regarding claim 19, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 1, and Fletcher teaches wherein the beverage brewing apparatus further comprises a control system (224) and a user interface (226) the control system (224) being operably coupled to the expansion limiter (clamp assmebly) and the user interface (226, Col. 38 lines 60-67 The user interface 226 suitably comprises a display and appropriate soft keys or touch screen controls to enable the user to select the desired beverage and initiate the process), but is silent on wherein upon the user selecting the first mode on the user interface, the control system is configured to cause at least one of the first and second walls of the expansion limiter to move so that the first and second walls are spaced apart by the first maximum distance, and wherein upon the user selecting the second mode on the user interface, the control system is configured to cause at least one of the first and second walls of the expansion limiter to move so that the first and second walls are spaced apart by the second maximum distance. Colston teaches wherein upon the user selecting the first mode on the user interface, cause at least one of the first and second walls of the expansion limiter to move so that the first and second walls are spaced apart by the first maximum distance (Fig. 5C), and wherein upon the user selecting the second mode on the user interface, cause at least one of the first and second walls of the expansion limiter to move so that the first and second walls are spaced apart by the second maximum distance (Fig. 5B). It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher and Blanc to incorporate the teachings of Colston to have modified the control system of Fletcher, that enables user to select a beverage an initiate the beverage process, including controlling the respective expansion limiter of Fletcher, to the first and second modes of Colston, so that the desired beverage with the desired volume may be correctly dispensed (Colston Col. 1 line 50- Col. 2 line 5). Regarding claim 20, Fletcher teaches a beverage brewing system comprising: a beverage ingredient container (10) comprising a body portion defining a cavity (22) containing a beverage ingredient (27), a beverage brewing apparatus (200) comprising: a support member (212) configured to support the beverage ingredient container (10) during the beverage vend; without impeding the expansion of the body portion (22) of the beverage ingredient container (10); and an expansion limiter (30). Fletcher is silent on the body portion of the beverage ingredient container being flexible so that, when the body portion of the beverage ingredient container is unimpeded during a beverage vend, the body portion expands from an initial state in which the cavity has a first volume to a maximum expanded state in which the cavity has a second volume that is greater than the first volume; wherein during the beverage vend the body portion of the beverage ingredient container expands from the initial state to an intermediate expanded state in which the cavity has a third volume that is less than the second volume, and wherein the expansion limiter prevents expansion of the body portion of the beverage ingredient container beyond the intermediate expanded state, wherein the expansion limiter is spaced from the body portion of the beverage ingredient container at a start of the beverage vend, and wherein during introduction of liquid into the cavity the body portion expands without contact with the expansion limiter prior to reaching the intermediate expanded state. Colston teaches the body portion of the beverage ingredient container being flexible so that, when the body portion of the beverage ingredient container is unimpeded during a beverage vend, the body portion (66) expands from an initial state in which the cavity has a first volume (Col. 14 lines 45-60 the sachet inserted into the brewing cavity and the hydraulic reservoir 70 of the deformable clamp member is pressurized to about 12 bar, without liquid) to a maximum expanded state in which the cavity has a second volume (Fig. 5C) that is greater than the first volume (Fig. 5A) ; wherein during the beverage vend the body portion (66) of the beverage ingredient container (68) expands from the initial state to an intermediate expanded state (Fig. 5B) in which the cavity has a third volume that is less than the second volume (Fig. 5B Col. 14 lines 45-60 where sachet expands to an intermediate state once liquid is introduced), and wherein the expansion limiter prevents expansion of the body portion of the beverage ingredient container beyond the intermediate expanded state (Fig. 5b, the distance when the hydraulic reservoir 70 of the deformable clamp member is pressurized to about 12 bar). It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher to incorporate the teachings of Colston to have a body portion that allows the beverage ingredient container to expand as liquid is introduced, where in one mode the beverage ingredient container expands to a maximum volume and in another mode, the beverage ingredient container does not expand to a maximum volume so that the beverage container may be shaped to the optimal shape for brewing of the beverage, which may dynamically change, allowing for a high amount of pressure to be developed within the beverage container without bursting the container (Colston Col. 4 lines 25-65). Fletcher and Colston are silent on wherein the expansion limiter is spaced from the body portion of the beverage ingredient container at a start of the beverage vend, and wherein during introduction of liquid into the cavity the body portion expands without contact with the expansion limiter prior to reaching the intermediate expanded state. Blanc teaches wherein the expansion limiter (14, 15) is spaced from the body portion of the beverage ingredient container (12) at a start of the beverage vend (Fig. 8 and 9), and wherein during introduction of liquid into the cavity the body portion (12) expands without contact with the expansion limiter prior to reaching the intermediate expanded state (Fig. 8 where container 12 has space to expand). It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher and Colston to incorporate the teachings of Blanc to have the expansion limiter spaced from the body portion of the beverage container during the start and introduction of liquid so that beverages may be outputted more readily in response pressures surrounding the empty space of the beverage container (Blanc Col. 7 lines 1-15). Regarding claim 22, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 20, and Fletcher teaches wherein the expansion limiter (30) comprises a first wall (31) and a second wall (32) that are spaced apart from one another (33), at least a portion of the body portion of the beverage ingredient container (10) being located between the first and second walls (31, 32) during the beverage vend (Fig. 16). Regarding claim 22, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 22, and Fletcher teaches wherein the first and second walls (31, 32) of the expansion limiter are not in compressive contact with the body portion of the beverage ingredient container (10) at a start of the beverage vend (Fig. 16), but is silent on wherein during the vend, the body portion of the beverage ingredient container expands to the intermediate expanded state at which point the first and second walls of the expansion limiter are in contact with the body portion of the beverage ingredient container to prevent further expansion of the body portion of the beverage ingredient container. Colston teaches wherein during the vend, the body portion (66) of the beverage ingredient container (68) expands to the intermediate expanded state (Fig. 5B) at which point the first and second walls of the expansion limiter (67, 70) are in contact with the body portion of the beverage ingredient container to prevent further expansion of the body portion of the beverage ingredient container (Fig. 5B). It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher and Blanc to incorporate the teachings of Colston to have a body portion that allows the beverage ingredient container to expand as liquid is introduced to an intermediate state limited by first and second walls so that the beverage container may be shaped to the optimal shape for brewing of the beverage, which may dynamically change, allowing for a high amount of pressure to be developed within the beverage container without bursting the container (Colston Col. 4 lines 25-65). Regarding claim 26, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach The beverage brewing system according to claim 20, and Fletcher teaches wherein the beverage brewing apparatus is configured to perform the beverage vend in a first mode or a second mode based upon user selection (226, Col. 38 lines 60-67 The user interface 226 suitably comprises a display and appropriate soft keys or touch screen controls to enable the user to select the desired beverage and initiate the process), but is silent on wherein upon a user selecting the first mode the expansion limiter is positioned relative to the beverage ingredient container so as to not impede the expansion of the body portion of the beverage ingredient container which enables the beverage ingredient container to expand to the maximum expanded state during the beverage vend, and wherein upon the user selecting a second mode the expansion limiter is positioned so as to impede the expansion of the body portion of the beverage ingredient container such that the beverage ingredient container expands from the initial state to the intermediate expanded state and is prevented from expanding further due to contact between the expansion limiter and the body portion of the beverage ingredient container. Colston teaches wherein upon a user selecting the first mode the expansion limiter is positioned relative to the beverage ingredient container so as to not impede the expansion of the body portion of the beverage ingredient container which enables the beverage ingredient container to expand to the maximum expanded state during the beverage vend (Fig. 5C), and wherein upon the user selecting a second mode the expansion limiter is positioned so as to impede the expansion of the body portion of the beverage ingredient container such that the beverage ingredient container expands from the initial state to the intermediate expanded state and is prevented from expanding further due to contact between the expansion limiter and the body portion of the beverage ingredient container (Fig. 5B). It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher and Blanc to incorporate the teachings of Colston to have modified the user selection system of Fletcher, that enables user to select a beverage an initiate the beverage process, including controlling the respective expansion limiter of Fletcher, to the first and second modes of Colston, so that the desired beverage with the desired volume may be correctly dispensed (Colston Col. 1 line 50- Col. 2 line 5). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher (US10863856B2) in view of Colston (US6805041B2) and Blanc (US5755149A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crarer (US20150257580A1). Regarding claim 5, Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc teach the beverage brewing system according to claim 1, but Fletcher and Blanc are silent on wherein in the first mode the liquid is introduced into the cavity at a first pressure and in the second mode the liquid is introduced into the cavity at a second pressure that is greater than the first pressure. Colston teaches wherein in the first mode (Fig. 5C) the liquid is introduced into the cavity at a first pressure (Col. 14 lines 45-60 Water at 90° C. and 12 bar pressure is then injected into the sachet to brew espresso-style coffee in the sachet.) It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher and Blanc to incorporate the teachings of Colston to introduce water at a first pressure so that a beverage like espresso style coffee may be produced (Colston Col. 14 lines 45-65). Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc are silent on and in the second mode the liquid is introduced into the cavity at a second pressure that is greater than the first pressure. Crarer teaches in the second mode the liquid is introduced into the cavity at a second pressure that is greater than the first pressure ([0050] the first cartridge configuration is for preparing brewed coffee beverages and the second cartridge configuration is for preparing espresso coffee beverages. In some implementations, the first cartridge configuration is for preparing beverages at a first pressure and the second cartridge configuration is for preparing beverages at a second pressure (e.g., greater than the first pressure)). Fletcher, Colston, Blanc, and Crarer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of beverage systems. It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher, Colston, and Blanc to incorporate the teachings of Crarer to have supply liquids at a first and second pressure, the second being greater than the first, so that multiple beverages, like coffee or espresso may be produced, at the proper pressure (Crarer [0050]). Claims 43 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher (US10863856B2) in view of Colston (US6805041B2). Regarding claim 43, Fletcher teaches a beverage brewing system comprising: a beverage ingredient container (10) comprising a body portion defining a cavity (22) containing a beverage ingredient (27), a beverage brewing apparatus (200) comprising: a support member (212) configured to support the beverage ingredient container (10) during the beverage vend; an expansion limiter (30); and wherein prior to initiating the beverage vend, the beverage ingredient container (10) is configured to be supported by the support member (212) so that at least a portion of an outer surface of the body portion of the beverage ingredient container (10) is spaced apart from the expansion limiter (30, Fig. 16). Fletcher is silent on wherein during the beverage vend a volume of the cavity of the body portion of the beverage ingredient container is configured to expand until the portion of the outer surface of the body portion of the beverage ingredient container contacts the expansion limiter to prevent further expansion of the volume of the cavity. Colston teaches wherein during the beverage vend a volume of the cavity of the body portion (66) of the beverage ingredient container (68) is configured to expand until the portion of the outer surface of the body portion (66) of the beverage ingredient container contacts the expansion limiter (67, 70) to prevent further expansion of the volume of the cavity (Fig. 5B-C). It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher to incorporate the teachings of Colston to have a body portion that allows the beverage ingredient container to expand as liquid is introduced to an intermediate state limited by first and second walls so that the beverage container may be shaped to the optimal shape for brewing of the beverage, which may dynamically change, allowing for a high amount of pressure to be developed within the beverage container without bursting the container (Colston Col. 4 lines 25-65). Regarding claim 44, Fletcher and Colston teach The beverage brewing system according to claim 43, and Fletcher teaches wherein the outer surface of the body portion of the beverage ingredient container (10) comprises a front surface portion and a rear surface portion (Fig. 16), and wherein prior to initiation of the beverage vend, at least one of the front and rear surfaces portions of the outer surface of the body portion (10) of the beverage ingredient container is configured to be spaced apart from the expansion limiter (30, Fig. 16), but is silent on and wherein during the beverage vend the volume of the cavity of the body portion is configured to increase until both of the front and rear surfaces area in contact with the expansion limiter, which constrains the body portion of the beverage ingredient container and prevents further expansion of the volume of the cavity. Colston teaches and wherein during the beverage vend the volume of the cavity (66) of the body portion (68) is configured to increase until both of the front and rear surfaces area in contact with the expansion limiter (67, 70 Fig. 5B-C), which constrains the body portion of the beverage ingredient container (68) and prevents further expansion of the volume of the cavity (Fig. 5B,C). It would have been obvious to have modified Fletcher to incorporate the teachings of Colston to have a body portion that allows the beverage ingredient container to expand as liquid is introduced to an intermediate state limited by first and second walls so that the beverage container may be shaped to the optimal shape for brewing of the beverage, which may dynamically change, allowing for a high amount of pressure to be developed within the beverage container without bursting the container (Colston Col. 4 lines 25-65). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Rgearding applicant's arguments on Pg. 12 of the Remarks that Colston does not teach "two different modes," the claims do not specify that the two different modes are alternatives, so it is understood that the first mode and second mode can be two portions of the same operation, as Colston is understood to teach, as the claims do not require what is necessary to define a "vend" other than that "a liquid is introduced into the cavity." Additionally it is understood that the amended limitations would be taught by the previously cited reference Blanc (US5755149A). Similarly, Blanc teaches the amended limitation of claim 20. Regarding applicant’s arguments towards claim 43, applicant argues that Fletcher and Colston does not teach the sequence of ”prior to initiation…” and “during the beverage vend…” as Fletcher is understood to teach the limitation following “prior to initiation” and Colston is understood to teach “during the beverage vend…” as a modification of Fletcher. It is understood that Fletcher teaches an initial placement of the beverage container such that it does not contact portions 30 and does teach the working conditions of the system of claim 43. Fletcher also teaches a subsequent vend sequence but does not teach the limitations as required by the claims. Colston is understood to teach the subsequent procedure of “during the beverage vend…,” which is understood to modify the operation of the system taught by Fletcher for the purpose of allowing the beverage container may be shaped to the optimal shape for brewing of the beverage, which may dynamically change, allowing for a high amount of pressure to be developed within the beverage container without bursting the container (Colston Col. 4 lines 25-65). Therefore, it is understood there is motivation to modify Fletcher’s vend sequence with the teachings of Colston for the advantage presented above. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6. 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. /ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 9/15/2036 /WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761