DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14-18 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that “Claim 1 requires: (1) a slider … (2) that moves laterally between a sealed closed position and a brew open position”
Examiner does not find this persuasive because the claim does not require the slider to move laterally between a sealed closed position and a brew open position.
Applicant argues that “Harrod discloses a drip filter coffee machine in which the drip stop valve is controlled … not linearly or laterally ”
Examiner does not find this persuasive because the claim does not require the slider to move laterally between a sealed closed position and a brew open position.
Harrod discloses a drip filter coffee machine in which the drip stop valve is controlled by a spring related sliding function caused by the act of mounting the brew basket on the frame.
Examiner does not dispute that the structure illustrated in the present Applicant is different from the drawings of Harrod, however, it is claim itself that is considered for examination.
The remainder of the arguments hinge on applicant’s unclaimed limitation of a slider that moves laterally between a sealed closed position and a brew open position.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harrod (US 20200121113 A1)
In reference to claim 1, Harrod discloses a coffee maker comprising:
a frame; (“coffee machine having a base, a body extending upwardly from the base, a platform having an upward facing surface and a coupling portion, the platform being supported by and extending outwardly from the body” [Claim 1])
a brew basket slidably mounted to the frame, the brew basket including a beverage outlet; and (“a filter basket” [Claim 1]. See Figures 1 and 4-6 and “technology provides, in drip filter coffee machines having a filter basket receiving platform, and an upright rim that cooperates with the underside of the filter basket. In some embodiments, the filter basket, and a part of the platform interlock” [P0013])
a drip stop mechanism operatively associated with the brew basket, the drip stop mechanism includes a slider slidably mounted to an underside of the brew basket, wherein the slider is adapted to move from a sealed, closed position where the beverage outlet is closed by the slider toward a brew, open position where the beverage outlet is open as the brew basket is being mounted on the frame, and the slider is adapted to move from the open position toward the closed position as the brew basket is removed from the frame (“a filter basket with a drip stop valve can also be inserted so as to cooperate with the carafe” [P0039]. Figure 4-6 shows the filter basket operatively slides over actuator 510 to actuate open brew valves only if the filter basket is present.)
In reference to claim 11 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See figures 4-6 which shows a seal as claimed. Also see “prior art is known to contain carafes with insulated lids and small inlet openings that cooperate with a drip stop valve that regulates the output of a filter basket” (P0003)
In reference to claim 12 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See element 101, 108, and 110 in Fig 1.
In reference to claim 13 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
“Conventionally, the drip stop valve is biased into a closed position and must be actuated in order to permit flow out of the filter basket” (P0007) and “wherein the valve is spring biased to a closed position preventing liquid coffee from exiting the filter basket” (Claim 9).
Conclusion
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 NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner has utilized USPTO approved search resources, such as EIC or external tools, beyond routine search tools and/or leveraged experts in the field. Examiner has cited and explained the relevance of prior art not used in rejections but pertinent to the claims or disclosure. Examiner has provided detailed search documentation through detailed Search Notes, such as annotated search results that identify which data sets were reviewed. When citing the prior art examiner has used annotations clearly in prior art rejections such as, using item-to-item matching to the prior art, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art, and/or clearly explaining examiner’s interpretation as to how a citation maps to claim language especially when there is not a one-to-one matching of terms.
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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights