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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 09/24/2020.
Drawings
Figure 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 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. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 top in claims 1 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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:
removal arrangement in claim 1 and 12, interpreted as scrapper as described in Fig. 3 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
mixing unit in claim 1 and 12, interpreted as chamber as described in Fig. 1 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
control unit in claim 9, 10,11, interpreted as processor as described in page 8 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
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(b)
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 1-12, 15 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the phrase “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 1 and 12 recite “a closure part, for instance fixed to or integral with the seat or configured to close and open the ingredient opening of the seat, such as a closure part configured to form a lid on the opening;”. It is not clear if the limitation followed by “for instance” is part of the claim or not.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “the collecting height corresponding for instance to a distance in the range of 75 to 125% of a vertical spacing”. It is not clear if the range followed by “for instance” is part of the claim or not.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “optionally”. It is not clear if the limitation followed by “optionally” is part of the claim or not.
Claims 1 and 12 recite
PNG
media_image1.png
234
825
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phrase underlined above is missing a verb. It is not clear what is happening to said ingredient and water.
Claim 2 recites “The machine of claim 1, wherein the removal arrangement and the waste collector are configured such as to promote a substantially uniform filling of the collecting chamber over its collecting height by said waste consumables of the successive removals.” It is not clear if the limitation followed by “such as to promote” is part of the claim or not.
Claim 9 recites “a portion break-up relative movement.. portion loosening supply of water”. It seems the phrase is missing prepositions after break-up and loosening . It is not clear how the portion break-up or loosening is achieved.
Claims 1, 12 recite the limitation "the mixing unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because mixing unit has not been mentioned previously.
Claim 9 recites “said control unit” but control unit has not been cited previously.
Claim 9 recites “said liquid driver” but liquid driver has not been cited previously.
Claim 10 recites “said at least one actuator” but actuator has not been cited previously.
Dependent claims 2-11, and 15 are rejected based on their dependency on independent claim 1.
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.
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(s) 1, 3, 5, 9-12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampaoli et al., US 20100236418 (hereafter Sampaoli), and further in view of De’Longhi et al., US 20180020867 (hereafter De’Longhi), Matsuo et al., JP2001222761 (hereafter Matsuo).
Regarding claim 12,
A combination of a machine for handling a flavouring ingredient and preparing a beverage therefrom (Title in Sampaoli)
and serving said beverage via a dispensing outlet to a consumer receptacle, (Paragraph [6] teaches “ the volume of the beverage dispensed into the cup”)
said ingredient with water from a water source that comprises: (Abstract teaches “an apparatus for the preparation and dispensing of doses, in selectable variable volumes, of infusions, particularly of coffee, by means of pressurised water,”)
a support, such as a frame and/or housing, that is stationary during said handling of said flavouring ingredient and optionally during beverage preparation and/or beverage serving; (frame 1)
a seat, such as a seat delimiting a substantially prismatic or cylindrical inner shape having a base having an ingredient opening; (infusion chamber 3)
a closure part, for instance fixed to or integral with the seat or configured to close and open the ingredient opening of the seat, such as a closure part configured to form a lid on the opening; (Piston 8)
a wall part that is movable relatively to the seat; and (plate 7)
..the seat, the closure part and the wall part being: directly or indirectly mounted to the support; and (Fig. 2 in Sampaoli)
PNG
media_image2.png
582
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Sampaoli teaches supplying flavouring ingredient
relatively movable between: at least one transfer configuration for: supplying before beverage preparation said flavouring ingredient with or without an ingredient capsule into the seat; and/or removing upon beverage preparation a waste consumable formed by waste flavouring ingredient and/or an ingredient capsule; (Fig. 2 and Fig. 9)
PNG
media_image3.png
574
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 in Sampaoli
and a mixing chamber configuration in which the seat and the closure part and the wall part form a mixing chamber fluidically connected with the water source, (Fig. 4)
PNG
media_image4.png
594
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in Sampaoli
the mixing unit being configured such that during beverage preparation, said flavouring ingredient is mixed with said water in the mixing chamber to form said beverage, e.g. by infusion and/or dissolution and/or dispersion, (Fig. 4)
prior to serving thereof via the dispensing outlet, (Paragraph [51] teaches “The discharge of the beverage, once it has been prepared, takes place via a conventional opening 3a, openable and closable, of the infusion chamber 3.”)
the mixing unit comprising a removal arrangement configured to direct after mixing, said waste consumable into the waste collector, (Fig. 10)
PNG
media_image5.png
589
415
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10 in Sampaoli
the removal arrangement and the waste collector are configured so as to direct successive removals of such waste consumables to different horizontal locations of the collecting area (Fig. 3 and page 24-25 of the original disclosure describes “Removal edge 22 and collecting chamber 85' may be relatively movable 23,24, for instance horizontally 23 and/or vertically 24, to direct waste consumables 2'' to different horizontal locations 21a',21b',21c' of the collecting area 85'''”. Based on this, the claim is interpreted as the seat and collecting chamber are relatively movable.
Sampaoli teaches a rotationally movable seat 7 that is configured to push exhausted coffee powder 7a to a collection point. Paragraph [99-100] teaches that the seat is movable compared to collection point “With reference to FIGS. 9 and 12, the arc G indicates the possible positions in which the roller 55 stops according to the quantity of powder introduced into the chamber 3, i.e. according to the volumetric type of the beverage which has been dispensed. The position K is that in which the roller 55 stops in the case of a minimum dose of powdered material, while the position J corresponds to the maximum dose.”)
and said flavouring ingredient (Abstract teaches coffee) for preparing said beverage in the machine.
Sampaoli is silent about a waste collector, the collector delimiting a collecting chamber extending upright over a collecting height and horizontally over a collecting area, the collecting height corresponding for instance to a distance in the range of 75 to 125% of a vertical spacing between a bottom of the chamber and a top end of the waste collector, … a detector configured for preventing further preparation of beverage until the collector has been emptied and/or generating an alarm signal that is user-perceivable,
De’Longhi teaches a waste collector, the collector delimiting a collecting chamber extending upright over a collecting height and horizontally over a collecting area, (De’Longhi teaches container 38 in Fig. 5)
the collecting height corresponding for instance to a distance in the range of 75 to 125% of a vertical spacing between a bottom of the chamber and a top end of the waste collector, (Fig. 5 in De’Longhi)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the container as taught in De’Longhi to the machine in Sampaoli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The load of spent coffee grounds 33 can thus be extracted and then ejected without it contaminating the internal parts of the coffee machine 1, which ultimately remains entirely clean” as taught in paragraph [60] in De’Longhi.
Primary combination of references is silent about a detector configured for preventing further preparation of beverage until the collector has been emptied and/or generating an alarm signal that is user-perceivable,
Matsuo teaches a detector configured for preventing further preparation of beverage until the collector has been emptied and/or generating an alarm signal that is user-perceivable, (Matsuo teaches in abstract “When the quantity of material cartridges 5 in a discharged matter container 8 amounts to the neighborhood of an upper part and the cartridge 5 touches the detecting plate 9b of a material detector 9, the plate 9b is turned to pressurize the switch 9c of the detector 9 so that the sold out display lamp of all the products is turned on or the like and prescribed selling operation is regulated.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the detector as taught in Matsuo to the machine in Sampaoli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the recovery of the cartridges 5 is quickened before they are stored excessively in the container 8, thereby making it possible to surely prevent inconvenience in the case of excessively housing the cartridges 5 such as the defective discharging operation of the cartridges 5 and falling of them to the surrounding” as taught in abstract in Matsuo.
Regarding claim 1,
(Similar scope to claim 12 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 3,
The machine of claim 1, wherein the mixing unit comprises a waste remover configured to remove said waste consumable from the ingredient opening upon beverage preparation (scraper 18a in Sampaoli)
and a remover actuator,(motor 19) to relatively move the remover and the seat during removal of said waste consumable, the remover actuator being connected to at least one of the remover and the seat by a transmission(stem 52 in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5,
The machine of claim 1, wherein the removal arrangement comprises a removal edge. (Fig. 9)
PNG
media_image6.png
574
474
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 in Sampaoli
Regarding claim 9,
The machine of claim 1, wherein, after an introduction into the seat's ingredient opening in the transfer configuration of at least one solid portion of a self-supporting agglomerate of said flavouring ingredient and subsequent relative movement from the transfer configuration into the mixing chamber configuration and prior to serving said beverage via the dispensing outlet, said control unit is configured to control a preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient by: a portion break-up relative movement of the seat and the closure part and the wall part (the claim is interpreted as control unit controls relative movement between seat, closure, and wall. Sampaoli teaches in paragraph [31] “A control unit for controlling the drive device and the water feeding element for feeding pressurised water into said infusion chamber is provided.”)
and a portion loosening supply of water from said water source into the mixing chamber, such as by controlling a or said liquid driver. (The claim is interpreted as control unit controls water supply. Sampaoli teaches in paragraph [31] “A control unit for controlling the drive device and the water feeding element for feeding pressurised water into said infusion chamber is provided.”)
Regarding claim 10,
The machine of claim 9, wherein the control unit is configured to control via said at least one actuator said break-up relative movement between the wall part and the closure part so as to exercise a compression force onto the solid portion(s) between the closure and wall parts to break-up the solid portion(s). (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 in Sampaoli)
Regarding claim 11,
The machine of claim 9, wherein the control unit, to control the preconditioning of the flavouring ingredient, controls said liquid driver to supply said portion loosening supply of water into the mixing chamber and then to interrupt the supply of water for a period of time. (The claim is interpreted as control unit controls water supply. Sampaoli teaches in paragraph [31] “A control unit for controlling the drive device and the water feeding element for feeding pressurised water into said infusion chamber is provided.”)
Regarding claim 15,
The machine of claim 1, wherein said flavouring ingredient is shaped as at least one solid portion of a self-supporting agglomerate of such flavouring ingredient. (The claim is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. The material or article work on is “flavouring ingredient.” MPEP 2115 sets forth that “The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967).”)
Claim(s) 2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampaoli, De'Longhi, Matsuo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cahen et al., US 20100251900 (hereafter Cahen).
Regarding claim 2, The machine of claim 1, wherein the removal arrangement and the waste collector are configured such as to promote a substantially uniform filling of the collecting chamber over its collecting height by said waste consumables of the successive removals. (The claim is interpreted as waste collector has actuator wherein the actuator vibrates waste collector as described on page 25, lines 14-21 of the original disclosure.
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Cahen teaches in paragraph [15] “the machine is associated with a mechanical means arranged to redistribute an accumulated heap of capsules or pods in the receptacle to improve occupation of the storage space with capsules or pods. Such means may include a vibration or shaking means of the receptacle or other means that lowers the level of such a heap.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the vibrator as taught in Cahen to the machine in Sampaoli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “to redistribute an accumulated heap of capsules or pods in the receptacle to improve occupation of the storage space with capsules or pods” as taught in paragraph [15] in Cahen.
Regarding claim 6,
The machine of claim 1, wherein the removal arrangement comprises a collector actuator configured to move back and forth the waste collector relative to the support. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Cahen teaches in paragraph [15] “Such means may include a vibration or shaking means of the receptacle or other means that lowers the level of such a heap.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the vibrator as taught in Cahen to the machine in Sampaoli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “to redistribute an accumulated heap of capsules or pods in the receptacle to improve occupation of the storage space with capsules or pods” as taught in paragraph [15] in Cahen.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampaoli, De'Longhi, Matsuo as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Denisart et al., US 20110189362 (hereafter Denisart).
The machine of claim 3, wherein the waste remover is configured to direct such waste consumables to the collecting area at different velocities. (Page 11, lines 25-30 of the original disclosure describes “The different velocities may be controlled by the remover actuator.” Thus, the claim is interpreted as waste remover is controlled by remover actuator.
Sampaoli teaches motor 19 connected to plate 7 by stem 52 in Fig. 3 and 9. Fig. 3 further teaches that motor 19 is controlled by CPU 23. However, Sampaoli is silent about changing the velocity of motor.
Denisart teaches “a graph showing examples of variation of the rotational speeds of the driving means as a function of time during typical beverage preparation cycles” in Fig. 2 and paragraph [113].
Even though Denisart teaches varying rotational speed to control flow rate, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the controller and motor to control speed as taught in Denisart to the machine in Sampaoli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the central controller controls the flow rate during the extraction phase which corresponds to the selected beverage strength in response to an input of the manual interface by varying the rotational speed of the driving means accordingly” as taught in paragraph [112] in Denisart.)
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampaoli, De'Longhi, Matsuo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steber et al., US 20190082881 (hereafter Steber).
Regarding claim 7, The machine of claim 1, wherein the mixing unit is configured to provide compressed gas in the mixing chamber containing said waste consumable, after the serving of said beverage and to evacuate said at least part of said water contained in the mixing chamber with said compressed gas by releasing the gas from the mixing chamber before the removal of said waste consumable. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Steber teaches in paragraph [86] a controller 180 that “ trigger the air supply 126 to supply a blast of air over the puck of used grounds, etc.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the air supply as taught in Steber to the machine in Sampaoli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “to force the puck out of the mobile chamber section 132, past the discard chute 156, and into the waste bin 158, as shown in FIG. 3” as taught in paragraph [86] in Steber.
Regarding claim 8,
The machine of claim 7, wherein the mixing unit is configured: to release the compressed gas via said outlet guide so as to evacuate residual beverage from said outlet guide and (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Steber teaches in paragraph [51] “the controller 180 can maintain the air supply 126 in an active state at all times during a brew cycle and for a preset duration (e.g., one minute) following conclusion of a brew cycle.”)
such that after releasing said compressed gas the wall part is moved against said waste consumable in the mixing chamber so as to compact said waste consumable in the mixing chamber. (Fig. 3 in Steber)
PNG
media_image7.png
418
640
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Steber
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the air supply as taught in Steber to the machine in Sampaoli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “to force the puck out of the mobile chamber section 132, past the discard chute 156, and into the waste bin 158, as shown in FIG. 3” as taught in paragraph [86] in Steber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights