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 objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “coffee beverage brewing extractor 1” in para. 62. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “22” has been used to designate both an adjuster [figs. 1, 6; para. 83] and a dripper [see fig. 7, showing 22 directed to the same structure as reference character 11 (in similar figs. 8 and 9), indicating a dripper or filter]. 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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “simulta30neous” in p. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1:
objected to because of the following informalities: “a coffee beverage” in line 4 should be “[[a]]the coffee beverage” and will be interpreted as such in order to avoid antecedent issues with “a coffee beverage” in lines 1-2. Appropriate correction is required.
objected to because of the following informalities: “a mixed solution of coffee beans and hot water” in line 7 should be “[[a]]the mixed solution [[of coffee beans and hot water]]” and will be interpreted as such in order to avoid antecedent issues with “a mixed solution” in line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
objected to because of the following informalities: “an extraction area where the mixed solution comes into contact with the dripper or the filter surface of the filter” in lines 8-9 should be “[[an]]the extraction area [[where the mixed solution comes into contact with the dripper or the filter surface of the filter]]” and will be interpreted as such in order to avoid antecedent issues with “an extraction area” in line 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5:
objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein stirring force by the rotor is generated by gravity or external force applied to a narrowed space…in a state where the rotor is not rotated but fixed in the mixed solution.” in lines 2-3. In view of the specification [para. 63: “The coffee beverage extraction unit 10 has…a rotor 12 that is disposed in an inner space of the dripper or the filter, receives rotational force or agitation force from external force by a rotating part 21 or a hand motion, and generates agitation force and centrifugal force in the compressed coffee bean blocks or the mixed solution of compressed and ground coffee beans and water put into the dripper 11.”; para. 120: “…as shown in FIG. 7, the coffee beverage was smoothly extracted by centrifugal force and gravity until a time point at which the water level of the coffee beverage extracted from the dripper or filter 11 is lower than the water level in the dripper or filter 11.”], lines 2-3 should, for example, “wherein [[stirring force by the rotor is generated by]]the coffee beverage is extracted by gravity [[or]] in a state where the rotor is not rotated but fixed in the mixed solution; and wherein stirring force by the rotor is generated by an external force applied to a narrowed space…” and will be interpreted as such in order to avoid any possible 112 issues related to gravity generating the stirring force of the rotor, OR any possible 112 issues related to generating stirring force wherein the rotor is not rotated (there being no structure disclosed that would enable stirring force to be generated without rotating the rotor). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6:
objected to because of the following informalities: “a coffee beverage” in line 4 should be “[[a]]the coffee beverage” and will be interpreted as such in order to avoid antecedent issues with “a coffee beverage” in lines 1-2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims use the term “a dripper or a filter” to mean a singular structure, clearly redefined in the specification [para. 25: “The dripper or filter described in the specification of the present disclosure uses the same reference numerals as a structure for functioning as a filter used in the extractor of the present disclosure, and depending on the purpose of use, the dripper has a function of seating and using a separate filter paper, the filter has a structure in which filter holes are formed to have a filter function.”; see figs. 1, 3, 4, 6-9, specifically wherein fig. 4 depicts dripper 11 having a rib 113 for defining an air flow space with a paper filter to be seated thereon and, para. 0039].
The claims use the term “extraction area” to mean the shared filter area contacted by both the mixed solution and the filter portion of the dripper (i.e., the area through which the coffee beverage is extracted from the mixed solution), clearly redefined in the specification [para. 8: “In the present disclosure, in order to extract a coffee beverage with a rich flavor, the simultaneous immersion and extraction method is applied to a hand drip method that can be easily used with a general simple structure, the area of the filter in contact with a mixed solution of coffee beans and water staying in the dripper during extraction is enlarged, and centrifugal force and gravity, stirring ability work harmoniously.”; paras. 80-81: “The filter 11 separates a section in which the filter holes are formed, so that an upper part 111 has no hole and only a lower part 112 may have holes, or by separating several sections, a section in which holes are formed and a section in which holes are not formed may be alternately arranged. This is to adjust the extraction time by adjusting the extraction area from the coffee beans and water mixed in the filter 11 and to properly secure the filter area in contact with the mixed solution.”; see fig. 3 showing the extraction area defined/secured by the shape of the lower filter portion 112 of the dripper 11, and fig. 8, showing the submerged rotor increasing a level of the mixed solution thereby also defining/securing the extraction area; and para. 76, describing wherein a stirring/centrifugal force of the rotor defines/secures the extraction area].
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 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.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claims 1 and 6 are directed at coffee beverage brewing extraction, in particular a hot water brewing method for a coffee beverage extracted through the extraction port or filter holes of a dripper or filter (fig. 1: 11) from a mixed solution of coffee beans and hot water inside the dripper or filter, comprising steps of maintaining a rate at which the beverage is extracted, by steps of stirring the mixed solution with a volume of a rotor (fig. 1: 12) submerged in the solution, thereby raising the level of the mixed solution and expanding an extraction area where the dripper or filter and the mixed solution contact each other; and
securing an area [i.e., the extraction area] where the mixed solution comes into contact with the dripper or filter [i.e., the surface area of the structure of the dripper may be formed such that lower portion of it comprises filter holes, see fig. 3 and para. 76];
the step of “securing” an area/the extraction area is being interpreted as defining the shared filter area of a coffee beverage brewing extraction [e.g., espresso, pour over, drip, immersion, etc.] including forming filter holes in a lower part of a filter, increasing the level of the mixture with a submerged rotor, stirring the mixture with a submerged rotor such that centrifugal force pushes additional mixture onto the filter, and equivalents thereof [paras. 66-69, 76, 80-82,].
Claim 11, which recites “…an adjuster for adjusting an area of the extraction port”
the limitation “adjuster” is being interpreted as adjusting unit 114 [fig. 4], a valve, a pivot screw, and equivalents thereof [para. 51].
Claim 12, which recites “…a rotation adjuster for adjusting a rotation speed of the rotor”
the limitation “rotation adjuster” is being interpreted as a motor speed controller [figs. 1, 6; paras. 83, 89], 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 § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown (US 10653266 B1).
Regarding claim 1,
Brown teaches:
A coffee beverage brewing extraction method for extracting a coffee beverage [see fig. 8, showing a coffee grounds stirring device 100 to be used in conjunction with a conventional coffee machine 802; col. 5, lines 25-45: “…the coffee grounds stirring device 100 is sized to be used in conjunction with a conventional coffee machine… Using a coffee grounds stirring device, coffee drinkers may enjoy the benefits of stirring the grounds during brewing without having to replace or modify their coffee maker, or deviate from preferred, pre-existing coffee making procedures.”] using a hot water brewing method [col. 5, lines 20-30: “As the blades 108 rotate, the coffee grounds are stirred and mixed as hot water passes through them. By stirring the coffee grounds during the brewing process, they are more evenly distributed and more thoroughly exposed to the hot water, increasing the quality of the coffee and the efficiency of the brewing process.”], the coffee beverage brewing extraction method comprising:
maintaining a rate at which a coffee beverage is extracted from a mixed solution of coffee beans and hot water [i.e., a rate of a brewing process, wherein a control circuit 500 maintains the brewing process by stirring at a particular, predetermined speed (e.g., at a speed between 60 to 120rpm) according to many factors (e.g., user preference, resistance experienced by the blades, type of beverage, concentration of mixture, stage of brewing process, in response to a sensor, and/or for a predetermined period of time); col. 9, lines 44-col. 10, line 40] in a dripper or a filter [fig. 1: stirring basket 104]
through an extraction port of the dripper or filter holes [i.e., through holes in mesh 206 arranged at least partially as side walls of basket 104; fig. 2; col. 6, lines 12-35]
for a certain period of time [e.g., during the brewing process, the control circuit may start rotations in response to detection of liquid indicating saturation of grounds, and then cease rotations in response to absence of liquid at a small opening 120; col. 10, lines 4-24] in order
to expand an extraction area [i.e., the shared filter area formed between the mesh contacting the stirred mixture of coffee grounds and hot water] where the dripper or a filter surface of the filter [i.e., mesh 206] and a mixed solution of coffee beans and hot water [i.e., the coffee grounds and hot water used in a conventional coffee machine] contact each other while coffee is being extracted [i.e., through the rotation and immersion of the axially located blade 108, the amount of mixture contacting the outer wall portions comprised of mesh 206 would increase, and further, a size/arrangement of the mesh may be adjusted, thereby optimizing the mesh surface area; see figs. 2 and 7, col. 6, lines 14-60: “…By placing the stirring assembly 102 inside the stirring basket 104, the size of the stirring basket 104 may be maximized without sacrificing usable volume or mesh surface area.”]
to secure an extraction area where the mixed solution comes into contact with the dripper or the filter surface of the filter [Brown discloses stirring the mixture with the submerged blade 108 such that the level of the mixture increases and centrifugal force pushes additional mixture onto the mesh, and mesh 206 on a lower part of the basket, and further teaches that the mesh may be formed on the bottom wall and the side walls, or just on the bottom wall; col. 6, lines 18-21: “In other embodiments, the basket floor 204 may also comprise mesh 206, or the basket floor 204 may comprise mesh 206 instead of the side wall 202.”]; and
stirring the mixed solution in a state in which a level of the mixed solution is raised by a volume of a rotor [i.e., when the blades 108 are submerged into the mixture, the level of the mixture is raised] disposed inside the dripper or the filter and submerged in the mixed solution [e.g., the stirring device may be configured to, during a brewing process in a conventional coffee maker, detect when hot water generated by the coffee maker and funneled into the basket, has saturated the coffee grounds, and begin stirring with the submerged blade (col. 10, lines 4-13) – then, when no more liquid is detected, stop stirring (col. 2, lines 59-62)] to further expand the extraction area to extract the coffee beverage from the dripper or the filter.
However, although Brown may not explicitly disclose that the stirring explicitly expands the extraction area, in view of Brown disclosing that the stirring device allows a user to enjoy the benefits of stirring grounds during brewing, i.e., increased efficiency and quality (col. 5, lines 28-42); and that a user may want to select a speed and a periodicity of stirring (col. 9, line 44-col. 10, line 3) to control the force of rotation (and thereby the amount of mixture urged towards the mesh) and the starting and stopping of the rotation during brewing; since blade 108 is capable of further expanding the extraction area during brewing (i.e., through rotation, the mixture of coffee grounds and hot water is urged towards the mesh), Brown meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Brown teaches the coffee beverage brewing extraction method of claim 1.
Brown further teaches:
wherein a standard extraction time for extraction from the extraction port of the dripper or the filter [i.e., brew time, or the amount of time the hot water is mixed with the coffee grounds before the mixture is filtered and output as brewed coffee, which corresponds to the period of time that hot water is generated by the conventional coffee maker, the hot water being funneled into the coffee grounds in the basket of the stirrer, before outputting brewed coffee] is set such that when only water is poured into the dripper or the filter having a capacity of 300 ml [in view of Brown disclosing that the stirring device may be sized to be entirely contained within a coffee basket from a 12-cup-capacity coffee maker (col. 2, lines 50-52), since 1 cup/serving of brewed coffee is roughly 236 ml, including the volume in ml of the corresponding amount of coffee grounds, a capacity of the basket to be at least 300 ml is sufficiently specified, i.e., that it would be able to hold a volume of coffee grounds and water for at least 1 serving of brewed coffee], a time taken when the water completely flows down through the extraction port of the dripper or the filter is typically 1 minute to 2 minutes and 30 seconds [In view of Brown disclosing that the hole size of the mesh may vary (col. 6, lines 22-33: “The hole size of the mesh 206 used in a stirring basket 104 may vary, depending upon the intended use for the device 100.”), wherein the hole size of the mesh would determine the time taken for a volume of water (e.g., enough for 1 serving, enough for 12 servings) to flow through the mesh (i.e., ), wherein this time taken corresponds to a brew time that corresponds to that amount of water, since Brown also discloses that a PHOSITA would recognize the wide range of sizes as an obvious design choice that would at least correspond to the efficiency and quality of the brewing process (col. 6, lines 30-34) and that a user may have the stirring occur for a period of time indicated in minutes (col. 8, lines 14-15: “In other embodiments, the time may be indicated in minutes.”), a time taken for water to flow through the basket to be between 1 to 2.5 minutes is sufficiently specified], and an extraction time [i.e., brew time] is set [i.e., brew time is defined by serving size, hole size of the mesh, stirring time, brew time, with regards to a user’s desired level of quality and efficiency] by setting an area of the extraction port of the dripper or a size and arrangement of the filter holes of the filter [i.e., hole size of the mesh is selected according to user preferences] to allow the standard extraction time to be shorter or longer depending on a change of the capacity of the dripper or the filter [i.e., serving size of brewing process defines the brewing time] or a thickness of ground beans [i.e., the blade is selected at least according to a thickness of ground beans, the blade also defining the brewing time; col. 10, lines 51-53: “As an option, the lower edge 600 may be closer than half the average thickness of a coffee bean, to prevent a rogue bean from jamming the blade 108.”].
Regarding claim 3, Brown teaches the coffee beverage brewing extraction method of claim 1.
Brown further teaches:
wherein the volume of the rotor is determined [i.e., the size and shape of the blade is not limited; figs. 1, 2, 4, 6; col. 10, lines 41-54] so that a volume of the rotor submerged in the mixed solution is 30% or more of a volume of the mixed solution [In view of Brown disclosing that size and shape of the blade is not limited (e.g., blades may be sized and arranged such that coffee grounds at the very bottom of the basket may be agitated, and blades may be arranged to extend along the side walls and central area (col. 10, lines 54-60), and in view of the volume of the mixed solution corresponding to at least 1 cup to 12 cups of filtered brewed coffee, a volume of the rotor submerged being 30% or more of a volume of the mixed solution is sufficiently specified].
Regarding claim 4, Brown teaches the coffee beverage brewing extraction method of claim 1.
Brown further teaches:
wherein stirring force by the rotor is generated by a rotational force of a hand wheel or a motor [fig. 1: motor 106].
Regarding claim 5, Brown teaches the coffee beverage brewing extraction method of claim 1.
Brown further teaches:
wherein stirring force by the rotor is generated by gravity [see fig. 8, showing how coffee from the stirring device 100 would fall through the paper coffee filter 804, and ultimately into a user’s cup] or external force applied to a narrowed space between an outer surface of the rotor and a filter wall surface [i.e., a motor 106 generates rotational force via a shaft connected to the blade, wherein an outer surface of the blade and the inner surface of the basket define a narrow space therebetween] in a state where the rotor is not rotated but fixed in the mixed solution [e.g., extraction continues to occur even during periods of rest in an intermittent/periodic application (col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 3)].
Regarding claim 6,
Brown teaches:
A coffee beverage brewing extraction apparatus for extracting a coffee beverage [see fig. 8, showing a coffee grounds stirring device 100 to be used in conjunction with a conventional coffee machine 802; col. 5, lines 25-45: “…the coffee grounds stirring device 100 is sized to be used in conjunction with a conventional coffee machine… Using a coffee grounds stirring device, coffee drinkers may enjoy the benefits of stirring the grounds during brewing without having to replace or modify their coffee maker, or deviate from preferred, pre-existing coffee making procedures.”] using a hot water brewing method [col. 5, lines 20-30: “As the blades 108 rotate, the coffee grounds are stirred and mixed as hot water passes through them. By stirring the coffee grounds during the brewing process, they are more evenly distributed and more thoroughly exposed to the hot water, increasing the quality of the coffee and the efficiency of the brewing process.”], the apparatus comprising:
a dripper or a filter [fig. 1: stirring basket 104] having an extraction port or filter holes [i.e., holes in mesh 206 arranged at least partially as side walls of basket 104; fig. 2; col. 6, lines 12-35] for maintaining a rate at which a coffee beverage is extracted from a mixed solution of coffee beans and hot water in the dripper or the filter [i.e., a rate of a brewing process, wherein a control circuit 500 maintains the brewing process by stirring at a particular, predetermined speed (e.g., at a speed between 60 to 120rpm) according to many factors (e.g., user preference, resistance experienced by the blades, type of beverage, concentration of mixture, stage of brewing process, in response to a sensor, and/or for a predetermined period of time); col. 9, lines 44-col. 10, line 40] through the extraction port or the filter holes for a certain period of time [e.g., during the brewing process, the control circuit may start rotations in response to detection of liquid indicating saturation of grounds, and then cease rotations in response to absence of liquid at a small opening 120; col. 10, lines 4-24] in order to expand an extraction area [i.e., the shared filter area formed between the mesh contacting the stirred mixture of coffee grounds and hot water] where the dripper or a filter surface of the filter [i.e., mesh 206] and the mixed solution of coffee beans and hot water [i.e., the coffee grounds and hot water used in a conventional coffee machine] contact each other while coffee is being extracted [i.e., through the rotation and immersion of the axially located least blade 108, the amount of mixture contacting the outer wall portions comprised of mesh 206 would increase, and further, a size/arrangement of the mesh may be adjusted, thereby optimizing the mesh surface area; see figs. 2 and 7, col. 6, lines 14-60: “…By placing the stirring assembly 102 inside the stirring basket 104, the size of the stirring basket 104 may be maximized without sacrificing usable volume or mesh surface area.”] to secure an area where the mixed solution comes into contact with the dripper or the filter surface of the filter [Brown discloses stirring the mixture with the submerged blade 108 such that the level of the mixture increases and centrifugal force pushes additional mixture onto the mesh, and mesh 206 on a lower part of the basket, and further teaches that the mesh may be formed on the bottom wall and the side walls, or just on the bottom wall; col. 6, lines 18-21: “In other embodiments, the basket floor 204 may also comprise mesh 206, or the basket floor 204 may comprise mesh 206 instead of the side wall 202.”]; and
a rotor that raises a level of the mixed solution by a volume of the rotor [i.e., when the blades 108 are submerged into the mixture, the level of the mixture is raised] disposed inside the dripper or the filter and submerged in the mixed solution [e.g., the stirring device may be configured to, during a brewing process in a conventional coffee maker, detect when hot water generated by the coffee maker and funneled into the basket, has saturated the coffee grounds, and begin stirring with the submerged blade (col. 10, lines 4-13) – then, when no more liquid is detected, stop stirring (col. 2, lines 59-62)] to further expand the extraction area and stirs the mixed solution.
However, although Brown may not explicitly disclose that the stirring explicitly expands the extraction area, in view of Brown disclosing that the stirring device allows a user to enjoy the benefits of stirring grounds during brewing, i.e., increased efficiency and quality (col. 5, lines 28-42); and that a user may want to select a speed and a periodicity of stirring (col. 9, line 44-col. 10, line 3) to control the force of rotation (and thereby the amount of mixture urged towards the mesh) and the starting and stopping of the rotation during brewing; since blade 108 is capable of further expanding the extraction area during brewing (i.e., through rotation, the mixture of coffee grounds and hot water is urged towards the mesh), Brown meets the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Brown teaches the coffee beverage brewing extraction apparatus of claim 6.
Brown further teaches:
wherein a standard extraction time for extraction from the extraction port of the dripper or the filter [i.e., brew time, or the amount of time the hot water is mixed with the coffee grounds before the mixture is filtered and output as brewed coffee, which corresponds to the period of time that hot water is generated by the conventional coffee maker, the hot water being funneled into the coffee grounds in the basket of the stirrer, before outputting brewed coffee] is set such that when only water is poured into the dripper or the filter having a capacity of 300 ml [in view of Brown disclosing that the stirring device may be sized to be entirely contained within a coffee basket from a 12-cup-capacity coffee maker (col. 2, lines 50-52), since 1 cup/serving of brewed coffee is roughly 236 ml, including the volume in ml of the corresponding amount of coffee grounds, a capacity of the basket to be at least 300 ml is sufficiently specified, i.e., that it would be able to hold a volume of coffee grounds and water for at least 1 serving of brewed coffee], a time taken when the water completely flows down through the extraction port of the dripper or the filter is typically 1 minute to 2 minutes and 30 seconds [In this case, in view of Brown disclosing that the hole size of the mesh may vary (col. 6, lines 22-33: “The hole size of the mesh 206 used in a stirring basket 104 may vary, depending upon the intended use for the device 100.”), wherein the hole size of the mesh would determine the time taken for a volume of water (e.g., enough for 1 serving, enough for 12 servings) to flow through the mesh (i.e., ), wherein this time taken corresponds to a brew time that corresponds to that amount of water, since Brown also discloses that a PHOSITA would recognize the wide range of sizes as an obvious design choice that would at least correspond to the efficiency and quality of the brewing process (col. 6, lines 30-34) and that a user may have the stirring occur for a period of time indicated in minutes (col. 8, lines 14-15: “In other embodiments, the time may be indicated in minutes.”), a time taken for water to flow through the basket to be between 1 to 2.5 minutes is sufficiently specified], and an extraction time [i.e., brew time] is set [i.e., brew time is defined by serving size, hole size of the mesh, stirring time, brew time, with regards to a user’s desired level of quality and efficiency] by setting an area of the extraction port of the dripper or a size and arrangement of the filter holes of the filter [i.e., hole size of the mesh is selected according to user preferences] to allow the standard extraction time to be shorter or longer depending on a change of the capacity of the dripper or the filter [i.e., serving size of brewing process defines the brewing time] or a thickness of ground beans [i.e., the blade is selected at least according to a thickness of ground beans, the blade also defining the brewing time; col. 10, lines 51-53: “As an option, the lower edge 600 may be closer than half the average thickness of a coffee bean, to prevent a rogue bean from jamming the blade 108.”].
Regarding claim 8, Brown discloses the coffee beverage brewing extraction apparatus of claim 6.
Brown further teaches:
wherein the volume of the rotor is determined [i.e., the size and shape of the blade is not limited; figs. 1, 2, 4, 6; col. 10, lines 41-54] so that a volume of the rotor submerged in the mixed solution is 30% or more of a volume of the mixed solution [In view of Brown disclosing that size and shape of the blade is not limited (e.g., blades may be sized and arranged such that coffee grounds at the very bottom of the basket may be agitated, and blades may be arranged to extend along the side walls and central area (col. 10, lines 54-60), and in view of the volume of the mixed solution corresponding to at least 1 cup to 12 cups of filtered brewed coffee, a volume of the rotor submerged being 30% or more of a volume of the mixed solution is sufficiently specified].
Regarding claim 9, Brown teaches the coffee beverage brewing extraction apparatus of claim 6.
Brown further teaches:
wherein stirring force by the rotor is generated by using at least one of a rotational force by a self-stirring rotation method through a handwheel or a motor [fig. 1: motor 106], and a rotational force by a rotation transmission method through a rotation shaft [see figs. 1 and 4, showing blade 108 mounted on a rotation shaft of motor 106].
Regarding claim 10, Brown teaches the coffee beverage brewing extraction apparatus of claim 6.
Brown further teaches:
wherein the rotor is configured not to be rotated but to be fixed in the dripper or the filter [e.g., extraction continues to occur even during periods of rest in an intermittent/periodic application (col. 9, line 60-col. 10, line 3)].
Regarding claim 12, Brown teaches the coffee beverage brewing extraction apparatus of claim 9.
Brown further teaches:
further comprising a rotation adjuster for adjusting a rotation speed of the rotor [i.e., control circuit 500 driving the motor to rotate the blades at a speed between 60 and 120rpm; col. 9, lines 44-50].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 10653266 B1) in view of Chen (US 20210235918 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Brown discloses the coffee beverage brewing extraction apparatus of claim 6.
Brown further discloses that the stirring device may also be incorporated with the conventional coffee maker without the basket, and instead be adapted for use with the corresponding pre-existing vessel [col. 5, line 67-col. 6, line 3].
However, although Brown generally discloses the conventional coffee maker, Brown does not provide any details of the coffee maker, specifically, Brown does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the extraction port installed in the dripper is provided with an adjuster for adjusting an area of the extraction port.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the extraction port [fig. 3: dispensing region 34] of the dripper [fig. 3: immersion chamber 3] is provided with an adjuster for adjusting an area of the extraction port [i.e., dispensing valve 38 adjusts the opening of dispensing region 34; fig. 3; para. 0128: “The control unit 90 includes operational logic and intelligence to adaptively operate an adjustable dispensing valve 38, wherein the rate of filtration may be controlled by adjustment of the flow rate through the dispensing valve 38.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Brown by including an adjuster since Chen teaches this reduces the likelihood of fines, silt, and sediment being carried through the filter and into the finished beverage [para. 0128: “Based on this control, fines, silt and sediment are less likely to be carried through the microperforations 28 and into the finished beverage.”].
Regarding claim 13, Brown teaches the coffee beverage brewing extraction apparatus of claim 6.
Brown further discloses that the stirring device may also be incorporated with the conventional coffee maker without the basket, and instead be adapted for use with the corresponding pre-existing vessel [col. 5, line 67-col. 6, line 3].
However, although Brown generally discloses the conventional coffee maker, Brown does not provide any details of the coffee maker, specifically, Brown does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the dripper has a vacuum structure or a heating wire disposed between an inner wall and an outer wall thereof so that the dripper has a warming function.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a brewing chamber of a travel press [i.e., a dripper] has a vacuum structure in order to warm the contents therein [para. 0033: “The BODUM TRAVEL PRESS has double wall stainless steel construction, as well as a vacuum seal to maintain the heat in the beverage while the outside of the mug remains cool to the touch.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Brown wherein the dripper has a vacuum structure disposed between an inner wall and an outer wall thereof, since Brown teaches this maintains heat while keeping the outside surface cool to the touch [para. 0033], specifically that a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to adopt a vacuum structure to the dripper of the conventional coffee machine so as to apply the benefit of heat retention while also remaining cool to the touch of the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm 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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761