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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 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 regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “used in preparation of beverages, in particular for filtering tealeaves or ground coffee” in lines 1-2. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “used in preparation of beverages” in lines 1-2, and the claim also recites “in particular for filtering tealeaves or ground coffee” in line 2 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claims 2-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S. §112 by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bodum (US 10,045,652 B2).
In regard to claim 1, Bodum discloses a filter insert for inserting in an insertion opening of a vessel for the purpose of extraction of beverages, and a vessel with a filter insert, wherein the filter insert is especially suitable for the preparation of coffee and tea (col. 1, lines 5-11).
Bodum discloses a filter device for filtering insoluble material that is used in preparation of beverages, in particular for filtering tealeaves or ground coffee (col. 1, lines 5-11), the filter device comprising (Figs. 1-6; col. 2, line 63 thru col. 6, line 67):
(i) a steel body (3, Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 4-19) having a plurality of filter openings (51, Fig. 1);
(ii) at least one plastic part (2, Fig. 1) constructed of an injection moldable plastic that is injected around the steel body (col. 4, lines 33-37) in a connection section of the steel body (3, Fig. 1) (the portion that connects the steel body and the plastic part (2, Fig. 1)),
wherein the steel body (3, Fig. 1) in the connection section (the portion that connects the steel body and the plastic part (2, Fig. 1)) forms a prolongation (at least partially surrounding ring 44, Fig. 3) that projects from the steel body and that is at least partially surrounded by the plastic part (2, Fig. 1).
In regard to claims 15 and 19, Bodum discloses the plastic part (2, Fig. 3) in conjunction with the support ring (27, Fig. 3), the bead (28, Fig. 3) and cover ring (29, Fig. 3) forms an insulating sleeve that is function as “a handle” or “a handle piece” to move in/out the filter insert (1, Fig. 6) into the vessel (col. 4, lines 14-60).
Bodum discloses every limitation recited in claim 1, 15 and 19.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 2-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodum (US 10,045,652 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duman (US 2020/0039738 A1).
In regard to claims 2 and 3, Bodum does not explicitly discloses the feature of a recess is arranged in the connection section and is at least partially filled by the plastic part, wherein the recess is formed as a passage opening completely passing through the steel body.
However, Duman discloses a cartridge (1) for controlled brewing of loose-leaf tea in a cup, comprising an infusion chamber (2) for containing loose tea leaves (3) and infusing a liquid with substances from the tea leaves to brew tea (Abstract). In the embodiments of the cartridge, shown in Figs. 1-4, Duman discloses the feature of: the grip comprises an elongated projection with sidewalls for manually exerting a moving force; and the cover has a rim which interlocks with the chamber wall, an annular recess is enclosed by the rim in which the elongated projection is located, and wherein the elongated projection with sidewalls projects from a bottom of the recess, a distance between the sidewalls and the rim being sufficient to admit a finger top in the recess between the elongated projection and the rim (page 7, claim 19).
It is noted that both the Bodum and Duman references direct a filter insert for inserting in an insertion opening of a vessel for the purpose of extraction of beverages, and a vessel with a filter insert.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Bodum, in view of Duman, to provide the features of “a recess is arranged in the connection section and is at least partially filled by the plastic part, wherein the recess is formed as a passage opening completely passing through the steel body” as recited in claim, because the recited features are considered to be a known, effective features in making a cartridge for controlled brewing of loose-leaf tea in a cup, comprising an infusion chamber as taught by Duman (Figs. 1-4; page 7, claim 19).
In light of teachings from Bodum and Duman, set forth above, the locking mechanism recited in claim 3 is considered prima facie obvious.
In regard to claims 4 and 7, Bodum discloses the steel body (3, Fig. 1) has an upper margin and a lower margin (upper portion and lower portion of the steel body3 in Figs. 3-4); the upper margin radially outwardly projects from the remaining steel body and surrounds a filling opening (Figs. 2 and 5); the connection section (the portion that connects the steel body and the plastic part (2, Fig. 1)) is formed by the upper margin; and the plastic part (2, Fig. 1) is arranged at the upper margin (Figs. 3-4). Bodum discloses the upper margin has an upper marginal width and the lower margin has a lower marginal width with the upper marginal width being larger than the lower marginal width (Figs. 2-4).
In regard to claim 5, in light of teachings from Bodum and Duman (the discussions regarding claim 2 and 3), set forth above, the locking mechanism comprising the first and second plastics recited in claim 5 is considered prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 6, Bodum discloses the plastic part (2, Fig. 1) is preferably produced from a plastic that is flexible and heat-resistant. Good results were achieved with silicone rubber or a plastic which is known in the market as SANTOPRENE® (col. 4, lines 33-37). Duman discloses suitable plastic-based materials may for example be: plastic coated paper; polystyrene or styrofoam; polypropylene (PP); polyvinyl chloride (PVC); polyethylene (high or low density HDPE/LDPE) and or polyethylene Terephthalate (PETE); or other plastics (paragraphs [0072]-[0078]). In light of teachings from Bodum and Duman, set forth above, the recitation the first plastic has a smaller hardness than the second plastic recited in claim 6 is considered prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 8, Bodum discloses the use of spot welding if metallic materials are used in making the filter insert (col. 3, lines 23-27; col. 4, lines 5-9) which renders the recitation of claim 8 prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 9, Bodum discloses the base steel body has a base wall and at least one side wall with the base wall being provided with a plurality of filter openings (col. 3, lines 46-54).
In regard to claim 10, as set forth above (see the discussions regarding claim 2), Bodum in view of Duman, renders the feature of “a recess is arranged in the connection section and is at least partially filled by the plastic part, wherein the recess is formed as a passage opening completely passing through the steel body” prima facie obvious. Consequently, in light of teachings from Bodum and Duman, set forth above, the locking mechanism recited in claim 10 is considered prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 11, Bodum discloses the steel body (3, Fig. 1) has an upper margin and a lower margin (upper portion and lower portion of the steel body3 in Figs. 3-4); the upper margin radially outwardly projects from the remaining steel body and surrounds a filling opening (Figs. 2 and 5); the connection section (the portion that connects the steel body and the plastic part (2, Fig. 1)) is formed by the upper margin; and the plastic part (2, Fig. 1) is arranged at the upper margin (Figs. 3-4).
In regard to claim 12, Bodum discloses the plastic part (2, Fig. 1) in conjunction with support section 4, cylindrical ring 41, conical side wall 42 and cylindrical wall 43 that surrounded on their outer side by the plastic part (2, Fig. 1) (col. 4, lines 38-44). Bodum discloses the support ring 27, the bead 28 and cover ring 29 form an insulating sleeve which in FIG. 1 is identified by the reference number 24 (col. 4, lines 14-32). This directs the presence of a further plastic part, and the plastic part has at least one reception section for the further plastic part that is injected around the plastic part.
In regard to claim 16, in light of teachings from Bodum and Duman (the discussions regarding claim 2 and 3), set forth above, the locking mechanism comprising the first and second plastics recited in claim 16 is considered prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 17, Bodum discloses the plastic part (2, Fig. 1) is preferably produced from a plastic that is flexible and heat-resistant. Good results were achieved with silicone rubber or a plastic which is known in the market as SANTOPRENE® (col. 4, lines 33-37). Duman discloses suitable plastic-based materials may for example be: plastic coated paper; polystyrene or styrofoam; polypropylene (PP); polyvinyl chloride (PVC); polyethylene (high or low density HDPE/LDPE) and or polyethylene Terephthalate (PETE); or other plastics (paragraphs [0072]-[0078]). In light of teachings from Bodum and Duman, set forth above, the recitation the second plastic has a smaller thermal conductivity than the first plastic recited in claim 17 is considered prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 18, Bodum discloses the base steel body has a base wall and at least on side wall, the base wall surrounding a base opening that is covered by a base plate having a plurality of filter openings (col. 3, lines 46-54).
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, such as incorporating dependent claim 12 and/or claim 11 and/or claim 10 and/or claim 2 into an independent claim 1 as exemplified below.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 13 and 14. The concept of a filter device for filtering insoluble material that is used in preparation of beverages, in particular for filtering tealeaves or ground coffee, the filter device comprising:
- a steel body having a plurality of filter openings;
- at least one plastic part constructed of an injection moldable plastic that is injected around the steel body in a connection section of the steel body,
wherein:
o at least one recess is arranged in the connection section and is at least partially filled by the plastic part; or
o the steel body in the connection section forms a prolongation that projects from the steel body and that is at least partially surrounded by the plastic part,
wherein the plastic part has a plurality of apertures arranged outside the steel body; and the further plastic part has the same an equal number of projections as the plurality of apertures arranged outside the steel body that are arranged adjacent to the apertures (claim 13) in conjunction with the recitations recited in claims 10-12, is considered novel.
The combination of the cited prior arts, Bodum (US 10,045,652 B2) and/or Duman (US 2020/0039738 A1) does not provide any guidance which would lead one to construct a filter device including the features recited in claim 13 or claim 14 of claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772