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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figs. 1 and 2 are sectional views without section portion hatching, and because these views are not indicated by a broken line associated with Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number. Figs. 5 and 6 have hatching, but also lack the associated broken line. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(3).
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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is 177 words, and it uses the legal phraseology “means.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On p. 36, l. 6 of the submitted specification, “pin guide 9” should be “pin guide 8.”
On p. 38, l. 33 of the submitted specification, “beverage outlet 6” should be “beverage outlet 5.”
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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), 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:
The cartridge discharge device in claim 1 (“The compressed air connection 9, the pin guide 8 and the piercing pin 14 form part of the cartridge discharge device”).
The sealing element of claims 1 and 18 (“the sealing element is a sealing film 19”).
The flow shaping element of claim 17 (“The flow shaping element is configured, in particular, to be prow-shaped”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The at least one spacing means in claim 16 (one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to mean any structure that spaces one element from another).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Comment: The locking means of claim 20 are understood under § 112(f) (“Quite particularly preferably, the locking means comprises a fastening flange which positively and/or non-positively encompasses the cartridge receptacle during or after insertion in the holder”).
Comment: Although the “actuator element” of claims 10 and 19 is formulated as a limitation to be interpreted under § 112(f), it is not, since one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand it to be anything that moves a part. See MPEP § 2181.I.C.: “Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation that uses the term ‘means’ or generic placeholder associated with functional language, unless that term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘filters’), or (2) otherwise modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function.”
Furthermore, the “jet shaping element” of claim 15 has enough structure for achieving the claimed function, and the “control device” of claim 19 is clearly a computer, microprocessor, or the like.
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.
Claims 1–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a cartridge discharge device,” which is interpreted under § 112(f) (as per above). However, the disclosure explains that “The compressed air connection 9, the pin guide 8 and the piercing pin 14 form part of the cartridge discharge device.” This results in the claim being indefinite, since the disclosure only provides a partial definition for the structure ascribable to the device. The Office guesses that this other structure is disclosed, and is simply not clearly ascribed to the device, but until it is, the claim is indefinite since the total structure (or equivalents) this device needs to have is unclear.
Claim 21 recites, “inserting a cartridge system composed of a cartridge and a cartridge receptacle.” Claim 21 is directed to a method of preparing a beverage with the beverage preparation system as claimed in claim 19. Claim 19, in turn, incorporates the limitations of the cartridge system in claim 18, and claim 18 in turn incorporates the limitations of the cartridge receptacle of claim 1. Although elsewhere in claim 21 it employs the definite article, suggesting that it recognizes antecedent basis and structural details from the incorporated claims, in the quoted passage, it does not, leading to indefiniteness since the use of the definite article suggests these would be a different, non-detailed cartridge system, cartridge, and cartridge receptacle.
Claim 21 recites “a sealing means.” However, claim 1 mentions a sealing element, while claim 18 positively recites a sealing element. Claim 21 is indefinite because it seems that the newly-introduced sealing means in claim 21 should be recognized as the same as the sealing element mentioned earlier.
Claims 2–20 are rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A reference such as Krüger et al. (US Pub. 2019/0031485) is exemplary for the kind of prior art most similar to the overall claimed invention. These prior art do not disclose or render obvious every element of the claimed invention, including a gas outlet with an upper inlet surface arranged higher than an upper inlet surface of a beverage outlet. Applicant explains that this feature separates gas from a liquid to be dispensed so that the discharged beverage jet is not interfered with.
Jing et al. (CN 107440523 A, cited by Applicant) solves the same type of problem as Applicant, but is directed to a different sort of structure with a meaningfully different operation that is not readily incorporable into a cartridge receptacle like what is otherwise claimed.
Nagayoshi (US Pub. 2018/0078084) seems to disclose a similar application of the same type of feature that Applicant is employing in its release communication port 716 and release path 713 for vapor, alongside a discharge path 712 for liquid. Nagayoshi is not very analogous, and at least does not have a cartridge discharge device as claimed and best understood under § 112(f).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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 (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761