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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 24, 25, 54-57, and 61 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups I, II, and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/23/2026. Claims 29, 31-36, 38-40, and 58-60 are examined herein.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 objected to because of the following informalities: “with guide structure” should read “with a guide structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 objected to because of the following informalities: “adjacent the mechanism” should read “adjacent to the mechanism”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Due to the large amount of drawings present in the disclosure of the instant application, the examiner does not concede that all errors are identified. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the drawings.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show tracks 153 and 154 as described in the specification and a coffee ground holder as disclosed in claim 60. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to because
Figs. 1- 18, 22-43, 44-48, 52-54, and fig. 90 contain lines made in a dot matrix style and are not sufficient to show proper detail to allow the examiner a clear understanding of the invention
Fig. 7 items 27 and 28 are pointing to the same part
Fig. 8 30 and 37 are pointing to the same part as are 11 and 36
Fig. 15 lead line 32 intersects with lead line 36
Fig. 15 items 15 and 16 points to the same part
Fig. 15 items 20 and 59 points to the same part
Fig. 15 items 11 and 58 points to the same part
Fig. 17 lead lines 2 and 11 point to free space and do not correctly identify which is the tamping unit 2 nor which is the tamping mechanism 11
Fig. 29 item 23 exit is pointing to free space
Fig. 30 item 6 lever is pointing to free space
Fig. 31 return spring 47 and tension spring 48 are pointing to the same part
Fig. 31 lever 6 is not pointing to anything
Fig. 34 return spring 47 and tension spring 48 are pointing to the same part
Fig. 42 tamp body 106 is not pointing to anything
Fig. 43a has a blank box next to item 185
Fig. 43a and b have a hidden centerline and oval
Fig. 43c, d have a hidden centerline
Fig. 47 121 has an improper pointing line
Fig. 50 items 27 and 134 and 131 and 132 point to the same thing
Fig. 55 items 152 and 137 points to the same thing
Fig. 55 item 27 is not pointing to anything
Fig. 57 has illegible lines for 82, 34, 153, and cross sections A and B overlap
Fig. 58 item 15 has an incorrect dotted line 156
Fig. 59 155 and 153 points to the same thing
Fig. 64 items 169 and 175 points to the same thing
Fig. 65 item 167 points to item 179
Fig. 65 Item 176 is floating and does not have a lead line
Fig. 65 Items 172 and 180 points to the same thing
The examiner reminds the applicant to review MPEP 608.02
(h) Views. The drawing must contain as many views as necessary to show the invention. The views may be plan, elevation, section, or perspective views. Detail views of portions of elements, on a larger scale, if necessary, may also be used. All views of the drawing must be grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space, preferably in an upright position, clearly separated from one another, and must not be included in the sheets containing the specifications, claims, or abstract. Views must not be connected by projection lines and must not contain center lines. Waveforms of electrical signals may be connected by dashed lines to show the relative timing of the waveforms.
(1) Exploded views. Exploded views, with the separated parts embraced by a bracket, to show the relationship or order of assembly of various parts are permissible. When an exploded view is shown in a figure which is on the same sheet as another figure, the exploded view should be placed in brackets.
(2) Partial views. When necessary, a view of a large machine or device in its entirety may be broken into partial views on a single sheet or extended over several sheets if there is no loss in facility of understanding the view. Partial views drawn on separate sheets must always be capable of being linked edge to edge so that no partial view contains parts of another partial view. A smaller scale view should be included showing the whole formed by the partial views and indicating the positions of the parts shown. When a portion of a view is enlarged for magnification purposes, the view and the enlarged view must each be labeled as separate views.
(i) Where views on two or more sheets form, in effect, a single complete view, the views on the several sheets must be so arranged that the complete figure can be assembled without concealing any part of any of the views appearing on the various sheets.
(ii) A very long view may be divided into several parts placed one above the other on a single sheet. However, the relationship between the different parts must be clear and unambiguous.
(3) Sectional views. The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines. If it is not possible to place reference characters outside the hatched area, the hatching may be broken off wherever reference characters are inserted. Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. A cross section must be set out and drawn to show all of the materials as they are shown in the view from which the cross section was taken. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. In the case of large areas, hatching may be confined to an edging drawn around the entire inside of the outline of the area to be hatched. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section.
(4) Alternate position. A moved position may be shown by a broken line superimposed upon a suitable view if this can be done without crowding; otherwise, a separate view must be used for this purpose.
(5) Modified forms. Modified forms of construction must be shown in separate views.
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. [AltContent: rect]
(p) Numbers, letters, and reference characters.
(1) Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted.
(2) The English alphabet must be used for letters, except where another alphabet is customarily used, such as the Greek alphabet to indicate angles, wavelengths, and mathematical formulas.
(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
(4) The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
(5) Reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
[AltContent: rect]
(q) Lead lines. Lead lines are those lines between the reference characters and the details referred to. Such lines may be straight or curved and should be as short as possible. They must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature indicated. Lead lines must not cross each other. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. Lead lines must be executed in the same way as lines in the drawing. See paragraph (l) of this section. [AltContent: rect]
(r) Arrows. Arrows may be used at the ends of lines, provided that their meaning is clear, as follows:
(1) On a lead line, a freestanding arrow to indicate the entire section towards which it points;
(2) On a lead line, an arrow touching a line to indicate the surface shown by the line looking along the direction of the arrow; or
(3) To show the direction of movement.
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.
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 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, and 60 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.
Claims 31 and 32 recites the limitation " the mechanism". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 33, 34, 35, and 36 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Regarding claim 32, is unclear because the applicant recites that the guide structure is a track while the rest of the dependent claims including 33-36 interchange the terms “track”, “guides”, and “guide structures”. The examiner interprets these to all reference the same structures.
Regarding claim 33, the recitation of “and a machine includes two sets of tracks to guide the couplings and pivots” is unclear what the structure of the machine is. The examiner is unclear if the machine is the two sets of tracks or another machine, I.e. the coffee machine.
Claims 34, 35, and 36 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the..tamp positions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant has not previously disclosed a tamp position in claim 39 nor any of the claims which claim 39 depends.
Claims 40 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
The term “substantially” in claim 60, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term located substantially centrally over is unclear to what degree something is considered to meet the claim limitation of being substantially over.
Regarding claim 60, the recitation of “a grind chute for delivering the coffee grounds to a coffee ground holder along a flow path” is unclear if the applicant is refereeing to the grind cute recited in claim 29 or a new grind chute. The examiner interprets that the applicant is referring to the grind chute of claim 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 29, 31, 38, 39, 40, 59, and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20210120998A1 De’Longhi.
Regarding claim 29,
De’Longhi teaches,
A tamping mechanism (device 2) for tamping coffee grounds delivered into a portafilter (filter holder cup 3) from a coffee grind chute (slide 9),
the tamping mechanism including a linkage (stem 18) connected to a tamp (piston 15),
the linkage being arranged to press a face of the tamp in an axial direction with respect to the portafilter during a tamping operation (figs. 4 and 5 teach a an upward and downward movement position of piston 15 which is in an axial direction with respect to the filter holder cup 3),
and wherein the linkage returns the tamp to a rest position between tamping operations along a non-axial path relative to the portafilter such that the tamp does not obstruct delivery of the coffee into the portafilter when in the rest position (see annotated figs. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31,
De’Longhi teaches,
wherein the tamp engages with guide structure (guides 16) adjacent the mechanism as the tamp is moved between the rest and tamp positions (par. 47 and figs. 4 and 5 show the rest and tamp positions of piston 15).
Regarding claim 38,
De’Longhi teaches,
The tamping mechanism of claim 29 (as discussed above),
further including a tamping force control assembly (torsion spring 15 controls and increase the force applied to coffee grounds) which biases the tamp toward the coffee grounds when the tamp is in the tamp position and imparts compressive force to the coffee grounds during formation of a puck (par. 72 and 73 teaches the formation of a compacted dose of coffee by pressing piston 15 into a dose of coffee ground).
Regarding claim 39
De’Longhi teaches,
The tamping mechanism of claim 38 (as discussed above),
wherein the mechanism includes an articulated linkage (cogwheel 21) formed of hinged first (axis 22) and second members (rack 20 and cogwheel 21 form a hinge) driven by a shaft (shaft 18) to move the tamp between the rest and tamp positions, wherein the second member is coupled to the tamp (par. 58, 62, 63, 67, and 68 teach the interactions of cogwheel 21, stem 18, axis 22, bearing 25 to perform a work cycle; figs. 4 and 5 teach a an upward and downward movement position of piston 15 which is in an axial direction with respect to the filter holder cup 3).
Regarding claim 40
De’Longhi teaches,
The tamping mechanism of claim 39 (as discussed above),
wherein the tamping force control assembly includes a biasing element (torsion spring 23) connected between the members such that a reaction force of the tamp on the coffee grounds pushes the second member against the bias of the tamping force control assembly (figs. 4 and 5 and par. 57 to 68 teach the interactions that cause the piston to compress a dose of coffee grounds in cup 3).
Regarding claim 59
De’Longhi teaches,
The tamping mechanism of claim 29 (as discussed above)
further comprising a return device coupled to an actuator, the return device being configured to bias the actuator to the rest position (par. 68 teaches the use of return springs to return to the high grinding position, aka rest position).
Regarding claim 60
De’Longhi teaches,
The tamping mechanism of claim 29 (as discussed above),
wherein the tamping mechanism forms part of a grinding device (see figs. 4 and 5 where device 2 contains a grinder 8), the grinding device including a grinder (8) for grinding coffee beans into coffee grounds (par. 15), and a grind chute(slide 9 as discussed above in the rejection of claim 29) for delivering the coffee grounds to a coffee ground holder (filter 4) along a flow path, wherein the grind chute is located substantially centrally over the coffee ground holder (figs. 4, 5, and par. 15.
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.
Claim(s) 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210120998A1 De’Longhi in view of US11103104B2 Bakke.
Regarding claim 32,
De’Longhi teaches, The tamping mechanism of claim 31 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that De’Longhi does not teach: wherein a coupling connects the tamp to the linkage in order to enable the tamp to rotate relative to the mechanism between the rest and tamp positions,
and wherein the guide structure is a track and the tamp includes a pivot spaced from the coupling to control pivotal movement of the tamp relative to the linkage.
Bakke teaches a dispensing group 10 and water filter holder 1 that connect to each other such that water filter holder 1 rotates or dispensing and a guide structure which is locking device 50 and further teaches a coupling (filter holder support 22 and pin 24’) connects the tamp (semicircular housing 34 and piston 38 comprise a top and bottom portion of a tamp) to the linkage (coffee boiler 12) in order to enable the tamp to rotate relative to the mechanism between the rest and tamp positions (figs. 3 and 4.1 teach the rest and tamp positions of semicircular housing 34 with respect to piston 38 while column 5 lines 28 to 48 teach the rotation of semicircular housing 34 about pin 24 with respect to coffee boiler 12 and therefore piston 38 because they are one stationary unit),
and wherein the guide structure is a track (locking device 50 serves as a guide to lock pin 60 into second recess 58 and is a track because lock pin 60 positively biases against first recess 54 and second recess 58 which tracks lock pin 60 into place per column 6 lines 32 to 63) and the tamp includes a pivot (pin 24’) spaced from the coupling to control pivotal movement of the tamp relative to the linkage (figs. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3, and 4.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the locking device 50, guide pin 60, filter holder support 22, and pin 22’ of Bakke to the device 2 of De’Longhi for the purpose to create a positive interface to allow a user to more easily and reliably insert and remove a device (Bakke column 6 lines 56 to 60).
Regarding claim 33,
De’Longhi as modified by Bakke teaches,
The tamping mechanism of claim 32 (as discussed above)
wherein the tamp includes a pair of pivots and a pair of couplings and a machine includes two sets of tracks to guide the couplings and pivots.
De’Longhi as modified by Bakke discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of the locking device 50, guide pin 60, filter holder support 22, and pin 22’ of Bakke. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the locking device 50, guide pin 60, filter holder support 22, and pin 22’ of Bakke, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the locking device 50, guide pin 60, filter holder support 22, and pin 22’ of Bakke for the purpose to enhance alignment reliability.
Claim(s) 34, 35, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210120998A1 De’Longhi in view of US11103104B2 Bakke in view of CN206659685U LIN.
Regarding claim 34,
De’Longhi as modified by Bakke teaches,
The tamping mechanism of claim 33 (as discussed above)
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that De’Longhi as modified by Bakke does not teach: wherein the guides and pivots are vertically arranged when in the tamp position and the guide structure includes dual tracks to respectively guide the couplings and pivots,
the tracks being vertically aligned along a lower portion and horizontally divergent at an upper portion to move the guides and pivots horizontally in order to rotate the tamp into the rest position.
LIN teaches, a coffee extraction device 2 with linkages in vertical drive assembly 30 and further teaches, the guides (rail bracket 31 and crank connecting rod 32) and pivots (page 5 par. 5 and page 6 par. 1 teach pivots as being hinged, figs. 1, 4, 5, 12, and 13 teach the use of pivots/being hinged) are vertically arranged when in the tamp position and the guide structure includes dual(track bracket 31 is a track and par. 5 page 5 teaches two track brackets 31) to respectively guide the couplings and pivots (page 5 par. 5 and page 6 par. 1 teach the movements of the respective brackets, connecting rods, and pivots along track bracket 31),
the tracks (track bracket 31) being vertically aligned along a lower portion and horizontally divergent at an upper portion to move the guides and pivots horizontally in order to rotate the tamp into the rest position (fig. 5)(rest position is taught in fig. 4 and tamp position is taught in fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rack 20, stem 18, cogwheels 21 and axis 22 of De’Longhi with the linkages and connecting rods of the coffee extraction device 2 of LIN to allow for the device 02 of De’Longhi to accommodate for varying volumes of ground coffee beans to be accommodated for (LIN page 10 par. 1).
Regarding claim 35,
De’Longhi as modified by Bakke teaches,
The tamping mechanism of claim 33 (as discussed above)
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that De’Longhi as modified by Bakke does not teach: wherein the guides and pivots attach to support members that project from a body of the tamp and the pivots extend laterally of the tamp a greater distance than the guides.
LIN teaches,
wherein the guides and pivots attach to support members (page 5 par. 5 teaches track bracket projection 31 (not shown) which function to interface with pressure head 25 and track brackets 31 to guide the location of the pressure head 25 during operation) that project from a body of the tamp and the pivots extend laterally of the tamp a greater distance than the guides (page 5 par. 5 suggests that track bracket projection 31 (not shown) are of a dimension such that they extend into the track bracket 31 and are therefore anticipated to be dimensioned to extend at a greater distance than the guides).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify De’Longhi with the track bracket projection 31 (not shown) of LIN for the purpose to provide mechanical connection between track bracket 31 and pressure head 25 of LIN.
Regarding claim 36,
De’Longhi as modified by Bakke teaches,
The tamping mechanism of claim 35 (as discussed above)
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that De’Longhi as modified by Bakke does not teach: wherein a clearance space is defined between the support members which provides clearance for the grind chute as the tamp is rotated into the rest position.
LIN teaches wherein a clearance space is defined between the support members which provides clearance for the grind chute (powder groove mechanism 3) as the tamp is rotated into the rest position (see annotated fig. 1 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a clearance space between slide 9 and piston 15 of De’Longhi with a clearance space per the teachings of LIN for the purpose of preventing a crash between slide 9 and piston 15 of De’Longhi.
PNG
media_image2.png
640
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210120998A1 De’Longhi in view of CN206659685U LIN.
Regarding claim 58,
De’Longhi teaches,
The tamping mechanism of claim 29 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that De’Longhi does not teach: wherein the face of the tamp includes a first surface, and during a first portion of the non-axial path, the linkage causes the first surface to orient in a first direction, and during a second portion of the non-axial path, the linkage causes the first surface to orient in a second direction, wherein the first and second directions are different.
LIN teaches wherein the face of the tamp (37) includes a first surface, and during a first portion of the non-axial path (see annotated fig. 4 below), the linkage (crank connecting rod mechanism 32 and track bracket 31) causes the first surface to orient in a first direction (see annotated fig. 4 below), and during a second portion of the non-axial path (see annotated fig. 5 below), the linkage causes the first surface to orient in a second direction (see fig. 5), wherein the first and second directions are different (see annotated figs. 4 and 5 below for the first and second directions being different).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stem 18 of De’Longhi with the crank connecting rod mechanism 32 and track bracket 31of LIN for the purpose of translating the location of the filter holder cup 3 of De’Longhi to a different position.
PNG
media_image3.png
717
727
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
716
845
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights