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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 5, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12-15, 18, 21, 22, 53 and 56-62 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 53, 59 and 61 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “the inner wall” on lines 9-10. While it is clear that this is referring to “a liquid-tight inner wall” as recited on line 2, for matters of form, it is suggested to amend “the inner wall” to recite, “the liquid-tight inner wall.”
Claim 1 also recites, “the flow drive system comprising” on line 18 and “the thermal element comprising” on line 23. Claim 53 recites, “said inducing comprising” on lines 19-20. As per MPEP 608.01(m), “[w]here a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.” In view of this, the limitations following “the flow drive system comprising” should be indented on the new line from “the flow drive system comprising”; the limitations following “the thermal element comprising” should be indented on the new line from “the thermal element comprising.” The claim 53 limitation of, “said inducing comprising” should be indented on a new line and the steps associated with said inducing should also be intended from “said inducing comprising.”
Claim 53 recites “a chamber wall which defines the infusion chamber, and which the chamber wall is spaced apart from an inner wall” on lines 6-7. If it is intended for the chamber wall to be spaced apart from an inner wall, then it appears that the term “which” after the term, “and” should be deleted.
Claim 59 recites, “wherein the vessel has a top-rim and the cartridge is placed suspended in the volume to be filled with the liquid hanging from the top rim.” For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “wherein the vessel has a top-rim and the cartridge is suspended in the volume to be filled with the liquid, by hanging the vessel from the top-rim.
Claim 61 recites, “the substances” on lines 3 and 6. For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “the flavoring substances.”
Claim 61 recites,
“wherein the passage has:
an open state in which the infusion chamber is in liquid communication with the exterior of the infusion chamber, to transport the substances from the liquid in the infusion chamber into liquid in the exterior during brewing tea, and
a closed state in which the liquid inside the infusion chamber is closed off from the liquid in the exterior to stop a concentration of the substances in the liquid in the exterior from increasing.”
For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite,
“wherein the passage has:
an open state in which the infusion chamber is in liquid communication with the exterior of the infusion chamber, to transport the flavoring substances from liquid in the infusion chamber into the liquid in the exterior of the infusion chamber, during preparation of the beverage, and
a closed state in which liquid inside the infusion chamber is closed off from the liquid in the exterior to stop a concentration of the flavoring substances in the liquid in the exterior from increasing.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12-15, 18, 21, 22, 53 and 56-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a thermal element thermally coupled to the infusion chamber” (see line 19) and “the air-tight surface thermally coupling the hollow space and the infusion chamber.” (lines 27-28) While Applicant’s specification discloses a thermal element that is part of the infusion chamber, and can be molded with the chamber wall (see figure 4, item 21; page 9, lines 7-10; page 11, lines 31-34), support cannot be found for the thermal element specifically being “thermally coupled” to the infusion chamber. Therefore, the limitation raises an issue of new matter.
Claim 1 also recites “an air-tight surface” on lines 27-28. Claim 13, line 2-3, Claim 15, line 1 and Claim 53, lines 24-25 also recite, “an air-tight surface”.
Applicant’s specification discloses that ambient gas can be trapped in the hollow space via the opening 22 of the heat reservoir; however the specification does not discuss that the surface is “air-tight.” It is not clear whether “air-tight” is intending to mean that the surface can simply trap air or whether it is intending to refer to air impermeable materials. For example, on page 21, lines 29-30 refer to some materials that could be construed as air impermeable while others such as paper and/or paperboard could trap air but might not necessarily be “air impermeable.” Therefore, the limitation raises an issue of new matter. This rejection can be overcome by amending the limitation to recite, “an air trapping surface.”
Claims 6, 8, 9, 12-15, 18, 21, 22 and 56-62 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
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, 6, 8, 9, 12-15, 18, 21, 22, 53 and 56-62 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.
Claim 1 recites, “the vessel having a liquid-tight inner wall.” (line 2). The limitation is not clear as to whether the vessel has a further interior wall or whether the limitations are only intending to refer to a liquid tight wall that defines a volume (see figure 2, item 10, 11).
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the hollow space” on line 25, 28, 29; “the open-bottom” on line 26; and “the open-bottomed hollow space”, on line 30. Claims 6 and 12 also recite, “the open-bottomed hollow space.” Claim 53 recites, “the hollow space” on lines 23, 24; “the open-bottom” on line 23 and “the open-bottomed hollow space” on line 26. These limitations lack proper antecedent basis because it is not clear whether they are referring to “an open-bottomed hollow space” as recited in claim 1, line 23 and claim 53, line 21 or “an open-bottom in the hollow space” as in claim 1, line 24 and claim 53, line 22.
Claim 1 reciters the limitation, “thermally coupled” on line 19. It is not clear as to what is meant by the thermal element being thermally coupled to the infusion chamber, since the specification does not provide sufficient guidance regarding this limitation. That is, to be thermally coupled can mean to be physically bonded to the infusion chamber, however the specification does not provide clarity in this regard.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “an open-bottomed hollow space in the exterior of the infusion chamber, for trapping air entered via an open-bottom in the hollow space.” This limitation is not clear whether it is intending to refer to the same open-bottomed hollow space or whether there are two open-bottomed hollow spaces as part of the thermal element of the flow drive system. Claim 53 recites the limitation, “trapping in an open-bottomed hollow space in the exterior of the infusion chamber, air entered via an open-bottom in the hollow space” and is rejected for the same reasons as discussed directly above.
Claim 53 recites, “a chamber wall which defines the infusion chamber, and which the chamber wall is spaced apart from an inner wall.” (see lines 6-7). It is not clear as to what “inner wall” is being referred to. If it is intended to refer to a wall of the vessel, then it is noted that Applicant’s figure 2 does not show an “inner wall” but rather appears to only show a liquid tight wall defining a volume, for example.
Claim 53 recites, “the volume” on line 7, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 6, 8, 9, 12-15, 18, 21, 22 and 56-62 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
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 1, 6, 8, 9, 12-15, 18, 21, 22, 53 and 56-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dos Santos (WO 2020182529) in view of Bott (DE 366023) Dooley (US 20130233866) and Hovey (US 0404707 already of record) and in further view of Guerrero (US 20040182247).
Regarding claim 1, Santos teaches a system for in-situ preparation of a beverage, the system comprising a vessel for containing a liquid (see figure 1 and 4, item 20), the vessel having a liquid-tight inner wall which defines a volume to be filled with the liquid (this would have been obvious in view of the vessel 20 holding a liquid therein).
Dos Santos teaches a cartridge attached to the vessel (see figure 4 item 40) for preparing the beverage by infusing the liquid with flavoring substances from flavoring materials (see at least paragraph 3 of the machine translation), the cartridge comprising an infusion chamber located in the volume, for containing the flavouring materials and infusing the liquid with the flavoring substances from the flavoring materials (see figure 4, item 40 and paragraph 47 of the machine translation, “filter basket”).
There is a chamber wall which defines the infusion chamber (see figure 4, item 42 and paragraph 47 of the machine translation, “side wall 42 with openings 43”) and which chamber wall is spaced apart from the inner wall (see figure 2 where the infusion chamber 40, is spaced from the inner wall 22). Because there is a space between the infusion chamber and Dos Santos’ inner wall of the vessel (see figure 2 and 4), Dos Santos teaches that there is a sub-volume of the volume of the vessel that is between the chamber wall and the inner wall forming an exterior of the infusion chamber.
Dos Santos further teaches a passage in the chamber wall between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the infusion chamber (see paragraph 47 which discloses a fine mesh sieve covering the openings 43 and figure 2 item 40, where the fine mesh sieve would provide a passage to an exterior of the chamber for exchanging liquid between the infusion chamber and the exterior), for exchanging liquid between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the infusion chamber.
The cartridge as taught by Dos Santos has also been construed to comprise a flow drive system and which flow drive system when in operation is arranged to, (i.e. capable of) drive during infusion in the chamber, a liquid flow between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the chamber through the passage.
That is, Dos Santos’ cartridge has a hollow cylindrical section (see figure 4, item 50) that is closed off and has an open-bottomed hollow space in the exterior of the infusion chamber such that it can be construed as a thermal element thermally coupled to the infusion chamber and capable of providing differential heating or cooling of the liquid in the infusion chamber to induce a free confection flow in the infusion chamber while also being capable of trapping air entered via an open-bottom in the hollow space and capable of holding air in the hollow space when the volume is filled with the liquid while also being in fluid communication with the sub-volume via the open bottom. Dos Santos’ hollow cylindrical section is similar to that shown in figure 2 of Applicant’s drawings. As shown in figure 4, Dos Santos is teaching a heat reservoir because the uppermost end 48 of the hollow cylindrical section is closed and also would have been an air-tight surface projecting in an upward direction into the infusion chamber and thermally coupling the hollow space and the infusion chamber to exchange thermal energy between the hollow space and the infusion chamber and also separating and sealing the open-bottomed hollow space from the infusion chamber.
While Dos Santos does not specifically discuss any materials of construction, it would have been reasonable to expect that the materials of the hollow cylindrical section would have allowed for some degree of heat exchange (i.e. a heat exchange surface), especially since Dos Santos teaches that the cartridge can be submerged during use and as Applicant’s disclosure suitable materials such as aluminium, glass, wood, plastics, or paper and/or paperboard (see page 21, lines 24-30).
If it could have been construed that Dos Santos did not specifically teach the recited thermal element that is capable of differential heating or cooling, then it is also noted that Bott teaches a cartridge that is similarly structured as that of Dos Santos in that it comprises a structure with a mesh sieve covering (see figure 1 item 1 and 2 and page 2 of the machine translation, lines 12-16 which discloses a metal cartridge with a metal sieve covering). Bott also teaches a hollow section that can be construed as a heat reservoir and heat exchange surface (see the inwardly concave section of the bottom of Bott’s cartridge). Dooley also teaches a thermal element (see figure 3, item 358) that is thermally coupled to an interior of a container (see figure 3, item 302). Dooley teaches that the thermal element is an air-tight space that can trap liquid and air (see figure 3, item 362; see paragraph 28, last two sentences). Dooley teaches that this configuration can provide heat transfer using material such as plastic and metal (see para graph 33). The structure taught by Dooley resembles the structure taught by Dos Santos. Hovey similarly evidences that an upwardly extending, open bottomed hollow portion (see figure 1, item B) allows for fluid to be exchanged between the cartridge and an exterior of the cartridge (see page 1, lines 37-45). Dooley and Hovey thus teach and suggest an open bottomed hollow space in the exterior of beverage chamber, which can provide differential heating or cooling and would also have induced free convection flow.
To therefore modify Dos Santos, who does not limit the particular material of construction and to use materials such as metal would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design. Further regarding the flow drive system, it is also noted that Guerrero teaches a diffuser 17, which also has a conical shape (see figure 2, item 17) and which diffuser can also be part of a cartridge used for infusion of flavouring materials (see figure 3) and which diffuser advantageously allows for circulation of the liquid to help with producing the flavoured drink with reducing preparation time (see paragraph 37). This provides further evidence that the similar shape as taught by Dos Santos, would also have provided a flow drive system to drive during infusion a liquid flow.
Regarding the new limitation of, “an air-tight surface which projects in an upward direction into the infusion chamber, the air-tight surface thermally coupling the hollow space and the infusion chamber to exchange thermal energy between the hollow space and the infusion chamber, and the air-tight surface separating and sealing the open-bottomed hollows space form the infusion chamber, Dos Santos in view of Bott, Dooley and Hovey teach an air-tight surface that projects in an upward direction into the infusion chamber and would have been capable of exchanging thermal energy while also separating and sealing the open bottomed hollow space from the infusion chamber. See annotated figure 4 of Dos Santos below:
PNG
media_image1.png
702
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding claim 6, Dos Santos in view of Bott, Dooley and Hovey teach the open-bottomed hollow space forms a heat reservoir and the air-tight surface would have been a heat exchange surface that lies exposed in the infusion chamber and would have been capable of transferring thermal energy from or to the liquid and to or from the heat reservoir. This is further supported by the combination teaching and suggesting materials such as metal which would also have been heat exchange materials. Further in this regard, it is noted that Applicant’s specification discloses metal, glass, plastic or cardboard as suitable materials of construction (see page 21, line 24-28). Even further, in view of Bott and Dooley, the combination teaches materials such as metal, which would also have been heat exchange surfaces.
Regarding claim 8, Dos Santos teaches that the heat reservoir is a heat sink, because the upper-most portion of the hollow cylindrical section is closed (see paragraph 48 and figure 4 and figure 5, item 48). Because the combination teaches that the material of the hollow cylinder can be metal, thermal energy would have been capable of being transferred from the liquid into the heat reservoir. That is, this is also an intended use of the recited structure. Dos Santos also teaches using the system to prepare a hot beverage (see paragraph 43, “hot water previously placed in the carafe 20”)
Regarding claim 9, Dos Santos teaches in figure 2 and 4, item 50, that the heat exchange surface projects from the chamber wall into the infusion chamber.
Regarding claim 12, as shown in figure 2 and 4, Dos Santos teaches that the open-bottomed hollow space projects from an outside surface of the chamber wall into the infusion chamber, from the bottom of the infusion chamber upwards.
Regarding claims 13-15, Dos Santos teaches that the infusion chamber has the shape of a hollow cylinder defined by forming an outer hollow cylinder (see item 50 in figure 2 and 4) and the air-tight surface forms a conical shape that tapers from a bottom of the infusion chamber upwards and projects into the infusion chamber, as recited in claims 13-15.
Regarding claim 18, it is noted that the claim is directed to the intended use of the system and in this regard, if the prior art teaches the recited structure, it would have been capable of the recited intended use. In this regard, because Dos Santos teaches that the infusing liquid would have passed through the mesh sieve and into the container 20 and since Dos Santos teaches a conical inverted cylindrical shape into which air or fluid can be trapped, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the prior art would have been capable of the intended function of driving the liquid flow from the exterior of the chamber into the infusion chamber, circulate the liquid in the infusion chamber, and out of the infusion chamber to the exterior of the infusion chamber when the flow drive system is in operation and during infusion in the infusion chamber. This is further supported by Hovey and Guerrero teaching a similar shape that allows for circulation of liquid and convective heat transfer.
Regarding claim 21, similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 18, it is noted that the claim is directed to an intended use of the cartridge and in this regard, because Dos Santos teaches that the infusing liquid would have passed through the fine mesh sieve and into the container 20 and since Dos Santos teaches a conical inverted cylindrical shape into which air or fluid can be trapped, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the prior art would have been capable of providing a liquid flow that comprises an inflow from the exterior of the infusion chamber through the passage, a circulating flow in the infusion chamber that can pass through flavoring materials and an outflow through the passage from the flavoring materials to the exterior of the infusion chamber.
Regarding claim 22, Dos Santos teaches that the passage comprises a region in the chamber wall with at least an upper and lower opening, because the reference teaches that there is a fine mesh with openings. As discussed above with respect to claims 18 and 21, Dos Santos’ structure would have been capable of the intended use of an upper flow into the infusion chamber with the liquid flow through the lower opening being out of the infusion chamber, especially in light of the reference disclosing a similar structure as that shown in Applicant’s figure 2.
Regarding claim 53, the claim repeats the structure of the cartridge as already presented above with respect to claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding the method steps of exchanging through the passage liquid, between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the infusion chamber; flavoring the liquid in the infusion chamber with flavoring substances, since Dos Santos teaches a filter cartridge for flavoring liquids with coffee or tea, for example (see paragraph 3 of the machine translation), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the reference is teaching an exchange through the passage, liquid between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the chamber so as to flavour the liquid in the infusion chamber with flavoring substances from the flavoring materials in the infusion chamber.
Regarding the limitation of, “during said flavouring, driving a liquid flow between the infusion chamber and the exterior of the infusion chamber through the passage, the driving comprising inducing a free convection flow in the infusion chamber, said inducing comprising: trapping in an open-bottomed hollow space in the exterior of the infusion chamber, air entered via an open-bottom in the hollow space and holding the air in the hollow space, the hollow space being in fluid communication with the exterior of the infusion chamber via the open-bottom; exchanging thermal energy between the hollow space and the infusion chamber via an air-tight surface which projects in an upward direction into the infusion chamber, and the air-tight surface separating and sealing the open-bottomed hollow space from the infusion chamber; and differentially heating or cooling of the liquid in the infusion chamber with the thermal energy, since Dos Santos teaches the claimed structure of a flow drive system and because Dos Santos also teaches a chamber wall with openings (see paragraph 48) that extend in the same direction as the hollow cylindrical flow drive structure, and further teaches that the infusion chamber is being used to infuse heated water with the flavoring materials that are in the infusion chamber, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that free confection flow would have been induced and that air that enters the open bottom would have been trapped in Dos Santos’ open bottom since the reference is disclosing a bottom that is closed in its uppermost portion, and which portion would is air-tight. It would also have been reasonable to expect that some degree of thermal exchange would have occurred in an upward direction into the infusion chamber, since heated water along with some degree of air can be present in Dos Santos’ open bottom so as to further heat the liquid in the infusion chamber with thermal energy. Additionally, Guerrero teaches that when using an infusion cartridge that it has been conventional to partially immerse the cartridge (see paragraph 39) such that partial immersion of Dos Santos’ infusion cartridge would also have allowed for some degree of air to be trapped within Dos Santos’ air-tight surface.
Regarding claim 56, Dos Santos teaches that the volume to be filled with the liquid has an open top side for filling the volume with the liquid (see figure 3, item 23) and the cartridge comprises a lid-shaped portion which covers the open top side (see figure 3 and 4, item 60).
Regarding claim 57, as shown in figure 4, Dos Santos teaches that the cartridge is releasably attached to the vessel (see paragraph 53-54 of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 58, Dos Santos teaches that the cartridge is releasably attached to the top rim of the vessel in view of the cartridge being attached to the lid structure 73 which is attached to the rim, as shown in figures 2-4.
Regarding claim 59, as shown in figure 3 for example, Dos Santos teaches that the vessel has a tip rim and as shown in figure 4, the cartridge is suspended in the volume to be filled with the liquid hanging from the top-rim in view of the cartridge being attached to the rim via lid structure 73, which is attached to the rim.
Regarding claim 60, since Dos Santos teaches that the cartridge comprises a frame (see figure 4 and 5, item 42) and where mesh covered openings are how the liquid would enter and exit the cartridge (See figure 4 and 5, item 43; paragraph 47), it would have been obvious to one having oirndary skill in the art that the side wall itself would have been impervious to the liquid.
Claims 61-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 60 above, and in further view of Boone (US 20160367072 already of record) and Lin (US 20180242775).
Claim 61 differs from the combination as applied to claim 60 in specifically reciting, wherein the passage has:
an open state in which the infusion chamber is in liquid communication with the exterior of the infusion chamber, to transport the substances from the liquid in the infusion chamber into liquid in the exterior during brewing tea, and
a closed state in which the liquid inside the infusion chamber is closed off from the liquid in the exterior to stop a concentration of the substances in the liquid in the exterior from increasing.
Boone teaches an infusion chamber (figure 1A, item 103) that is in a volume of a vessel (figure 1A , item 101), which vessel volume is to be filled with a liquid for preparing a beverage by infusing the liquid with flavoring substances (see at least paragraph 4). Boone teaches that the passage of the infusion chamber wall can have an open state and a closed state to control the degree of infusion of the liquid (see the abstract; see paragraph 58, “The inner and outer canister walls are structured to be controllably opened and closed to control the flow of water…thereby allowing and stopping diffusion…”; and paragraph 71).
Lin teaches that the concept taught by Boone is equally appliable to containers similar to that of Dos Santos. That is, Lin an infusion chamber (figure 4, item 30, 40) that is suspended in a volume of a vessel that is to be filled with a liquid for preparing a beverage by infusing the liquid with flavoring substances (see figure 4). Lin teaches that the passage of the chamber wall can have an open state and a closed state to control the degree of infusion of the liquid and for preventing over infused liquid from mixing with the earlier fresh brewed liquid (see paragraph 24).
Since Dos Santos, Boone and Lin are directed to infusion chambers that are suspended within a volume of a vessel, to therefore modify Dos Santos’ infusion chamber so as to be able to open and close the infusion passage would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of controlling the degree of infusion of the liquid within the vessel volume and for preventing over infused liquid from mixing with the earlier infused liquid.
Regarding claim 62, Boone teaches using a control that is manually controllable for bringing the passage from the open state into the closed state (see figure 3, connector handle). Boone also teaches a motor that can open and close the passage (see figure 2B). It is noted that Boone also teaches that the infusion chamber can be associated with a lid and handlebar (see figure 2A that would also have allowed for manual opening and closing of the passage (see paragraph 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided manual control manually controllable by a human for bringing the passage from the open state into the closed state, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment to the claims, the rejections relying on Hall (US 10517414) have been withdrawn.
On page 10-11 of the response, Applicant urges that neither Dos Santos or Bott teach or suggest “a thermal element thermally coupled to the infusion chamber for differential heating or cooling of the liquid in the infusion chamber, the differential heating or cooling inducing a free convection flow in the infusion chamber,”; that the thermal element comprises “an open- bottomed hollow space in the exterior of the infusion chamber, for trapping air entered via an open- bottom in the hollow space and holding the air in the hollow space when the volume is filled with the liquid, the hollow space being in fluid communication with the sub-volume via the open- bottom,”; that the thermal element comprises “an air-tight surface which projects in an upward direction into the infusion chamber, the airtight surface thermally coupling the hollow space and the infusion chamber to exchange thermal energy between the hollow space and the infusion chamber, and the airtight surface separating and sealing the open-bottomed hollow space from the infusion chamber,” as recited in amended claim 1.
These arguments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection because Dos Santos is seen to teach a surface into which water and air can be trapped, and which surface extends upward from a bottom of a cartridge used for infusing a liquid with infusion substances. Because the bottom section of Dos Santos’ cartridge is not porous, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Dos Santos’ structure would also have been capable of trapping air and water. In view of Applicant’s disclosure which suggests that suitable materials of construction include aluminium, glass, wood, plastics, or paper and/or paperboard, it would have been reasonable to expect that some degree of thermal transfer would have occurred between Dos Santos’ upwardly extending bottom surface and the interior of Dos Santos’ cartridge. Nonetheless, Bott has only been relied on as further evidence of an infusion cartridge that resembles that of Dos Santos’ but which can be made from metal, and would therefore also have allowed for thermal transfer. Therefore, together the prior art is teaching and suggesting a structure that would have been capable of differential heating or cooling of the liquid in the infusion chamber and inducing free confection flow, while providing an open-bottomed hollow space that is an air-tight surface that can also exchange thermal energy between the hollow space and the infusion chamber.
Further on page 11 of the response, Applicant urges that Bott does not expressly or inherently describe a heat reservoir or heat exchange surface and there is no reason to assume that the inwardly concave section of Botts would have been construed in a manner that it retains heat and would be a heat reservoir.
These arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection because the reference has only been relied on to teach a similar infusion cartridge as that of Dos Santos but where the infusion cartridge can be made of metal, which would have been known to allow for thermal transfer. It is further noted that Dooley and Hovey further evidence what can be construed as a heat reservoir or heat exchange surface that extends into a chamber volume and can facilitate heating or cooling of the contents within the chamber volume.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown (US 20050103739) figure 5, item 10; Roberts (US 5189892) figure 1, item 28; and Searle (US 6134894) figure 2, item 20, teach a heat exchange element with an open bottom into which a heat exchange material can be positioned for thermal transfer between a liquid and the heat exchange material
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights