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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 19, 24, 29, 30, and 32-33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 recites: “integrally of” it should read “integrally with”.
Claim 29 recites: “A method of brewing an alcoholic beverage comprising” it should read “A method of brewing an alcoholic beverage comprising:”.
Claims 19, 30, and 32-33 have similar issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 19 recites “releasing means” the specification does recite “the releasing means includes a plunger device 46 extending substantially longitudinally of the cartridge device 2 from its top region to the second substance-containing part 10 which, in this second embodiment, projects outwardly beneath the first substance-containing part 6.” ¶0035, the examiner will interpret “ a plunger ” as the “releasing means” for claim 19.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: cartridge receiving device for mounting in claim 34.
Prong 1: cartridge receiving device (Generic placeholder)
Prong 2: for mounting the cartridge device to the fermentation container (Function)
Prong 3: no structure
The specification recites: “ Referring to Figure 2, the cartridge device 2 of any desired cross-sectional shape is shown inserted into a cartridge-receiving device 18 which in the example shown is a cavity or pocket integrally formed in a lid 20 of a fermentation container, although the cartridge device 2 could also be mounted in the cartridge-receiving device 18 at any convenient location on the fermentation container.”
The examiner interprets the cartridge receiving device as any device that can hold a cartridge.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 26-29 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.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase "pouch-like compartment" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The specification recited “whereby the action applied to open the seals 12 and 14 and to put the cartridge in the fully engaged position causes the ingredient in the pouch-like second substance-containing part 10”. The examiner will interpret “pouch-like compartment” as any barrier that can hold back a substance/fluid.
Regarding claim 27, The term “substantially” in claim 27 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 specification recites “ the releasing means includes a plunger device 46 extending substantially longitudinally of the cartridge device 2 from its top region to the second substance-containing part 10 which, in this second embodiment, projects outwardly beneath the first substance-containing part 6. The filtering device 16, if provided, as with the first embodiment described above, contains components to purify liquid water which flows from the water container 32 before passing through the filtering device 16. “ but remains unclear what range if any is considered substantially longitudinally.
In claim 29, the limitation of “but prior to said releasing directing liquid to flow into the upper fluid entry end and into the first substance-containing part to mix with the first substance, the mixed liquid flowing through a liquid outlet of the cartridge device to the fermentation container, the mixed liquid subsequently coming into contact with the released second substance.” seems unclear. The specification does not provide information about specific details on what is being accomplished in this method. The examiner interprets this language as the second substance part is activated or pre-wet prior to the full amount of liquid flows to the first substance part.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19, 24, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200391934 A1 – Aviles in view of US 20190248641 A1 - Krüger.
Regarding claim 1, Aviles is directed towards an capsule system. Aviles does teach an alcoholic beverage-making cartridge device ([0032] As shown in FIG. 1, the capsule contains a dry or liquid beverage medium 25, e.g. a medicinal product, an alcoholic ingredient, dairy product, liquid flavoring and the like.), having an upper fluid entry end ([0052] To introduce liquid into the cartridge, for example, a portion of the lid 38 can be pierced by an inlet piercing element 50 (e.g., a needle) so that water or other liquid can be injected into the cartridge 10.), a first substance-containing part downstream of the upper fluid entry end and for containing a first substance ([0032] The cartridge 10 can be configured to contain any suitable first beverage medium 20), and a second substance-containing part for containing a second substance ([0032] As shown in FIG. 1, the capsule contains a dry or liquid beverage medium 25), the second substance being separated from the first substance (Figure 1 shows the first substance (20) is separate from the second substance (25)), the arrangement being such that fluid communication between the first and second substance containing parts is prevented within the cartridge device ([0033] In the illustrative embodiment, the cartridge 10 includes a container 12 having an interior space 14. A filter 30 is disposed within the interior space 14 and defines a first region 14a therein. The filter 30 is configured to contain a first beverage medium 20 within the first region 14a.).
Aviles does not expressly teach releasing means serve to release the first and second substances from the respective first and second substance-containing parts.
Krüger is directed towards an beverage preparation unit. Krüger does teach releasing means serve to release the first and second substances from the respective first and second substance-containing parts ([0069] In order to transfer the beverage substance 7 from the reservoir 6 into the mixing chamber 8 the cartridge 2 has a plunger 13 arranged in a movable manner in the reservoir 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles to include releasing means serve to release the first and second substances from the respective first and second substance-containing parts because the plunger within a cartridge of Krüger and the first and second substance containing cartridge of Aviles so the pressure increase will allow the liquid to flow through the container.
Regarding claim 24, Aviles and Krüger does teach the limitations of claim 19. Aviles does teach the second substance-containing part is in the form of a chamber formed integrally of the cartridge device ([0037] the capsule 60 is specifically designed to be used with existing cartridge designs and components. This facilitates manufacture of an improved cartridge 10 without requiring significant re-designs of existing components or undue interference with existing manufacturing processes.).
Regarding claim 27, Aviles and Krüger does teach the limitations of claim 19. Aviles does not expressly teach the releasing means includes a plunger device extending substantially longitudinally of the cartridge device from its top region to the second substance-containing part which projects outwardly beneath the first substance containing part.
Krüger does teach the releasing means includes a plunger device extending substantially longitudinally of the cartridge device from its top region to the second substance-containing part which projects outwardly beneath the first substance containing part (Figure 1-2c and [0072] When the plunger 13 is then pressed down the pressure inside the reservoir 6 is increased until the sealing film in the transfer opening 9 tears so that the beverage substance 7 passes into the mixing chamber 8).
Placing the plunger of Krüger on the top of the of the cartridge of Aviles allows for the fluid to be actively pushed between the first substance part to the second substance part.
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles to include a plunger device extending substantially longitudinally of the cartridge device from its top region to the second substance-containing part which projects outwardly beneath the first substance containing part because the plunger allows the fluid to be pressed through the container to the outflow.
Regarding claim 28, Aviles and Krüger does teach the limitations of claim 27. Aviles does not expressly teach the plunger device serves to separate and release ingredients from the first and second substance-containing parts.
Krüger does teach the plunger device serves to separate and release ingredients from the first and second substance-containing parts (Figure 1-2c and [0072] When the plunger 13 is then pressed down the pressure inside the reservoir 6 is increased until the sealing film in the transfer opening 9 tears so that the beverage substance 7 passes into the mixing chamber 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles to include the plunger device serves to separate and release ingredients from the first and second substance-containing parts because the plunger (13) and seal (9) of Krüger allow the first and second substance parts to remain separate until the mixture is needed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200391934 A1 – Aviles and US 20190248641 A1 - Krüger as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of WO 2019243783 A1 - Harrison.
Regarding claim 20, Aviles and Krüger does teach the limitations of claim 19. Aviles and Krüger does not expressly teach the cartridge device is mounted to a vertical brewing stack.
Harrison is directed towards an home brewing device. Harrison does teach the cartridge device is mounted to a vertical brewing stack (Figure 6 shows the vertical brewing stack with a filtering device 2 and [Pg. 8 Ln. 21-26] In the filtering section and immediately downstream of the filter is a filtering mesh or membrane 18 with an appropriate pore size followed downstream by an ingredient section 20 which houses the appropriate brewing ingredients. Immediately downstream of the ingredient section 20 there is a 25 second mesh or membrane 22 with an appropriate pore size through which liquid flows into the fermenting vessel 4.).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the cartridge of Aviles and Krüger for the filter device of Harrison.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200391934 A1 – Aviles and US 20190248641 A1 - Krüger as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 20200231913 A1 - Lee.
Regarding claim 21, Aviles and Krüger does teach the limitations of claim 19. Aviles does teach the first substance-containing part contains a concentrated brew extract ([0032] The cartridge 10 can be configured to contain any suitable first beverage medium 20, e.g., ground coffee, tea leaves, dry herbal tea, powdered beverage concentrate and/or other beverage-making material).
Aviles and Krüger does not expressly teach the first substance-containing part is larger in volume than the second substance-containing part.
While Aviles may not expressly teach the first substance-containing part is larger in volume than the second substance-containing part of the instant claim, Aviles teaches two separate areas to hold two different materials. The courts have held the following: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the two separate material sections of Aviles is capable of having the first substance-containing part is larger in volume than the second substance-containing part.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles to include the first substance-containing part is larger in volume than the second substance-containing part in order to hold a specific volume of each material for the brewing process.
Aviles and Krüger does not expressly teach the second substance-containing part contains a quantity and type of yeast and/or any non-liquid ingredients usable to start a fermentation process.
Lee is directed towards an keg cap with yeast. Lee does teach the second substance-containing part contains a quantity and type of yeast and/or any non-liquid ingredients usable to start a fermentation process ([0011] It is an object of the present disclosure to provide a keg cap integrated with a yeast capsule and a coupler coupled to the keg cap.).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of a yeast material of Lee with the second substance part of Aviles.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200391934 A1 – Aviles and US 20190248641 A1 - Krüger as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 20140004231 A1 – Norton and US 5240722 A – Louridas.
Regarding claim 22, Aviles and Krüger does teach the limitations of claim 19. Aviles and Krüger does not expressly teach the cartridge device further includes a liquid filtering device fitted into the upper fluid entry end.
Norton is directed towards an capsule system. Norton does teach the cartridge device further includes a liquid filtering device fitted into the upper fluid entry end ([0097] The water then enters the capsule 1 through the inlet aperture 23 and inlet filter 31 where it contacts the beverage ingredient 32). Examiner points to a assumed typo in the prior art, throughout the discloser the inlet filter as element 30 and the outlet filter as element 31. Except for the paragraph cited by the examiner [0097], the inlet filter is element 31.
Using the inlet filter (30) of Norton on the inlet of the cartridge (10) of Aviles. For the purpose of stopping the brewing material from leaving the cartridge.
Thus, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles to include the cartridge device further includes a liquid filtering device fitted into the upper fluid entry end to keep the material of Aviles in the substance parts and/or flow downstream.
Regarding claim 23, Aviles, Krüger, and Norton does teach the limitations of claim 22. Aviles does teach top and bottom end regions of the cartridge device are sealed with openable seals ([0035] If the container 12 includes an opening, the opening can be closed by a lid 38, [0040] The membrane 40 is configured to selectively isolate the second chamber from the surrounding space).
Aviles and Krüger does not expressly teach the filtering device includes on its underside seal-opening elements.
Louridas is directed towards an prepared package for making a hot beverage. Louridas does teach the filtering device includes on its underside seal-opening elements (Figure 1 and [Claim 1] a lower chamber containing a filter … a bottom spout from said lower chamber, said package outlet, inlet and spout having openable seals).
The openable seal of Louridas in combination of the inlet filter of Norton to seal the filter until the user installs and is ready to use the inlet filter.
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles and Norton to include the filtering device includes on its underside seal-opening elements because the openable seal of Louridas used with the inlet filter of Norton allows the user to seal the filter until the user is ready to use said filter.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200391934 A1 – Aviles and US 20190248641 A1 - Krüger as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 3809224 A - Greenwood.
Regarding claim 25, Aviles and Krüger does teach the limitations of claim 19. Aviles does teach the second substance-containing part is a compartment within the cartridge device (Figures 1-2 shows the second compartment (60) separate from the first (20) both within the container (12)).
Aviles and Krüger does not expressly teach the second substance-containing part is separated from the first substance-containing part by a removable barrier temporarily separating the respective substances.
Greenwood is directed towards a compartmented pouch. Greenwood does teach the second substance-containing part is separated from the first substance-containing part by a removable barrier temporarily separating the respective substances (Figure 2 and [Col. 2 Ln. 4-8] the opposite edge comprises a temporary removable seal made of a clamp arranged to pinch both panels in a line extending from the end of the seal to the edge of the pouch opposite the opening.).
Greenwood’s removable barrier (21) being implemented between the first and second portions (3 and 4) so the materials are not mixed until need by the user.
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles and Norton to include the second substance-containing part is separated from the first substance-containing part by a removable barrier temporarily separating the respective substances because the removable barrier of Greenwood allows the multiple materials of the multiple sections of the container of Aviles to allow the user to not mix the two substances until needed.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200391934 A1 – Aviles and US 20190248641 A1 - Krüger as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 20150314955 A1 - Savage.
Regarding claim 26, Aviles and Krüger does teach the limitations of claim 19. Aviles does not expressly teach the second substance-containing part is a pouch-like compartment located inside the first substance-containing part.
Savage is directed towards an mixing cartridge. Savage does teach the second substance-containing part is a pouch-like compartment located inside the first substance-containing part ([0019] a second chamber 232 separated by a filter 240, and figure 2 shows the "pouch-like" second chamber with in the first area (210)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles to include the second substance-containing part is a pouch-like compartment located inside the first substance-containing part because the shape and location of the second area can save space withing the container.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200391934 A1 – Aviles in view of WO 2019243783 A1 – Harrison and US 20150017288 A1 - Lo Faro.
Regarding claim 29, Aviles does teach a cartridge device having an upper fluid entry end ([0052] To introduce liquid into the cartridge, for example, a portion of the lid 38 can be pierced by an inlet piercing element 50 (e.g., a needle) so that water or other liquid can be injected into the cartridge 10.), a first substance-containing part downstream of the upper fluid entry end and for containing a first substance ([0032] The cartridge 10 can be configured to contain any suitable first beverage medium 20), and a second substance-containing part for containing a second substance ([0032] As shown in FIG. 1, the capsule contains a dry or liquid beverage medium 25), the second substance being, initially, separated from the first substance (Figure 1 shows the first substance (20) is separate from the second substance (25)), and subsequently releasing the first and second substances from the respective first and second substance-containing parts and the mixed liquid subsequently coming into contact with the released second substance. (Figures 5a-5c shows the flow of fluid to release via the fluid from the first and second substance containing parts.).
Aviles does not expressly teach mounting to a fermentation container and but prior to said releasing directing liquid to flow into the upper fluid entry end and into the first substance-containing part to mix with the first substance, the mixed liquid flowing through a liquid outlet of the cartridge device to the container.
Harrison does teach a cartridge mounting to a fermentation container (Figure 6 shows the vertical brewing stack with a filtering device 2 attached to the fermentation vessel 4).
Using the cartridge from Aviles in the fermentation/brewing device of Harrison.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles to include a cartridge mounting to a fermentation container because using the cartridge of Aviles with the brewing device of Harrison will allow for more brewed liquid to be stored.
Lo Faro is directed towards an capsule based brewing system. Lo Faro does teach a pre wetting step that will wet the brewing material before the primary brewing process is started ([0064] During the pre-wetting step, the capsule 11 may remain in a horizontal position so that the contents of the capsule 11 may not spill out when the capsule 11 is first opened or when the pre-wetting stream is directed into the capsule 11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles to include a pre wetting step that will wet the brewing material before the primary brewing process is started because the wetting of the brewing material of Lo Faro with the cartridge of Aviles prepares the brewing material for the primary brewing process.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200391934 A1 – Aviles, WO 2019243783 A1 – Harrison and US 20150017288 A1 - Lo Faro as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of US 20200231913 A1 – Lee and US 20190248641 A1 - Krüger.
Regarding claim 30, Aviles, Harrison, and Lo Faro does teach the limitations of claim 29. Aviles does teach an initiation of the cartridge device serving to release the first and second substances from their respective parts ([0050] FIG. 5B is a cut-away side view showing the exemplary cartridge 10 including beverage mediums and showing the flow of various components of the beverage into and through the cartridge 10 during the beverage forming process.).
Aviles does not expressly teach initiate a fermentation process.
Lee does teach initiate a fermentation process ([0011] It is an object of the present disclosure to provide a keg cap integrated with a yeast capsule and a coupler coupled to the keg cap.).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of a yeast material of Lee with the second substance part of Aviles.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 31, Aviles, Harrison, Lee, and Lo Faro does teach the limitations of claim 30. Aviles does not expressly teach said initiation is delivered by way of a force applied on a plunger device of the cartridge device to allow the first and second substance to leave the cartridge device.
Krüger does teach said initiation is delivered by way of a force applied on a plunger device of the cartridge device to allow the first and second substance to leave the cartridge device.
Krüger does teach said initiation is delivered by way of a force applied on a plunger device of the cartridge device to allow the first and second substance to leave the cartridge device ([0069] In order to transfer the beverage substance 7 from the reservoir 6 into the mixing chamber 8 the cartridge 2 has a plunger 13 arranged in a movable manner in the reservoir 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles to include said initiation is delivered by way of a force applied on a plunger device of the cartridge device to allow the first and second substance to leave the cartridge device because the plunger within a cartridge of Krüger and the first and second substance containing cartridge of Aviles so the pressure increase will allow the liquid to flow through the container.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200391934 A1 – Aviles, WO 2019243783 A1 – Harrison and US 20150017288 A1 - Lo Faro as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of US 20140004231 A1 – Norton and US 20190248641 A1 - Krüger.
Regarding claim 32, Aviles, Harrison, and Lo Faro does teach the limitations of claim 29. Aviles does not expressly teach filtering at the upper fluid entry end of the cartridge device to filter a liquid.
Norton does teach filtering at the upper fluid entry end of the cartridge device to filter a liquid ([0097] The water then enters the capsule 1 through the inlet aperture 23 and inlet filter 31 where it contacts the beverage ingredient 32).
Using the inlet filter (30) of Norton on the inlet of the cartridge (10) of Aviles. For the purpose of stopping the brewing material from leaving the cartridge.
Thus, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles to include the filtering at the upper fluid entry end of the cartridge device to filter a liquid to keep the material of Aviles in the substance parts and/or flow downstream.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200391934 A1 – Aviles, WO 2019243783 A1 – Harrison, US 20150017288 A1 - Lo Faro, US 20200231913 A1 – Lee and US 20190248641 A1 - Krüger as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of US 20140004231 A1 - Norton.
Regarding claim 33, Aviles, Harrison, Lo Faro, Lee and Krüger teach the limitations of claim 31. Aviles does not expressly teach filtering at the upper fluid entry end of the cartridge device to filter a liquid, wherein the initiation force is applied by pressing a filtering device inwardly of the cartridge device to move a plunger head of the plunger device and located in the second substance-containing part.
Norton does teach filtering at the upper fluid entry end of the cartridge device to filter a liquid ([0097] The water then enters the capsule 1 through the inlet aperture 23 and inlet filter 31 where it contacts the beverage ingredient 32).
Using the inlet filter (30) of Norton on the inlet of the cartridge (10) of Aviles. For the purpose of stopping the brewing material from leaving the cartridge.
Thus, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles to include the filtering at the upper fluid entry end of the cartridge device to filter a liquid to keep the material of Aviles in the substance parts and/or flow downstream.
Krüger does teach the initiation force is applied by pressing a filtering device inwardly of the cartridge device to move a plunger head of the plunger device and located in the second substance-containing part ([0069] In order to transfer the beverage substance 7 from the reservoir 6 into the mixing chamber 8 the cartridge 2 has a plunger 13 arranged in a movable manner in the reservoir 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles to include the initiation force is applied by pressing a filtering device inwardly of the cartridge device to move a plunger head of the plunger device and located in the second substance-containing part because the plunger within a cartridge of Krüger and the first and second substance containing cartridge of Aviles so the pressure increase will allow the liquid to flow through the container.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200391934 A1 – Aviles in view of WO 2019243783 A1 - Harrison.
Regarding claim 34, Aviles does teach a brewing ingredient cartridge device serving to supply, in a staged release, first and second brewing ingredients contained in the cartridge device to the container ([0033] In the illustrative embodiment, the cartridge 10 includes a container 12 having an interior space 14. A filter 30 is disposed within the interior space 14 and defines a first region 14a therein. The filter 30 is configured to contain a first beverage medium 20 within the first region 14a.).
Aviles does not expressly teach the fermentation chamber including a cartridge-receiving device for mounting the cartridge device to the fermentation container.
Harrison does teach the fermentation chamber including a cartridge-receiving device for mounting the cartridge device to the fermentation container. (Figure 6 shows the vertical brewing stack with a filtering device 2 attached to the fermentation vessel 4).
Using the cartridge from Aviles in the fermentation/brewing device of Harrison.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aviles to include the fermentation chamber including a cartridge-receiving device for mounting the cartridge device to the fermentation container because using the cartridge of Aviles with the brewing device of Harrison will allow for more brewed liquid to be stored.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190136164 A1 - VAN DE KOOIJ teaches a minibrewery and a piston for pushing fluid.
US 20090007796 A1 – Ricotti teaches a capsule with two sections.
US 20050150890 A1 – Wang teaches fermentation tanks with a valve in between the tanks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights