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 .
Drawings
Drawings 1-10 and 13-22 are objected to because the reference characters are in brackets (37 CFR 1.84(p)(1)). The reference characters of drawings 11,12,23 and 24 are permitted because the reference characters are in boxes.
Drawings are objected to because of the absence of lead lines or reference lines (37 CFR 1.84(q)). Applicant is reminded that arrows are only allowed to be used as set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(r).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 10/06/2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 (a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the Portuguese Patent Application No. PT117169 April 9, 2021 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case the specification was amended to incorporate a foreign priority application after the PCT filing date. See MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 10/06/2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference character 110 is applied to container part (paragraph 0143), support part (paragraph 0144) and collection part (paragraph 0141). Please correct the reference characters to the right limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “adapted so that can collect” should be “adapted to collect”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “a cavity so that can collect” should be “a cavity to collect”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “adapted so that can supply” should be “adapted to supply”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “adapted so that can collect” should be “adapted to collect”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “configured so that can provide” should be “configured to provide”. 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 3 has the limitations “means for retention” and “control means” which is being interpreted under 112 sixth. Claim 6 has the limitation “data apprehension means” which is being interpreted under 112 sixth. The specification defines the means for retention as a closing part 32 (paragraph 0083, lines 1-2, Figure 3). The specification does not define a structure for the “control means” and “data apprehension means”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–17 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 1, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation of claim 1 “preferentially” is unclear since preference is a desire that is not definite.
The limitation of claim 2 “preferentially” is unclear since preference is a desire that is not definite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the gravity force" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 has the limitation “a type of apparatus presenting a discharge disposition” which is unclear since claim 1 already has the limitation “at least one type of production preparation apparatus comprising a discharge disposition”. It is unclear if the apparatus in claim 3 refers to the apparatus of claim 1 or another materially different apparatus.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the gravity force" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “control means” in claim 3 and “data apprehension means” in claim 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not define a structure for the “control means” and “data apprehension means”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The limitation of claim 4 “preferentially” is unclear since preference is a desire that is not definite.
Claim 4 has the limitation “a type of apparatus presenting at least one type of discharge disposition” which is unclear since claim 1 already has the limitation “at least one type of production preparation apparatus comprising a discharge disposition”. It is unclear if the apparatus in claim 4 refers to the apparatus of claim 1 or another materially different apparatus.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the perimeter" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 has the limitation “a type of apparatus with a discharge disposition” which is unclear since claim 1 already has the limitation “at least one type of production preparation apparatus comprising a discharge disposition”. It is unclear if the apparatus in claim 5 refers to the apparatus of claim 1 or another materially different apparatus.
Claim 5 has the limitation “a discharge passageway” which is unclear since claim 1 already has the limitation “a discharge passageway”. It is unclear if the apparatus in claim 5 refers to the apparatus of claim 1 or another materially different apparatus
The limitation of claim 5 “preferentially” is unclear since preference is a desire that is not definite.
Claim 6 has the limitation “a type of apparatus presenting a discharge disposition” which is unclear since claim 1 already has the limitation “at least one type of production preparation apparatus comprising a discharge disposition”. It is unclear if the apparatus in claim 6 refers to the apparatus of claim 1 or another materially different apparatus.
The limitation of claim 6 “preferentially” is unclear since preference is a desire that is not definite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the collection part" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the discharge part" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the closing part" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the collection part" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation of claim 7 “preferentially” is unclear since preference is a desire that is not definite.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the exterior surface" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “smaller than 10 degrees”, and the claim also recites “smaller than 5 degrees” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 has the limitation “a type of cartridge adapted to supply a plurality of single portions” which is unclear since claim 1 already has the limitation “at least one type of cartridge confines a plurality of single portions”. It is unclear if the apparatus in claim 8 refers to the cartridge of claim 1 or another materially different cartridge.
Claim 8 has the limitation “a discharge disposition” which is unclear since claim 1 already has the limitation “a discharge disposition”. It is unclear if the apparatus in claim 8 refers to the discharge disposition of claim 1 or another materially different discharge disposition.
The limitation of claim 8 “preferentially” is unclear since preference is a desire that is not definite.
Claim 9 has the limitation “a type of apparatus presenting a discharge disposition” which is unclear since claim 1 already has the limitation “at least one type of production preparation apparatus comprising a discharge disposition”. It is unclear if the apparatus in claim 9 refers to the discharge disposition of claim 1 or another materially different discharge disposition.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the container part" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 has the limitation “a type of apparatus presenting a discharge disposition” which is unclear since claim 1 already has the limitation “at least one type of production preparation apparatus comprising a discharge disposition”. It is unclear if the apparatus in claim 10 refers to the discharge disposition of claim 1 or another materially different discharge disposition.
The limitation of claim 10 “preferentially” is unclear since preference is a desire that is not definite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the closing part" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 has the limitation “a type of apparatus” which is unclear since claim 1 already has the limitation “at least one type of production preparation apparatus”. It is unclear if the apparatus in claim 12 refers to the apparatus of claim 1 or another materially different apparatus.
Claim 12 has the limitation “so that the edible substance of the single portions does not touch any other part of the apparatus” which is unclear. The claim defines the single portion is supplied between the discharge passageway and the product preparation device but it is not clear what parts between that the single portion doesn’t touch. It is also unclear what limitation “edible substance of the single portion” actual means. The limitation could mean that the single portion is sealed and the edible substance is inside or that the portion is permeable and made of the edible substance. It is also unclear if the edible substance is coffee or a food product because edible denotes to be eaten which is different than drinking which is usually associated with coffee .
The limitation of claim 12 “preferentially” is unclear since preference is a desire that is not definite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the characteristic dimension" in line 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the spatial orientation" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “trajectory with extension smaller than twice the characteristic dimension”, and the claim also recites “smaller than one and half times the characteristic dimension” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 has the limitation “a type of apparatus” which is unclear since claim 1 already has the limitation “at least one type of production preparation apparatus”. It is unclear if the apparatus in claim 13 refers to the apparatus of claim 1 or another materially different apparatus.
Claim 14 has the limitation “a type of apparatus” which is unclear since claim 1 already has the limitation “at least one type of production preparation apparatus”. It is unclear if the apparatus in claim 14 refers to the apparatus of claim 1 or another materially different apparatus.
The limitation of claim 14 “preferentially” is unclear since preference is a desire that is not definite.
Claim 15 has the limitation “a type of apparatus” which is unclear since claim 1 already has the limitation “at least one type of production preparation apparatus”. It is unclear if the apparatus in claim 15 refers to the apparatus of claim 1 or another materially different apparatus.
The limitation of claim 15 “preferentially” is unclear since preference is a desire that is not definite.
Claim 15 recites two instances of limitation “a conduction disposition” which renders the claim indefinite. There is only one conduction disposition mentioned in the specification under reference character 13.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “a vertical extension that corresponds to at most five times”, and the claim also recites “at most three times, at most two times” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation of claim 17 “preferentially” is unclear since preference is a desire that is not definite.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the gravity force" in lines 12 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-14,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pietra et al (US7051646).
With regards to claim 1, Pietra et al discloses a system for distributing and preparing edible products (system for transferring individual coffee packages from A container to the extraction chamber of a machine for making espresso coffee, Title) comprising:
at least one type of cartridge comprising a package that gas barrier, (tubular container 6 is a sealed package denoted by seal S and covered by plug 18 to seal container 6 when in use, Fig. 1B) confines a plurality of single portions of aromatic edible substance devoid of respective single packages (individual coffee packages 34 in each tubular container 6, Fig. 4),
at least one type of product preparation apparatus comprising a discharge disposition (position of package 34 resting on plug 8, Fig. 1B) and a product preparation device, for example an extraction device (extraction chamber 3, Fig. 4), adapted so that can collect and operate a single portion (collect and operate package 34, Fig. 1B),
whereby the discharge disposition presents a discharge passageway adapted for passage of single portions (passageway that package 34 follows from plug 18 to extraction chamber 3, Fig. 4), preferentially in a previously determined position of its central symmetry axis (central axis of package 34 lines up with plug 18, Fig. 4), and
whereby a plurality of single portions can be disposed along a previously defined alignment on a discharge position upstream of the discharge passageway (plurality of packages 34 are stacked upon plug 18, Fig. 4),
wherein the system is adapted so that single portions can be retained in discharge position, forcefully constrained towards the discharge passageway by an upstream force (package 34 is retained in a position by plug 18 with an upstream force, Fig. 4), and so that an interruption of said retention can be actuated so as to deliver the single portions one-by-one to the product preparation device (package 34 is on plug 18 and delivered to filter 28 below extraction chamber 3 for processing, Fig. 4/1-4/9).
With regards to claim 2, Pietra et al discloses wherein the system is adapted so that the supply of single portions between the discharge passageway and the product preparation device extends along a trajectory that at least partially overlaps in vertical projection over an open position of the product preparation device where can collect a single portion (package 34 is on plug 18 and delivered to filter 28 below extraction chamber 3 for processing, Fig. 4/1-4/9).
With regards to claim 3, Pietra et al discloses wherein the system comprises a type of apparatus presenting a discharge disposition adapted so that can retain an alignment of single portions by direct contact with the edible substance of the furthest downstream single portion in the alignment of single portions (packages 34 are retained in alignment by plug 18, Fig. 3A);
whereby the discharge disposition preferentially presents a collection part and a support part associated with an alignment of single portions (adapter 7 has an opening 7a and shutter 7d, Fig. 1A), and
wherein the system comprises a type of apparatus presenting a discharge disposition in functional connection with control means so that can be actuated for temporary removal of the retention of the furthest downstream single portion in a respective alignment of single portions, whereby said control means are further adapted so that can regulate the opening and closing of the product preparation device, including according to the actuation of said removal of retention by the discharge disposition (automatic mechanism is controlled by an electronic circuit board that activates four different pusher to implement the phases that, following the removal of the seal that closes the container mouth and the manual phase of attaching the latter to the machine, range from the opening of the plug to the expulsion of the exhausted pod and the return of the machine to the position in which a new operating sequence can be commenced, col 8, lines 50-60).
With regards to claim 4, Pietra et al discloses wherein the system comprises a type of apparatus presenting at least one type of discharge disposition that presents a discharge passageway downstream of the alignment of single portions (plug 18 holds packages 34 in a discharge position for aligning the packages 34, Fig. 4), preferentially with a shape similar and generally aligned (packages 34 are generally aligned with each other, Fig. 4) with the shape of the furthest downstream single portion (packages 34 have shapes that are generally aligned with each other, Fig. 4).
With regards to claim 5, Pietra et al discloses wherein the system comprises
a type of apparatus adapted so that can be removably retained in operative position on a discharge disposition (container 6 adapted to be in a position on structure 1, Fig. 1C), and
a type of apparatus with a discharge disposition provided on a portion of the exterior surface, preferentially a top surface of the apparatus (guide 8 has guide tabs 8a provided on a top exterior surface of structure 1, Fig. 1C), and presenting at least one of:
a collection part configured as a cavity so that can collect at least one base region of the package, preferentially at least a closing part of the cartridge, preferentially with cross section of shape similar to, or different from the shape of cross section of at least one of: a container part and a closing part of the package (adapter 7 having an opening 7a and a shutter 7d to hold packages 34, Fig. 1A), and a discharge passageway adapted so that can provide passage connection for single portions from the cartridge and towards the interior of the apparatus (passageway that package 34 follows from plug 18 to extraction chamber 3, Fig. 4).
With regards to claim 6, Pietra et al discloses wherein the system comprises a type of apparatus presenting a discharge disposition with a support part configured as a tubular projection (the bottom of container 6 is held by a radial border 9 which is a tubular projection, Fig. 1C), preferentially disposed on the collection part so that confines the discharge passageway (adapter 7 has tabs 8a that border radial border 9, Fig. 3A), whereby the discharge part is further adapted so that can provide retaining a package of cartridge (tabs 8a retain container 6, Fig. 1C).
With regards to claim 7, Pietra et al discloses wherein the system comprises a type of cartridge presenting a package with retention means adapted so that can provide removable retention in operation position on the discharge disposition (adapter 7 having guides 8 and tabs 8a wherein the packages 34 are held by shutter 7d in opening 7a in a discharge disposition, Fig. 1A).
With regards to claim 8, Pietra et al discloses wherein the system presents a type of cartridge adapted so that can supply a plurality of single portions, one-by-one, to a discharge disposition (container 6 holds packages 34 that are dispensed one by one along the travel of plug 18, Fig. 4/1-4/9), in particular to at least one of: a collection part and a support part (adapter 7 has an opening 7a and shutter 7d, Fig. 1A), and
a type of apparatus presenting a discharge disposition including a collection part configured with a container-like shape so that can collect at least one previously defined alignment of single portions (adapter 7 has an opening 7a for collecting a package 34, Fig. 1A), so that the single portions can be maintained in operative discharge position in at least one previously defined alignment relative to the discharge passageway (packages 34 are aligned along tabs 8a and held aligned with plug 18, Fig. 3A), whereby the discharge disposition is preferentially provided inside the apparatus (plug 18 holds package 34 inside structure 1 when in transport to filter 28, Fig. 4/1-4/9).
With regards to claim 9, Pietra et al discloses wherein the system comprises a type of apparatus presenting a discharge disposition with a collection part and a support part adapted so that can confine and support the single portions in a previously defined alignment relative to the discharge passageway (adapter 7 has an opening 7a and shutter 7d to support packages 34 before the packages 34 are disposed on plug 18, Fig. 1B,3A), whereby the support part is preferentially adapted so that can be actuated and provide or transmit movement to the single portions towards the discharge passageway and relative to the container part (shutter 7d can be actuated to allow support package 34 to travel from adapter 7 to be placed on plug 18).
With regards to claim 10, Pietra et al discloses wherein the system comprises a type of apparatus presenting a discharge disposition whereby at least one of collection part and support part is adapted to collect at least one interior package with an alignment of single portions, whereby the support part is preferentially adapted so that can be retained and removed inside the collection part (adapter 7 has an opening 7a and shutter 7d to support packages 34 before the packages 34 are disposed on plug 18, Fig. 1B,3A).
With regards to claim 11, Pietra et al discloses the system comprises a first type of cartridge that presents closing means in the form of a lid and associated with the closing part so that can provide gas barrier (plug 18 closes container 6 to form a lid on the radial edge 9 to seal the container 6, Fig. 4).
With regards to claim 12, Pietra et al discloses wherein the system comprises a type of apparatus adapted so that can provide supply of the single portions between the discharge passageway and the product preparation device, so that the edible substance of the single portions does not touch any other part of the apparatus (package 34 only touches the position from plug 18 to extraction chamber 3, Fig. 4/1-4/9).
With regards to claim 13, Pietra et al discloses wherein the system comprises a type of apparatus presenting a conduction disposition configured so that can provide conduction of single portion between the discharge passageway and the product preparation device (package 34 is conducted by plug 18 from below container 6 to extraction chamber 3, Fig. 4/1-4/9), whereby the apparatus is configured so that the edible substance of the single portions only touches the conduction disposition between the discharge passageway and the product preparation device (package 34 only touches the position from plug 18 to extraction chamber 3, Fig. 4/1-4/9).
With regards to claim 14, Pietra et al discloses a conduction disposition configured to conduct single portions from the discharge passageway of a respective discharge disposition, extending along a common central symmetry axis, and also common to a symmetry axis of the cartridge (the cartridge is conducted along the same path as it is dispensed from container 6, Fig. 4/1-4/9).
With regards to claim 16, Pietra et al discloses a process for operating a system of distribution and preparation of edible products (method of operating system for making espresso, Title),
wherein includes at least one cycle of preparation of edible product (cycle of preparation of a package 34, Fig. 4/1-4/9), whereby single portions devoid of respective single packages are operated in an apparatus of preparation of edible product (packages 34 are single devoid of a package, Fig. 1B), and that comprises the steps:
disposing a plurality of single portions in an operative position where they are impinged by a force along a previously defined alignment relative to a discharge disposition and operatively retained upstream of a discharge passageway thereof (plurality of packages 34 in an operative position wherein they are impinged by shutter 7d or plug 18, Fig. 3A);
operating the removal of retention so as to supply the single portion furthest downstream to the product preparation device (opening shutter 7d to allow package 34 to drop to plug 18, Fig 1B/5);
operating the closure of the product preparation device (closing shutter 7d, Fig. 1B/4);
impinging directly the single portion with a pressurized flow, so that the pressurized flow only interacts with the edible substance in the volume confined by the closed product preparation device (package 34 is moved to filter 28 wherein filter 28 is moved into position P4 and extraction chamber 3 is moved to provide water to package 34, Fig. 4),
discharging edible product from the closed product preparation device (discharging coffee to coffee cup 5 from filter 28, Fig. 1C,3A);
discharging operation residues downstream thereof, whereby the residues do not include non-bio-degradable materials (a conventional means capable of removing the exhausted pod from the extraction chamber and causing it to drop into an appropriate collection receptacle, col 8, lines 40-45).
With regards to claim 17, Sato et al discloses disposing the single portions in a similar alignment, preferentially including of respective central symmetry axis, relative to the discharge disposition the cartridge is conducted along the same path as it is dispensed from container 6, Fig. 4/1-4/9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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 5712725567. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights