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 .
Specification
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 5, “…the bottom side…” should read “…a bottom side…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 1 line 7, “…the bottom of…” should read “…the bottom side of…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of the term.
In claim 1 line 8, “…introduce a fluid in said pack and to dispense a beverage…” should read “…introduce the fluid in said pack and to dispense the beverage…”.
In claim 1 line 15, “…said pack hold in…” should read “…said pack in…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of the term.
In claim 1 line 19, “…the pack inlet…” should read “…the upper pack inlet…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of the term
In claim 1 line 21, “…the pack inlet…” should read “…the upper pack inlet…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of the term.
In claim 1 lines 23-24, “…the whole pack holder assembly…” should read “…the pack holder assembly…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of the term.
In claims 2-12 and 14 line 1, “System according to Claim…” should read “The system according to claim…”.
In claim 2 lines 2-3, “…the whole pack holder assembly…” should read “…the pack holder assembly…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of the term.
In claim 3 line 2, “…a plane shape oriented along a plane, said plane of…” should read “…a second plane shape oriented along a second plane, said second plane of…” for the purpose of clarity as a plane and a plane shape has already been define with respect to pack.
In claim 3 line 5, “…the plane…” should read “…the second plane…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 3 line 7, “…said plane…” should read “…said second plane…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 4 line 6, “…bottom opening the pack holder…” should read “…bottom opening of the pack holder…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 6 line 1, “…claim 1…” should read “…claim 5…” as the limitation “movable locking device” is introduced in claim 5.
In claim 6 line 2, “…that it is…” should read “…that the moveable locking device is…” for the purpose of clarity as the use of the pronoun “it” may lead to ambiguity of what “it” refer back to.
In claim 6 line 3, “…to be tilt away…” should read “…to be tilted away…”.
In claim 7 line 2, “…at last two…” should read “…at least two…”.
In claim 8 line 3, “…code, and…” should read “…code,…”.
In claim 8 line 7, “…the reader.” should read “…the code reader.”.
In claim 9 lines 3-4, “introducing a fluid into the pack hold in the chamber for preparation of a beverage…” should read “introducing the fluid into the pack in the chamber for preparation of the beverage…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 9 lines 6-7, “…said prepared beverage from said pack hold in the chamber.” should read “…said beverage from said pack in the chamber.” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 11 line 6, “…and second magnet…” should read “…and said second magnet….
In claim 11 line 7, “…respectively so that…” should read “…respectively such that…”.
In claim 12 line 2, “…claim 1…” should read “…claim 11…” as limitation “first and second magnets” are introduced in claim 11.
In claim 12 line 2, “…and second magnet…” should read “…and said second magnet…”.
In claim 12 lines 2-3, “…at the upper parts of the receiving area and of the door…” should read “…at an upper part of the receiving area and at an upper part of the door…”.
In claim 14 line 3, “…the moveable door…” should read “…the door…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of the term.
In claim 15 line 1, “Pack holder assembly…” should read “A pack holder assembly…”.
In claim 15 line 5, “…at the bottom edges…” should read “…at bottom edges…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 15 line 8, “…the bottom of the pack…” should read “…the bottom side of the pack…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 15 line 11, “…a plane shape oriented along a plane, …” should read “…a second plane shape oriented along a second plane …” for the purpose of clarity as a plane and a plane shape has already been define with respect to pack.
In claim 15 line 12, “…receiving a pack…” should read “…receiving said pack…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 15 lines 13-14, “…the bottom of a pack hold in the chamber…” should read “…the bottom side of the pack in the chamber…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claims 16-17 lines 1-2, “Pack holder assembly for a beverage producing system according to claim 1…” should read “The pack holder assembly for a beverage producing system according to claim 15…” as “Pack holder assembly for a beverage producing system” is introduced in claim 15.
In claim 16 line 3, “…positioned at the upper side…” should read “…positioned at an upper side…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 17 line 4, “…positioned in the upper part…” should read “…positioned in an upper part…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In 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.
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: movable fluid processing device in claims 1 and 15, and movable locking device in claim 5.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites “the door is inclined by an angle α of at least 45֯ preferably at least 60֯ which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear of angle α is at least 45֯ or at least 60֯.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jarisch et al. (US 2020/0345170).
Regarding claim 15, Jarisch et al. ‘170 teaches (figures 1-7b) a pack holder assembly (clearly shown in the figure below) for a beverage production system/beverage dispensing system (100) (Para 0041), said system comprising a pack/container (20) and a beverage producing module (clearly shown in the figure below),
said pack (20) presenting a plane shape oriented along a plane and comprising two longitudinal plane walls extending along said plane (clearly shown in the figure below) and comprising an openable bottom side/insert (21) at bottom edges of the longitudinal plane walls (clearly seen in figure 5) (Para 0037-0038),
and
said module comprising a moveable fluid processing device/piercing and injecting means configured to cooperate with the bottom side of the pack (20) to introduce a fluid in said pack and to dispense a beverage from the pack (Para 0037, 0040),
wherein said pack holder assembly (clearly shown in the figure below) comprises:
a pack chamber presenting a second plane shape oriented along a second plane and an inlet (clearly shown in the figure below; chamber is oriented along a vertical direction/plane), said chamber being adapted for receiving said pack through said inlet, and said chamber presenting a bottom opening configured to provide access to the bottom side of the pack in the chamber (clearly shown in the figure below),
and
a door (clearly shown in the figure below) configured to be positioned in at least:
a first opened position wherein said door uncovers the inlet of the pack chamber (clearly seen in figure 1), and
a second closed position wherein said door covers the inlet of the pack chamber (clearly seen in figure 2),
and
a member/guiding means (61) to position the pack holder assembly inside the beverage producing module (Para 0042).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
964
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarisch et al. (US 2020/0345170) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Norris et al. (US 2012/0138635).
Regarding claim 16, Jarisch eta l. ‘170 teaches (figures 1-7b) the pack holder assembly for a beverage production system of claim 15 but it is silent about the pack holder assembly for a beverage production system wherein the door comprises at least one magnet, said magnet being positioned at an upper side of the door.
Norris et al. ‘635 teaches (figures 1-2) a beverage dispenser (100) comprising a front door (124) wherein the front door (124) includes one or more magnets for positively closing the front door (Para 0078-0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jarisch eta l. ‘170 to incorporate the teachings of Norris et al. ‘635 to configure the pack holder assembly for a beverage production system wherein the door comprises at least one magnet, said magnet being positioned at an upper side of the door.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would positively close the door (Para 0079).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarisch et al. (US 2020/0345170) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Calderone et al. (US 2017/0217749).
Regarding claim 17, Jarisch eta l. ‘170 teaches (figures 1-7b) the pack holder assembly for a beverage production system of claim 15 but it is silent about the pack holder assembly for a beverage production system wherein the door comprises a contacting part designed to cooperate with an electrical switch of the module, said contacting part positioned in an upper part of the door.
Calderone et al. ‘749 teaches (figure 1) a beverage preparation unit comprising a door (4) wherein door comprises element/contacting part erecting from the internal surface of the door and the door being configured for switching off the electric supply of the beverage preparation unit when it opens wherein the switching off being due to a release of a mechanical and electric contact by element/contacting part (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jarisch eta l. ‘170 to incorporate the teachings of Calderone et al. ‘749 to configure the pack holder assembly for a beverage production system wherein the door comprises a contacting part designed to cooperate with an electrical switch of the module, said contacting part positioned in an upper part of the door.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would ensure that the system is off when the door is opened.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14 are allowed.
Jarisch et al. (US 2020/0345170) and Weijers et al. (US 9,282,848) are the closest prior arts which teach various aspects of the invention but Jarisch et al. (US 2020/0345170) fails to teach a pack holder assembly comprising a door movable relative to the pack chamber, and
Weijers et al. (US 9,282,848) fails to teach a pack holder assembly removable from the module when the door is in the first opened position.
Alone or in combination with the prior art of record, it would not have been obvious to meet the overall claim without impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights