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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/15/2026, with respect to U.S.C 102 and 103 rejection of claims 17-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 17-20 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu-Saymeh (US 11589701 B1) in view of Cable (US 20160367069 A1) and Drab (US 6619770 B1).
Claim 1. Abu-Saymeh discloses a beverage system (aircraft galley cart for hot beverages, abstract), comprising:
a housing (galley cart 102, Fig. 2) having a plurality of exterior sidewalls (cart has a plurality of sidewalls, Fig. 2) and an interior storage cavity (interior cavities in the cart 108 and 110, Fig. 1) therein;
an opening extending through at least one exterior sidewall of the housing and configured to allow access to the interior storage cavity (drawer has an opening which allows access to the interior spaces 108 and 110, Fig. 1);
a drawer (drawer 124) defining a cavity therein and having an exterior sidewall (drawer has a cavity and an exterior sidewall, Fig. 2), the drawer configured to be selectively positioned within the opening to enclose the interior storage cavity (drawer encloses the cavity, Fig. 1), the drawer having a
a pod
Abu-Saymeh does not disclose a filter assembly or pod adapter.
Cable discloses a coffee maker with multiple adapters for different sizes and drinks (par. 121) some of which may have filters (par. 161).
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 Abu-Saymeh to incorporate the teachings of Cable and have multiple adapters. Doing so would have the benefit of being able to make different size and types of drinks (par. 80, Cable).
Although Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable does not disclose pod adapters or a filter assembly receivable within the drawer cavity, the drawers are capable of holding both items.
Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable does not explicitly disclose a handle extending radially outward from the exterior sidewall and a cut-out portion extending longitudinally along an upper portion of the exterior sidewall adjacent to the handle.
Drab discloses a service cart for airlines wherein the drawer has a handle extending radially outward from the exterior sidewall (handle 85 extends outward from the drawer’s sidewall, Fig. 11) and a cut-out portion extending longitudinally along an upper portion of the exterior sidewall adjacent to the handle (drawer has a cut-out portion along an upper portion of the drawer’s sidewall for the lock cylinder 91, Fig. 11, where the broadest reasonable interpretation of “cut-out portion” includes a cut out portion that is filled with another component, col 6, lines 5-20).
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 Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable to incorporate the teachings of Drab and provide a handle on the drawer with a lock. Doing so would have the benefit of keeping objects within the drawer safe from intrusion.
Claim 2. Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable and Drab discloses the beverage system of claim 1, wherein the drawer is receivable within the interior storage cavity with at least one of the pod adapter and filter assembly positioned within the cavity (drawers are capable of receiving the pod adapter and filter assembly).
Claim 4. Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable and Drab discloses the beverage system of claim 1, wherein the drawer pod adapter and the filter assembly are positioned vertically within the cavity in the drawer (adapters and filter assembly are capable of being positioned vertically within the drawer).
Claim 7. Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable and Drab discloses the beverage system of claim 1, wherein the interior storage cavity is arranged vertically below a brew chamber of the housing (drawer is below the coffee maker 118, Fig. 13).
Claim 8. Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable and Drab discloses the beverage system of claim 1, wherein the interior storage cavity is partially defined by a base of the housing (part of 110 is the base of the cart, Fig. 1).
Claim 9. Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable and Drab discloses the beverage system of claim 1, wherein the drawer includes an outer door configured to cover the opening when the drawer is positioned within the interior storage cavity (outer sidewall of the drawer covers the interior portion of the cart galley, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable and Drab as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weidner (US 4076352 A).
Claim 3. Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable and Drab does not disclose the beverage system of claim 1, wherein the drawer includes at least one flexible tab configured to engage with a corresponding detent within the interior storage cavity.
Weidner discloses a drawer with a flexible tongue which is used to lock the drawer (claim 1).
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 Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable to incorporate the teachings of Weidner and have a flexible tongue to lock the drawer. Doing so would have the benefit of locking the drawers in place which can prevent it from sliding open.
Claim(s) 10-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu-Saymeh (US 11589701 B1) in view of Cable (US 20160367069 A1).
Claim 10. Abu-Saymeh discloses a beverage system (aircraft galley cart for hot beverages, abstract), comprising:
a housing (galley cart 102, Fig. 2) having a brew chamber (hot beverage module to hold the coffee maker 106, Fig. 1, col 4 lines 1-10) and an interior storage cavity (slots 108 and 110, Fig. 1) therein, the brew chamber and the interior cavity configured to receive a
configured to hold a brewing medium (coffee pods, col 4 lines 45-50) for brewing a beverage, the plurality of adapters including a
Abu-Saymeh does not disclose a filter adaptor or pod adapter for the coffee maker.
Cable discloses a coffee maker with multiple adapters for different sizes and drinks (par. 121) some of which may have filters (par. 161).
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 Abu-Saymeh to incorporate the teachings of Cable and have multiple adapters. Doing so would have the benefit of being able to make different size and types of drinks (par. 80, Cable).
Claim 11. Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable discloses the beverage system of claim 10, wherein the interior storage cavity is arranged vertically below the brew chamber (slots 108 and 110 are below the hot beverage module 106, Fig. 1).
Claim 12. Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable discloses the beverage system of claim 10, wherein a drawer defining a cavity therein is removably positioned within the interior storage cavity (drawer 124, Fig. 2).
Claim 13. Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable discloses the beverage system of claim 10, wherein the brew chamber and interior storage cavity are isolated from each another within the housing (drawer 124 is isolated from the hot beverage module slot 106, Fig. 2).
Claim 14. Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable discloses the beverage system of claim 10, wherein the brew chamber is accessible via a first opening positioned in a top surface of the housing (hot beverage module 104 has another opening on top of the cart, Fig. 2), and the interior storage cavity is accessible via a second opening positioned in a side surface of the housing (drawer 124 is accessible from a side surface, Fig. 2).
Claim 16. Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable discloses the beverage system of claim 10, wherein the pod adapter is configured to be arranged in the brew chamber simultaneously with the filter adaptor arranged in the interior storage cavity (the combined prior art results in the hot beverage machine being capable of using filter adaptors or pod adaptors, therefore, while the pod adaptor is within the brew chamber, the drawer is able to hold the filter adaptor within the interior cavity).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zelson (US 6253662 B1).
Claim 15. Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable does not disclose the beverage system of claim 14, wherein the first opening is arranged perpendicular to the second opening ().
Zelson discloses a coffee maker with the opening at the top of the machine for accessing the brew chamber (basket 31, Fig. 1).
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 Abu-Saymeh in view of Cable to incorporate the teachings of Zelson and have the hot beverage machine access the brew chamber from the top surface. Zelson demonstrates that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art to access the brew chamber from the top of the coffee maker and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make this feature based on design specifications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose a handle from the pod adaptor and filter assembly that can be received within the cut-out portion of the drawer.
Claims 17-20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not disclose a protrusion from the pod adaptor and filter assembly that can be received within the annular collar which is extending from the drawer and has a plurality of recesses.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights