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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/06/2023, 01/11/2024, 02/24/2026, and 08/03/2026 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one engagement feature.” It is not clear what structurally comprises an engagement feature, Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to include the limitations of claim 4 which structurally defines the at least one engagement feature.
Claims 1 and 6 recites the limitation “at least one corresponding engagement feature.” It is not clear what structurally comprises a corresponding engagement feature, Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to include the limitations of claim 4 which structurally defines the at least one corresponding engagement feature.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “first/second engagement feature.” It is not clear what structurally comprises a first/second engagement feature, Examiner suggests amending claim to include any structural limitations which structurally defines the first/second engagement feature.
Claims 3 and 9 recites the limitation “first/second corresponding engagement feature.” It is not clear what structurally comprises a first/second corresponding engagement feature, Examiner suggests amending claim to include any structural limitations which structurally defines the first/second corresponding engagement feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 6, 8-10, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teremoto et al (JP 2016202325 A).
Regarding claim 1, Teremoto discloses a beverage system, comprising:
a housing (Fig. 3 #1 main body) having a brew chamber (Fig. 3 #50 container holding unit) defining a cavity (Inside of Fig. 3 #50 container holding unit) therein;
an opening (Shown in the figure below) arranged in the housing and configured to allow access to the brew chamber (Fig. 3 #50 container holding unit);
a lid (Fig. 3 #30 lid body) configured to selectively cover the opening (Shown in the figure below) of the brew chamber (Fig. 3 #50 container holding unit), the lid (Fig. 3 #30 lid body) having at least one engagement feature (Fig. 3 #38 retaining pin);
and a filter assembly (Fig. 5 #40b raw material container) selectively receivable within the cavity (Inside of Fig. 3 #50 container holding unit) of the brew chamber (Fig. 3 #50 container holding unit),
the filter assembly (Fig. 5 #40b raw material container) comprising: a lower portion (Fig. 5 and #44 extraction cup) defining a cavity (Inside of Fig. 5 #44 extraction cup) therein configured to receive a brewing ingredient;
and an upper portion (Fig. 5 #43 cup lid and #44b upward wall portion) arranged over the cavity (Inside of Fig. 5 #44 extraction cup) of the lower portion (Fig. 5 #44 extraction cup), the upper portion (Fig. 5 #43 cup lid and #44b upward wall portion) including at least one corresponding engagement feature (Fig. 44g pair of position regulating partitions) configured to receive the at least one engagement feature (Fig. 3 #38 left retaining pin) of the lid (Fig. 3 #30 lid body) therein.
PNG
media_image1.png
548
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Teremoto teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Teremoto teaches wherein the lid (Fig. 3 #30 lid body) includes a first engagement feature (Fig. 3 #38 left retaining pin) and a second engagement feature (Fig. 3 #38 right retaining pin) arranged opposite each other.
Regarding claim 3, Teremoto teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), Teremoto teaches wherein the upper portion (Fig. 5 #43 cup lid and #44b upward wall portion) includes a first corresponding engagement feature (Fig. 44g one of the pair of position regulating partitions) and a second corresponding engagement feature (Fig. 44g other one of the pair of position regulating partitions) arranged opposite each other.
Regarding claim 6, Teremoto teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Teremoto teaches wherein the at least one corresponding engagement feature (Fig. 44g pair of position regulating partitions) is positioned on a raised projection (Shown in the figure below) extending upward from a top surface of the upper portion (Fig. 5 #43 cup lid and #44b upward wall portion).
PNG
media_image2.png
419
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Teremoto teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Teremoto teaches wherein the lid (Fig. 3 #30 lid body) includes a projection (Fig. 3 #36 central packing) including a first fluid outlet (Fig. 3 # 35 discharge port) therein.
Regarding claim 9, Teremoto teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), and Teremoto teaches wherein the projection (Fig. 3 #36 central packing) is positioned between a first corresponding engagement feature (Fig. 3 #38 left retaining pin) and a second corresponding engagement feature (Fig. 3 #38 right retaining pin)arranged opposite each other.
Regarding claim 10, Teremoto teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Teremoto teaches wherein the upper portion (Fig. 5 #43 cup lid and #44b upward wall portion) of the filter assembly includes an indication marker (Fig. 7(b) #45 protrusion piece) configured to indicate a position of the upper portion within the brew chamber (Page 11 last para. ---"In addition, in the coffee maker 100 concerning this embodiment, the protrusion piece 45 which protrudes below is provided in the front-end | tip part of the holding part 43g of the watering board 43 (refer FIG.9 (b)), and the raw material container 40b is a main-body part. When it is correctly attached to the drip unit 11, a detection piece (not shown) arranged in the main body unit 1 is pushed down. The main body 1 can detect whether or not the raw material container 40b is correctly placed on the drip portion 11 by detecting the pressing of the detection piece.”).
Regarding claim 21, Teremoto teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), and Teremoto teaches wherein the brew basket includes a second fluid outlet (The Fig. 5 #44 extraction cup is lined with Fig. 5 #44d mesh member having a plurality of passages which allows fluid to pass therethrough.).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teremoto et al (JP 2016202325 A) as applied to claim 1, in view of Anthony et al (US 2021/0120999).
Regarding claim 4, Teremoto teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the at least one engagement feature of the lid comprises a spring-loaded projection, and the at least one corresponding engagement feature of the filter assembly comprises at least one detent.
Nonetheless, Anthony in the same field of endeavor being beverage brewing systems teaches wherein the at least one engagement feature of the lid comprises a spring-loaded projection (Fig. 22C #118 spring biased pin), and the at least one corresponding engagement feature of the filter assembly comprises at least one detent (Fig. 22C #120 opening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Teremoto by incorporating the spring-loaded projection and detent as taught by Anthony for the benefit of retaining the lid in a closed position.
Regarding claim 7, Teremoto teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the upper portion is configured to be secured to the lid such that the upper portion is removed from the lower portion when the lid transitions from a closed position to an open position.
Nonetheless, Anthony teaches wherein the upper portion is configured to be secured to the lid such that the upper portion is removed from the lower portion when the lid transitions from a closed position to an open position (The figure below shows the upper portion secured to the lid with the upper portion removed from the lower portion while the lid is in an open position.).
PNG
media_image3.png
426
344
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Teremoto by incorporating the upper portion secured to and movable the lid as taught by Anthony for the benefit of accessing the brew chamber while the lid is in the open position.
Regarding claim 11, Teremoto teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the at least one engagement feature is arranged within a recessed cavity of the lid.
Nonetheless, Anthony teaches wherein the at least one engagement feature (Fig. 22C #118 spring biased pin) is arranged within a recessed cavity (Shown in the figure below) of the lid.
PNG
media_image4.png
464
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Teremoto by incorporating the at least one engagement feature arranged within a recessed cavity as taught by Anthony for the benefit of providing a space where the spring and pin may move between unlocked and locked positions.
Claim(s) 5 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teremoto et al (JP 2016202325 A) as applied to claim 1, in view of Rijskamp et al (US 10,130,206).
Regarding claim 5, Teremoto teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Teremoto teaches wherein the lower portion (Fig. 5 #44 extraction cup) of the filter assembly is a brew basket configured to allow fluid flow therethrough (The Fig. 5 #44 extraction cup is lined with Fig. 5 #44d mesh member which allows fluid to pass therethrough.),
However, Teremoto does not teach the upper portion is a shower head, the shower head being configured to receive fluid through an opening therein and to distribute fluid into the brew basket via a first plurality of openings positioned opposite the opening.
Nonetheless, Rijskamp in the same field of endeavor being beverage brewing devices teaches the upper portion (Fig. 1 #20 lid) is a shower head (Fig. 1 #20 is shown with a plurality of fluid supply openings. This structural configuration is consistent with the known definition of a shower head.), the shower head being configured to receive fluid through an opening (Col. 9 lines 63-67 ---" These liquid supply openings are connected with the liquid supply and serve for injecting the liquid (preferably hot water) into the interior of the brewing unit 10 as soon as the lid 20 is closed and the brewing process is started.”) therein and to distribute fluid into the brew basket via a first plurality of openings (Fig. 1 #26 plurality of liquid supply openings) positioned opposite the opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Teremoto by incorporating the lid as taught by Rijskamp for the benefit of sealing the brewing chamber.
Regarding claim 22, Teremoto in view of Rijskamp teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), and Teremoto teaches wherein the brew basket includes a first handle (Fig. 5 #44e grip part) extending radially outward from the brew basket.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teremoto et al (JP 2016202325 A) in view of Rijskamp et al (US 2021/0120999) as applied to claim 5, further in view of Psarologos et al (US 2018/0220832).
Regarding claim 23, Teremoto in view of Rijskamp teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), but does not teach wherein the shower head includes a second handle configured to be positioned adjacent to the first handle when the showerhead is positioned above the cavity of the brew basket.
Nonetheless, Psarologos in the same field of endeavor being beverage brewing devices teaches wherein the shower head includes a second handle (Fig. 15 #1505 handle) configured to be positioned adjacent to the first handle when the showerhead is positioned above the cavity of the brew basket.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Teremoto in view of Rijskamp by incorporating the handle as taught by Psarologos for the benefit of allowing the showerhead to move with a wide range of motions relative to the filter basket.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teremoto et al (JP 2016202325 A) in view of Rijskamp et al (US 2021/0120999) as applied to claim 5, further in view of Van Der Woning et al (US 10,194,768).
Regarding claim 23, Teremoto in view of Rijskamp teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), but does not teach wherein the shower head further comprises a second plurality of openings positioned radially from the first plurality of openings.
Nonetheless, Van Der Woning in the same field of endeavor being beverage brewing devices teaches wherein the shower head further comprises a second plurality of openings (Fig. 3 #54 second outlet openings) positioned radially from the first plurality of openings (Fig. 3 #50 first outlet opening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Teremoto in view of Rijskamp by incorporating second plurality of openings as taught by Van Der Woning for the benefit of having a selection of opening through which liquid can be dispensed into the brewing chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
