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 Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: two elements are designated with the numeral 101, pg. 9, line 13 recites “heated water 101” and pg. 11, line 10 recites “securing element 101”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “101” has been used to designate both "heated water 101" in Fig. 5 and "securing element 101" in Fig. 8. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show in any of the figures a “filter housing 72” as described in pg. 8, line 1 of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: all recitations of "insert" need to be replaced with "brewing insert". Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 5 are further objected to for the following informalities: the recitation found in line 11 of claim 1 "the interior of the lower chamber body" should be replaced with "the lower chamber body interior", line 13 of claim 1 "the interior of the lower chamber" should be replaced with "the lower chamber body interior", line 22 of claim 1 "the interior of the upper chamber" should be replaced with "the upper chamber interior", and line 2 of claim 5 "the interior of the lower chamber" should be replaced with "the lower chamber interior". Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 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 2 recites the limitation “the insert interior comprises ground coffee”. It is not clear if the brewing insert is made of ground coffee. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to: “further comprising ground coffee in the brewing insert interior”.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Maxi MyClean Moka Pot, a lightweight, easy to pack, and healthy titanium coffee maker” video published online on Aug. 20, 2022 (retrieved on 1/13/2026 from URL www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSUUrS0J3kc, hereinafter referred to as “Maxi”) in view of US Patent 5894785 by Molinari (“Molinari”).
Regarding claim 1, Maxi teaches a moka pot (video title) comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (0:41)]
PNG
media_image1.png
1115
1470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a lower chamber (video screenshot at 0:41) comprising:
a body defined by a bottom face operably connected to a sidewall to form an interior with an open top (see annotated screenshot at 0:41 showing the lower chamber body and first attachment);
a first attachment defined by a lower edge secured about an upper circumference of a top edge of the body (video screenshot at 0:41), and an upper face comprising a horizontal ledge positioned about a circumference of the upper face (video screenshot at 0:41);
[AltContent: textbox (0:46)]
PNG
media_image2.png
1130
1458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a brewing insert comprising a top edge, opposed bottom edge, and an interior, with a peripheral flange adjacent to the top edge of the brewing insert (see annotated screenshot at 0:46), wherein the brewing insert is configured to fit within the interior of the lower chamber body (brewing insert is sized to rest on the peripheral flange of the lower chamber first attachment horizontal ledge);
[AltContent: textbox (0:45[img-media_image3.png])]
PNG
media_image4.png
1114
1459
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a lower pipe (annotated screenshot at 0:45) positioned within the interior of the lower chamber body, the lower pipe in fluid communication with the lower chamber interior and the brewing insert (lower pipe is positioned within the lower chamber body when the brewing insert peripheral flange is resting on lower chamber first attachment);
an upper filter positioned within the brewing insert interior adjacent to the top edge and a lower filter positioned within the brewing insert at the bottom edge (see screenshot at 0:46);
[AltContent: textbox (0:11[img-media_image3.png])]
PNG
media_image5.png
1140
1472
media_image5.png
Greyscale
an upper chamber defined by a bottom face operably connected to a sidewall to form an interior with an open top (see annotated screenshot at 0:11), the upper chamber including a second attachment positioned about a circumference of the upper chamber adjacent to the bottom face and wherein the second attachment includes one or more grooves or threads that releasably attach with the grooves or threads on the first attachment to join the upper and lower chambers;
[AltContent: textbox (0:37[img-media_image3.png])]
PNG
media_image6.png
1148
1468
media_image6.png
Greyscale
an upper pipe positioned within the interior of the upper chamber, the upper pipe comprising an outlet (coffee is seen coming out of the outlet of upper pipe shown at beginning of video between 0:00-0:04);
a sealing ring positioned between the insert and the lower chamber (see annotated screenshot above at 0:46);
wherein the sealing ring and first and second attachments provide a double sealing of the upper and lower chambers (sealing ring is fitted over the peripheral flange to form a seal between the lower chamber, insert and upper chamber).
While Maxi discloses a protrusion on the first attachment for securing the top and bottom chambers it does not expressly disclose one or more grooves or threads positioned adjacent to the body sidewall.
PNG
media_image7.png
755
561
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
532
661
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, Molinari teaches an analogous moka pot (Fig. 2), wherein the bottom chamber has one or more grooves or threads (Fig. 3, col. 2, lines 45-53: “lower part 5 comprises an externally threaded cylindrical upper neck 11, while the upper part comprises an internally threaded cylindrical lower neck 12”).
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Maxi teaches a securing element that differs from the claimed grooves or threads because the protrusion of the first attachment is a singular dent for mating with the grooves of the second attachment. The singular dent of Maxi and the threads of Molinari both perform the function of securing the bottom portion of a moka pot with the upper portion. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the singular dent of Maxi with the threads of Molinari to achieve predictable results because both references deal with moka pots that function in the same manner securing together.
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 the securing mechanism of Maxi by replacing the singular dent with threads because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Maxi further teaches wherein the insert interior comprises ground coffee (video shows coffee being made at the beginning).
Regarding claim 3, Maxi further teaches the upper and lower filters are mesh filters (see screenshot above at 0:46 shows both upper and lower filters are a mesh material).
Regarding claim 4, Maxi further teaches at least one of the upper chamber, lower chamber, or insert are constructed from titanium (title of video is for a titanium mocha pot).
Regarding claim 5, Maxi further teaches the insert includes a safety vent to vent excess pressure from the interior of the lower chamber (screenshot of video at 0:45 shows the safety vent).
Regarding claim 6, Maxi further teaches the upper pipe includes an upper anti-splash dome (see screenshot above at 0:11).
Regarding claim 7, Maxi does not expressly disclose a recess formed between the lower face of the upper chamber and the upper face of the insert.
PNG
media_image9.png
707
855
media_image9.png
Greyscale
However, Molinari teaches an analogous moka pot (Fig. 2) comprising a recess (Fig. 4 measurement amount T) formed between the lower face of the upper chamber (upper chamber 8) and the upper face of the insert (Fig. 4, intermediate receiver 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a recess in the moka pot of Maxi as taught by Molinari. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a recess in order to allow the use of a permeable bag of ground coffee, see col. 4, lines 21-26: “amount T is such that when the two parts 5 and 6 are connected together, and the upper edge of the portion 14 has hence been brought against the gasket 17, the over-piece s displaces the bag 20 downwards to push it completely into the portion 14”.
Regarding claim 8, Maxi further teaches a removable lid (screenshot at 0:37 shows lid removed).
Regarding claim 9, the recitation: “wherein the first and second attachments are attached to the lower and upper chambers via welding” is a product by process limitation. According to MPEP § 2113, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In this case both the first attachment and second attachment are joined with their respective lower and upper chambers (see screenshot of video at 0:41 points out a seam showing the first attachment as a separate piece but joined with the lower chamber), these pieces are indistinguishable from something that is welded.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Maxi further teaches the moka pot including a handle and wherein the handle is foldable (see screenshot at 0:50).
[AltContent: textbox (0:50[img-media_image3.png])]
PNG
media_image10.png
1138
1467
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Maxi MyClean Moka Pot, a lightweight, easy to pack, and healthy titanium coffee maker” video published online on Aug. 20, 2022 (retrieved on 1/13/2026 from URL www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSUUrS0J3kc, hereinafter referred to as “Maxi”) and US Patent 5894785 by Molinari (“Molinari”) in further view of CN 206006884 by Sheng et al. (“Sheng”). Please see attached machine translation of Sheng for reference.
Regarding claim 12, Maxi does not expressly disclose at least one of the upper chamber, lower chamber, insert have a thickness of about 0.01-0.1 inches.
However, Sheng teaches an analogous titanium cooking pot (Abstract), having a thickness of about 0.01-0.1 inches (top of page 3: “thickness of the boiler body is 2.15mm” which is approximately 0.084 inches).
In this case Maxi teaches a titanium moka pot but fails to disclose the thickness, Sheng also teaches a titanium cooking device that would be under comparable conditions as Maxi. It would have been predictable to use the thicknesses of Sheng in the moka pot of Maxi because both references deal with titanium cookware. 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 the moka pot of Maxi to include a thickness of about 0.01-0.1 inches as taught by Sheng because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W HATTEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/DANIEL WARD HATTEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761