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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 8, 12-13, and 15-16 have been amended. Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 14 are as originally presented. Therefore, claims 1-16 are currently pending and are considered herein.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 11/26/2025 have been entered. All previously set forth objections to the claims have been overcome.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8-10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claims 1, 3, 6-7, 11, and 14-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art references below.
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: “biasing mechanism” in claim 4.
The following 3-Prong Test is used to detail the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) pertaining to the aforementioned limitation:
The generic place holder, “mechanism,” is identified as a replacement for the generic “means for,” and is not indicative of any specific known, limiting feature.
“mechanism” is modified by the functional language “biasing.” The generic placeholder is set forth by the function it performs.
A lack of sufficient structure for achieving the claimed function follows the aforementioned limitation.
Thus, independent claim 4 and dependent claim 5 are given the broadest reasonable interpretation set forth by the specifications to mean:
“increase[ing] the weight or density of the plunger” or “the weight, in combination with the shaft, the handle, and the paddle, can have sufficient weight and density to exert a downward force greater than a buoyancy force of ice within the reservoir” (Applicant’s Specification, p. 11 para. 0045).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 12-16 recite “the plunger of claim …” which fails to further limit all of the limitations upon which is depends. See MPEP 608.01(i) and 37 CFR 1.75. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaskey (US 2088376 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kaskey discloses a reservoir for a beverage machine, the reservoir comprising:
a housing (container 50 and fig. 4 depicting fluid), the housing defining an opening along a top of the housing to receive fluid (see annotated figure below);
a lid (top member 70) arranged to cover the opening (refer to figs. 2 and 4, col. 2 ll. 32-35, and the annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image1.png
820
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the lid defining a hole therethrough (col. 2 ll. 34-40 and fig. 4);
and a plunger (fig. 3) comprising:
a shaft (rod 45) extending through the hole (col. 2 ll. 34-40);
a handle (handle 42) coupled to a first end of the shaft (fig. 3) and positioned above the lid (fig. 4); and
a perforated paddle (agitating member 46 with perforations 47, fig. 3) coupled a second end of the shaft (fig. 3) and positioned within the volume of the housing (fig. 4), the shaft of the plunger being vertically slidably movable through the hole defined by the lid to vertically move the perforated paddle within the volume (col. 2 ll. 34-40).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kaskey further discloses wherein the plunger is configured to move and retain a cold material towards an outlet of the reservoir. It is the examiner position that the lower region of the housing is contemplated by Kaskey to be kept at a lower temperature than the upper region (p.1 col. 1 ll. 10-14). Furthermore, the device of Kaskey is inherently capable of performing the function of moving and retaining cold material proximate the fluid outlet, as evidence by the vertical oscillatory motion of the plunger and the inverted conical structure of the paddle (refer to col. 2 ll. 34-40 and figs. 3 and 4). Such features in combination allow the insertion of addition cold material (ice, for example) within the housing and achieve the desired function of the device.
Regarding claim 8, Kaskey discloses a beverage reservoir comprising:
a housing (container 50) defining a volume to retain a fluid (fig. 4 depicting fluid inside the container), the housing defining an opening along a top of the housing to receive fluid (refer to the annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image1.png
820
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the housing defining a fluid outlet at a bottom of the housing (tubular outlet 56, refer to fig. 4);
a lid (top member 70) arranged to cover the opening (fig. 4); and
a plunger (fig. 3) and comprising a paddle (agitating member 46 with perforations 47, fig. 3) defining a profile substantially parallel to an inner wall of the housing (side profile of cylindrically shaped housing and circular paddle are parallel, refer to figs. 2-4), the plunger being movable relative to the lid to push material within the volume toward the fluid outlet (col. 2 ll. 34-40, wherein the motion of the paddle pushes fluid material towards the outlet);
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Kaskey further discloses wherein the plunger is configured to move and retain a cold material proximate the fluid outlet. It is the examiner position that the lower region of the housing is contemplated by Kaskey to be kept at a lower temperature than the upper region (p.1 col. 1 ll. 10-14). Furthermore, the device of Kaskey is inherently capable of performing the function of moving and retaining cold material proximate the fluid outlet, as evidence by the vertical oscillatory motion of the plunger and the inverted conical structure of the paddle (refer to col. 2 ll. 34-40 and figs. 3 and 4). Such features in combination allow the insertion of addition cold material (ice, for example) within the housing and achieve the desired function of the device.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Kaskey further discloses wherein the lid defines a hole (refer to fig. 4 and col. 2 ll. 34-40).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, Kaskey further discloses wherein the plunger is biased towards the fluid outlet at the bottom of the housing (refer to fig. 4, wherein the resting position of the shaft is at the bottom of the housing due to the weight of the plunger).
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Kaskey further discloses wherein the paddle includes a plurality of perforations (perforations 47 and fig. 3).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaskey (US 2088376 A) in view of Fromm (US 6283627 B1).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kaskey already discloses the perforations, however, remains silent to the perforations defined by the perforated paddle have a diameter between 4 millimeters and 6.5 millimeters. Instead, Fromm teaches the perforations (apertures 102) defined by the perforated paddle (mixing disk 18) have a diameter of approximately 3 mm (col. 7 ll. 18-20).
The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perforations by changing the diameter of the perforations to be between 4 millimeters and 6.5 millimeters. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular diameter (See Applicant’s Specification wherein the “size [referring to the perforations diameter] can vary based on the intended size of the cold material,” para. 0043). Furthermore, it appears the modified would work equally if made within the claimed range (Fromm: col. 7 ll. 20-21, where other diameters can be used).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaskey (US 2088376 A).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kaskey further discloses comprising a biasing mechanism configured to direct the plunger towards an outlet of the reservoir (wherein in the resting position the shaft is located at the bottom of the container, refer to claim 4). Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could reasonably infer from the disclosure of Kaskey, that the biasing mechanism in inherent to the weight of the shaft. It is the examiner’s position that that the density of the plunger is greater than that of water, allowing the plunger to sink towards the bottom of the container. Refer to MPEP 2144.01.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaskey (US 2088376 A) in view of Wright (US 2408463).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitation of claim 4, Kaskey already discloses the biasing mechanism however, remains silent wherein the biasing mechanism comprises a weight within the shaft, the weight being sufficient to produce a downward force to the plunger that is greater than a buoyancy force of ice within the reservoir.
Wright teaches the biasing mechanism comprises a weight (weights 21) within the shaft (refer to fig. 5), the weight being sufficient to produce a downward force to the plunger (col. 3 ll. 14-21 and figs. 1-2) that is greater than a buoyancy force of ice within the reservoir (col. 3 ll. 14-21, wherein the weight is described as lead, which has a greater density than frozen water and capable of producing a downward force greater than the buoyancy of ice in water).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include weights within the shaft. In doing so, the device of Kaskey is improved by having a means for further biasing the plunger at its resting position (as evidenced by Kaskey, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 12, Kaskey already discloses the plunger biased towards the fluid outlet, however, remains silent to the plunger comprises a weight within the shaft to bias the plunger towards the fluid outlet, the weight providing a downward force greater than a buoyancy force of ice within the housing.
Wright teaches the plunger comprises a weight (weight 210 within the shaft (refer to fig. 5) to bias the plunger towards the resting position (col. 3 ll. 14-21 and figs. 1-2), the weight providing a downward force greater than a buoyancy force of ice within the housing (col. 3 ll. 14-21, wherein the weight is described as lead, which has a greater density than frozen water and capable of producing a downward force greater than the buoyancy of ice in water).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include weights within the shaft. In doing so, the device of Kaskey is improved by having a means for further biasing the plunger at its resting position (as evidenced by Kaskey, fig. 4).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaskey (US 2088376 A) in view of Moore (US 2562433 A).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kaskey further discloses wherein the shaft comprises: an upper shaft connected to the handle; and a lower shaft connected to the perforated paddle (refer to the annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image2.png
278
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, remains silent to the lower shaft defining a passage extending between the upper shaft and paddle, the lower shaft and the upper shaft being attached to one another by a fastener.
Moore teaches the lower shaft (tubular element 78) defining a passage extending between the upper shaft (104) and paddle (central portion 50, refer to the annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image3.png
480
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the lower shaft and the upper shaft being attached to one another by a fastener (pin 106).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include an upper and lower shaft connected by a fastener. Doing so, allows for disassembly, which advantageously facilitates easy cleaning and replacement of damaged parts.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 6, the already modified device further teaches wherein the lower shaft is hollow (refer to the annotated figure from Moore below)
PNG
media_image4.png
515
550
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and defines a hole configured to break a vacuum or to release fluid from the passage (refer to Moore: col. 7 ll. 20-25, discussing the space 66 is under partial vacuum). It is the examiner’s position that a hollow passage under partial vacuum is capable of releasing fluid from the passage, since full vacuum is not achieved.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaskey (US 2088376 A) in view of Ghidini (US 7416327 B2).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, Kaskey further discloses wherein the plunger further comprises: a shaft (rod 45) extending through the hole (col. 2 ll. 34-40 and fig. 4), the shaft having a diameter less than that of the hole (refer to fig. 4), the shaft being vertically slidably movable through the hole to vertically move the paddle within the volume (col. 2 ll. 34-40); and a handle at an upper end of the shaft (refer to fig. 4), however, remains silent wherein the handle has a larger cross-sectional area than the hole.
Ghidini teaches a shaft (vertical rod 14) extending through the hole (hole 23) and a handle (knob 16) at an upper end of the shaft having a larger cross sectional area than the hole (refer to fig. 2). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle to be of a larger diameter than the hole as doing so allows for a means for setting the lower most resting position of the paddle, which better utilizes the interior space of the container.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaskey and Ghidini (US 7416327 B2), as applied in claim 11, further in view of Moore (US 2562433 A).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, the already modified device already teaches wherein the shaft comprises: an upper shaft connected to the handle; and a lower shaft connected to the paddle (refer to the annotated figure of Kaskey below, wherein the handle of Kaskey is modified with the handle of Ghidini).
PNG
media_image2.png
278
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the already modified device remains silent to wherein lower shaft defining a passage extending between the upper shaft and paddle, the lower shaft and the upper shaft attached to one another by a fastener.
Moore teaches the lower shaft (tubular element 78) defining a passage extending between the upper shaft (104) and paddle (central portion 50, refer to the annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image3.png
480
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the lower shaft and the upper shaft being attached to one another by a fastener (pin 106).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include an upper and lower shaft connected by a fastener. Doing so, allows for disassembly, which advantageously facilitates easy cleaning and replacement of damaged parts.
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 14, the already modified device further teaches wherein the lower shaft is hollow and defines a hole configured to release fluid from the passage (refer to Moore: col. 7 ll. 20-25, wherein the space 66 is under partial vacuum). It is the examiner’s position that a hollow passage under partial vacuum is capable of releasing fluid from the passage, since full vacuum is not achieved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Radow (US 11874054 B2) and McLean (US 9392900 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER STEVEN PARISI whose telephone number is (571)270-5490. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00 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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S. PARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754