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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“ion” should be corrected to --on-- in [PG Pub: 0046].
“(piercing function 1) described above)” should be corrected to --piercing function 1 described above)-- in [PG Pub: 0048].
“(preparation process function 2) described above)” should be corrected to –preparation process function 2 described above)-- in [PG Pub: 0048].
“is tear” should be corrected to --is torn-- in [PG Pub: 0050 (two instances) and 0052 (one instance)].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, “the device” should be corrected to --the beverage preparation device--.
In claim 4, “the current value” should be corrected to --the measured value of the current--.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
The beverage preparation device in claim 1, regarding the function “introduce a fluid in the form of a jet inside a volume of the pack” has been interpreted as requiring a needle to inject water through a piercing hole [PG Pub: 0045] and functional equivalents. However, notably, no structure has been disclosed for performing the entire claimed function, as, in order to introduce a fluid into the pack, structure such as a pressurized water source or pump would be needed and have not been disclosed.
The engaging part in claim 1, which is interpreted as a piercing element that connects the beverage preparation device to the spout, and is configured as either a needle to inject fluid [PG Pub: 0045] or as the piercing elements 201 and 202, which are illustrated as sharp projections in Fig. 2B [PG Pub: 0046] and functional equivalents.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recited limitation “beverage preparation device” invokes claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The written description does not provide any structure that performs the entire claimed function of “introduce a fluid in the form of a jet inside a volume of the pack” and thus lacks adequate written description. Specifically, no structure such as a water source, pump, or any other structure necessary for introducing a fluid jet has been disclosed.
Regarding claims 2-6, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “beverage preparation device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no clear linkage between the function “introduce a fluid in the form of a jet inside a volume of the pack” and any disclosed structure. Specifically, no structure such as a water source, pump, or any other structure necessary for introducing a fluid has been disclosed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claims 2-6, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
413
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Fig. 6 disclosed by Weijers, annotated to show details of the pack and spout.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weijers (US 2013/0011521 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weijers discloses a system for preparing a food or beverage product (capsule 500 with body 501 and cap 502, connectable to an apparatus 1 [abstract]; see Annotated Figure 1), the system comprising a beverage preparation device (apparatus 1 [Fig. 12, 0085]) and further comprising a pack (capsule 500 [Fig. 6, 0071]), the pack comprising a spout comprising at least two parts (cap 502 with outlet 543, inlets 540-542, and covers 534 [Figs. 6 and 9A-C, 0071, 0076, 0082]; each of the inlets and the outlet are integral parts of the spout (cap 502) and cover 534 may cover any of the inlets and/or outlets of cap 502 [0076]) relatively moveable with respect to each other such that at least one of the two parts of the spout comprises a member (cover 534 [Fig. 6, 0076]) presenting a measurable resistance to being connected to an engaging part (outlet 6 [Figs. 13A-E [0086]) of the beverage preparation device (when the capsule is used, a product is “forcefully injected into” the cap 502 via inlet 540-542, which will perforate the cover 534 [0076]; during operation, an inlet 540-542 is fluidly connected to outlet 6 on shell 3 of the apparatus 1 [Figs. 13A-E, 0086]; in order for this connection to occur, cover 534 over inlet 540-542 will be perforated (either by piercing or by pressurization) by outlet 6, and thus, cover 534 will present a resistance to this connection; see Annotated Figure 2) and/or to relative movement of the two parts of the spout (during operation, pressure is applied to the capsule via a plunger 7 of the apparatus 1 which will cause the capsule 500 to reach a sufficient internal pressure to “rupture or tear away cover 534” from outlet 543 which initiates dispensing [0086]; because cover 534 requires a sufficient pressure to be torn away from (i.e., move relatively to) outlet 543, it presents a resistance to this movement), and the pack further comprising a container (body 501 [Fig. 6, 0072]) configured to contain a composition to prepare the food or beverage product (body 501 contains a product to be prepared [0072, 0086]), and the beverage preparation device is configured to introduce a fluid in the form of a jet inside a volume of the pack (a product is “forcefully injected” into the capsule [0076]; more specifically, the outlet 6 of the apparatus 1 delivers a fluid into the capsule [Fig. 13B, 0088]).
PNG
media_image2.png
431
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2. Figs 13C and 13D disclosed by Weijers, annotated to show details of pack interaction with beverage preparation device.
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.
PNG
media_image3.png
441
740
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3. Fig. 5 disclosed by Mori, annotated to show details of motor current curves.
Claims 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weijers (US 2013/0011521 A1) in view of Mori (US 2015/0056343 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Weijers discloses each of the limitations of claim 1 (see above 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above). Weijers further discloses that the beverage preparation device may comprise a controller [0013]. The controller is disclosed to be of use in storing instructions and/or recipes or for reading instructions or markings on the capsule [0013]. However, Weijers does not expressly disclose that the control unit is configured for measuring along time the resistance of the connection of the beverage preparation device to the spout and the resistance of the relative movement of the two parts of the spout.
Mori teaches a brewing unit (brewing unit 2 [Fig. 1, 0102]) comprising a motor (electric motor 3 [Fig. 1, 0102]) which drives a mechanism to close the brewing unit and pierce an ingredient-containing capsule (capsule 30 and piercing means 15 [Figs. 8-12, 0104, 0182-0183]; opening/closing function: [0131]). The brewing unit also comprises a control unit (control unit 11 [Fig. 1, 0102]) that measures as a function of time the current of the motor while it is driving the piercing motion into the capsule (see Annotated Figure 3 [Mori: 0103]). Mori further teaches that the current increases due to the piercing of the capsule as well as frictional resistance of the capsule against closure [0182].
Weijers discloses a control unit in the beverage preparation device but does not disclose that the control unit is configured for measuring the resistance of the connection of the spout to the beverage preparation device, nor the resistance of the relative movement of the two parts of the spout. Mori teaches a control unit which is configured to measure the current of a motor as it drives the resistive movements of the capsule. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the teaching of Mori for the control unit and motor-driven closing and piercing mechanism and applied this teaching to the beverage preparation device disclosed by Weijers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Specifically, the driving motor taught by Mori would be added to the apparatus disclosed by Weijers and it would both close the shell 3 of apparatus 1, engaging outlet 6 with inlet 540-542, and drive the plunger 7, which applies the pressure needed to tear away cover 534 on outlet 543 (Weijers: [Figs. 6 and 13A-E, 0086]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the motor taught by Mori to the apparatus disclosed by Weijers for the convenience of automated loading and dispensing of the capsule in the apparatus. Additionally, one would have been motivated to add the control unit functionality taught by Mori to the beverage preparation device disclosed by Weijers because the motor current curves “can be used as a reference set to detect possible disturbances of an opening movement of assemblies 13,14, e.g. jamming of a human body part such as a finger between a housing of the machine and a therein movable assembly of brewing unit 2” thereby making the device safer and preventing device breakdowns [Mori: 0145]. In the case of the apparatus of Weijers, it would be possible to jam a human body part such as a finger between shells 3 and 4 [Figs. 13A-E], which would be detected and avoided by using the control unit taught by Mori. Further, Mori discloses that when a capsule is inserted improperly or damaged, “its characteristics do not correspond to an expected capsule generated-force, [and] a different closure force will be experienced” [Mori: 0036]. In this sense, if a damaged capsule is inserted into the apparatus disclosed by Weijers, it would be identified by the control unit taught by Mori via inconsistencies in the force generated during the perforation of the inlet cover or during the pressure-induced tearing away of the outlet cover. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification because both references deal with a device configured to pierce an ingredient-containing capsule for the purpose of making a beverage. Further, Weijers discloses a controller which is capable of storing machine operating instructions, and the motor taught by Mori would be capable of closing the shell to engage the capsule and using the plunger to initiate dispensing in the apparatus disclosed by Weijers (plunger 7, shell 3, and outlet 6 [Figs. 13A-E, 0086]).
Regarding claim 3, Weijers in view of Mori (with citations directed to Mori unless otherwise noted) teaches that the beverage preparation device comprises a control unit (control unit 11 [Fig. 1, 0102]) configured for measuring along time, during the food or beverage preparation, the current provided by a driving motor (electric motor 3 [Fig. 1, 0102]; Figs. 5 and 5a show motor current over time) driving the connection of the device to the spout of the pack and also driving the movement of the two parts of the spout relative to each other. In the combination device, the motor taught by Mori drives the closing of the shell, which connects the outlet of the apparatus with the inlet of the cap and also drives the plunger of the apparatus to pressurize the capsule and tear away the cover from the outlet of the cap, as detailed with respect to claim 2 (Weijers: shell 3, outlet 6 of apparatus 1, inlet 540-542, cap 502, plunger 7, cover 534, outlet 543 of cap 502 [Figs. 6 and 13A-E]).
Regarding claim 6, Weijers in view of Mori (with citations directed to Mori unless otherwise noted) teaches that the control unit monitors the resistance profile along time to determine the phase or stage in the food or beverage preparation process. As detailed with respect to claim 2, the control unit taught by Mori measures the current of the motor during the beverage preparation process, and further, the current increases due to the piercing of the capsule as well as frictional resistance of the capsule against closure [0182], thus creating a current profile, which is reflective of capsule resistance to movement. Moreover, Mori teaches that specific points in the profile reflect certain stages within the beverage preparation process. For example, peak 403 [Figs. 5 and 5a] shows when the capsule is forced out of an intermediate position [0153] and 405, 406, and 407 show an increase in current reflective of deformation and progressive piercing of the capsule [0182]. For the combination detailed with respect to claim 2, the profile created for the motor current driving the connection of the beverage preparation device to the spout and driving the compression of the capsule would reflect the resistance of the capsule to the movement in these stages.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weijers (US 2013/0011521 A1) in view of Mori (US 2015/0056343 A1), and further in view of Evans (US 2017/0253403 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Weijers in view of Mori teaches each of the limitations of claim 3 and specifically teaches that motor current is reflective of capsule resistance to motion (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2 above for details of relationship between current and resistance). However, Weijers in view of Mori does not teach that the control unit is configured to transform the current value of the driving motor into a motor torque or a resistance force value along time, during the food or beverage preparation.
Evans teaches a device for pressing a capsule to prepare a beverage (juicer 10 and juicer cartridge 500 [Figs. 1-4, 0065, 0068]). The device includes a motor (motor 204 [Figs. 13 and 14, 0128]) to drive the pressing movement and a controller which monitors the force and/or current of the motor (“the force applied by the motor may be controlled by monitoring and controlling a current applied to the motor” [0139]; controller 98 is discussed in [0160]). Evans further teaches that the control unit (controller 98) is configured to transform the current value of the driving motor into a resistance force value along time, during the food or beverage preparation (“the force may be linearly, or non-linearly, related to the [motor] current such that the force may be calculated by multiplying the current by an appropriate conversion factor” [0139]; the force discussed here is the pressing (i.e., resistance) force of the juicer).
Weijers in view of Mori teaches a beverage preparation system wherein a resistance to motion of the spout of an ingredient-containing pack is reflected in a profile of the current of the driving motor. Evans teaches that, for a motor-driven beverage preparation device, the current of the motor can be converted into a force reflective of the resistance to motion of an ingredient-containing pack. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the teaching of Evans for converting motor current into resistance force to modify the beverage preparation device taught by Weijers in view of Mori before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to convert the current of the motor into a resistance force because “it may be beneficial to apply different forces to a juicer cartridge during different stages of a pressing operation” [Evans: 0140]. For example, regarding the combination of Weijers in view of Mori, it may be beneficial to apply different forces during the connection of the spout to the beverage preparation device and the compression of the capsule. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification because both Evans and the combination system deal with monitoring and controlling parameters measured from a motor driving a resistive motion in a beverage preparation device.
Regarding claim 5, Weijers in view of Mori and further in view of Evans teaches that the control unit is configured to compare the resistance value or the motor torque value with a referential threshold resistance or torque value, respectively, for a pack not yet used. Mori teaches a reference threshold value for motor current which reflects a closure for a beverage preparation process in which no capsule has been inserted (Mori: curves 41 and 41a [Figs. 5 and 5a, 0161]). Mori further compares this reference threshold value to the motor current for a beverage brewing process in which a capsule has been provided and is pierced during the process (i.e., not yet used) (Mori: curves 40 and 40a represent a beverage preparation process wherein a capsule has been provided and these curves are plotted alongside curves 41 and 41a for comparison [Figs. 5 and 5a, 0142]). In the combination of Weijers in view of Mori and further in view of Evans detailed above with respect to claim 4, the motor current and current threshold value would be converted into resistance force values.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA RAE BOSS whose telephone number is (571)270-0274. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/MARISSA RAE BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights