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 .
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(s) 1 and 3-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiset in view of Fehr et al.
There is disclosed in Fiset an apparatus, wherein a plant material is mixed with a liquid to form an infused coffee product (col. 2, lns. 29-32); and an electromagnetic signal (ultra violet) 7, 9 is emitted to the infused product after the infusion, the signal being provided in a range of frequencies and in a series of on and off periods, to enhance the extraction.
Fehr describes (col. 4, lns. 61-75) the emission of electromagnetic signals to a beverage or other foodstuff, wherein the signals are emitted as a sequence of pulses.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the electromagnetic emission signal method of Fiset, with the sequence of pulses taught in Fehr, in order to establish a pattern which best allows for absorption of the signal by the beverage.
In regards to the use of a personal area network or the elements of claim 5, the recited means for emitting the electromagnetic signal is not functionally limiting. It has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 May 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Fiset reference fails to disclose providing pulses of light which are shorter than the period of time between the pulses.
Fiset, while not providing pulses of light, discloses a series of application periods that include on and off periods of time (col. 16, 17, 20).
While the exact time lengths are not disclosed, it is disclosed that the on and off periods are tailored to an individuals input or a consumer groups preferences. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the proper on and off time periods, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REGINALD L. ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1395. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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 on 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.
/REGINALD ALEXANDER/
Examiner
Art Unit 3761