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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 states “loading each portion of the dose of the extraction material into a different extraction chamber a plurality of extraction chambers formed within an extraction device”. There appears to be words missing or a typo with the phrase “into a different extraction chamber a plurality…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0125068 (Murphy) (cited on IDS filed 05/17/2024) in view of KR 20110110780 (Camera) alone, or alternatively further in view of US 20230233015 (Steiner) (cited on IDS filed 03/27/2024).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 18, Murphy discloses a method of preparing an extract by loading an extraction material into an extraction cell (chamber), introducing a flow of extraction medium through the extraction cell and withdrawing the medium (extract) (abstract). Murphy discloses an internal chamber of the extraction cell can have a length and an average width along the length and where the ratio of the length to average diameter is between 0.75:1 and 2:1 (0.75-2.0) [0006]. This ratio falls within the claimed ratio of 0.15-3.0. Regarding the use of a plurality of the extraction cells, Murphy states that “It is also anticipate[d] that multiple extraction cells 221 can arranged in series or parallel to module capacity” [0075, 0098], thus while no illustration is provided with multiple extraction cells, the disclosure of Murphy clearly conveys this embodiment to one of ordinary skill, thus obviating the use of a plurality of extraction cells in series or parallel.
Regarding the volume of the extraction cells recited in claims 1, 22 and 24, Murphy discloses the interior 109 of the extraction cell 100 can also be characterized by a volume. The volume can range from 10 ml to 30 ml and in certain embodiments between 20 ml to 25 ml which can be used in combination with the interior aspect ratio AR described above [0030]. The range of 10-30 ml corresponds to 10,000-30,000 mm3 which overlaps with the claimed range of 200-20,000 mm3 (0.2-20 ml). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the limitation of receiving a dose for preparing a double shot of espresso wherein the dose comprises between 13 and 19 grams of extraction material, Murphy discloses preparing espresso but does not disclose the specific dosage. Camera discloses a method for producing a single shot or double shot espresso and that a typical automatic espresso machine is designed to brew a double shot espresso with about 12-18 grams of ground coffee and a single shot uses about 6-9 grams for a single shot. Depending upon whether a single shot or double shot of espresso is desired, one of ordinary skill would have selected the appropriate dosage as disclosed by Camera for use in the device of Murphy. Splitting the dose into equal portions would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the case of using parallel chambers as suggested by Murphy and the particular amount added to each cell is seen to be an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill. Absent a showing of unexpected results, the particular amount selected for extraction across multiple chambers is seen to be an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill.
Alternatively, Steiner discloses a coffee brewing device comprising two brewing cylinders (24) arranged in parallel into which predetermined quantities of beverage powder are filled [0029] and simultaneously producing two portions of coffee [0006]. Thus, it is known in the art to provide parallel chambers in a single device for extraction of coffee and to load portions of coffee into each chamber. While Murphy does not provide a specific example showing multiple cells arranged in parallel having extraction material added thereto, the suggestion is made in Murphy and Steiner’s disclosure shows that a plurality of parallel cells is known in the art and that it is known to load each cell with extraction material (coffee). Determination of a particular amount to provide to a set of parallel chambers is seen to be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the concept of providing predetermined quantities of beverage powder (i.e. coffee) to multiple cylinders in a single device for extraction is known as demonstrated by Steiner and absent a showing of unexpected results, the particular amount selected for extraction across multiple chambers is seen to be an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claims 2, 5, 16, and 21 Murphy discloses the process can include the use of an extraction medium (also referred to herein as solvent) not exceeding 100° C., and without using pressures exceeding dozens of atmospheres. For instance, in certain configurations described below, the extraction medium may be between 0° C. and 100° C. In certain embodiments, the pressure within the extraction chamber is between 0 and 16 bar(g). In certain configurations, the pressure is between 0.5-2.5 bar(g) In certain configurations, the temperature and pressure ranges mentioned above can be combined [0054]. The ranges overlap the claimed range of 85-97C and 1-12 bar, thus rendering the ranges prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Murphy discloses a width of the extraction cell may be 50-120mm (0.5-1.2 cm) and that the ratio of L/W may be 0.5:1 to 2:1 which indicates that the length may encompass a range of 0.25cm to 2.4 cm which overlaps the claimed range of 0.2-10 cm [0045].
Regarding claims 4 and 20, a plurality would include at least 2 extraction cells, thus rendering the range of 2-10 chambers obvious. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide a desirable number of extraction chambers to provide the desired amount of extract balanced with the optimal size of individual extraction cells.
Regarding claim 6, the extraction material is coffee (abstract).
Regarding claims 14-15, Murphy discloses that a plurality of cells may be arranged in parallel or in series. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to introduce and withdraw extraction medium simultaneously through a parallel arrangement as this would be an obvious matter of design engineering choice. Moreover, one of ordinary skill would have only two options, simultaneous or sequential introduction and withdrawal, and one of ordinary skill would reasonably infer that simultaneous introduction would decrease the time necessary for introduction and withdrawal of the extraction medium.
Regarding claim 17, based upon the disclosure by Murphy that a plurality of extraction cells may be used in series or parallel and the disclosure of an overlapping range of volume of each extraction cell, the claimed reduction in extraction time of the withdrawn extraction medium is considered inherent based upon the use of a similar structure. See also the 112(b) rejection above.
Further regarding claim 18, Murphy discloses espresso [0055]. Regarding the comparison to a single extraction chamber, please see the 112(b) rejection above. Further, as the size of the extraction chambers disclosed by Murphy overlaps with the range of claim 22 and renders the size of the chambers obvious; thus, the limitation of comparison to a single extraction chamber is considered met.
Regarding claim 19, Murphy discloses that espresso traditionally has a TDS content of 50-70 g/L (5-7%) [101] and Examples 1-4 have TDS contents less than 10%.
Regarding claim 23, please see the 112(b) rejection above. Further, the size of the extraction chambers disclosed by Murphy overlap with the range of claim 22 and render the size of the chambers obvious; thus, the limitation of comparison to a single extraction chamber is considered met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 112(b) rejections of record. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 of claim(s) 04/21/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The dose amount added to the claims is disclosed by Camera as discussed above. Regarding splitting the dose amount into a plurality of portions, Murphy is seen to obviate this step by the disclosure of parallel chambers, and alternatively, Steiner is relied upon to show that it is known in the art to provide extraction material simultaneously in parallel cells (chambers) for extraction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1793
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights