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 § 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.
Claims 1-9 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, recites the limitation "the temperature of the beverage concentrate" at lines 6-7 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the temperature of the beverage concentrate” and “a first temperature” at line 3 or “a predetermined second temperature” at lines 3-4 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the temperature of the beverage concentrate) or provide proper antecedent basis.
Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the third temperature” at line 7 in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, recites the limitation "the beverage concentrate" at line 2 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the beverage concentrate” and “beverage concentrate” at lines 1-2 or “a beverage concentrate” as recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 2 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the beverage concentrate) or provide proper antecedent basis.
Furthermore, a word "it" at line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “it” is the applicant is referring to. See MPEP § 2173.05(a).
Regarding claim 3, recites the limitation "the temperature of the beverage concentrate" at lines 6-7 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the temperature of the beverage concentrate” and “a first temperature” at line 3 or “a predetermined second temperature” at lines 3-4 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the temperature of the beverage concentrate) or provide proper antecedent basis.
Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the third temperature” at line 7 in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the estimated time" at line 4 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims are rejected for their inherited deficiencies on rejected independent claim 3.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. US 20240245256. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they disclose similar subject matters as the instant invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Invention
(US 20240245256)
Claim 1:
An apparatus for brewing a beverage, comprising:
a brew station configured to brew a beverage concentrate using hot water;
a heat exchanger configured to cool the beverage concentrate from a first temperature to a predetermined second temperature; and
a storage receptacle in fluid communication with the heat exchanger to hold the beverage concentrate received from an output of the heat exchanger,
wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is further cooled from the second temperature to the third temperature while the beverage concentrate is held in the storage receptacle;
wherein upon completion of brewing the beverage concentrate, the apparatus compares an actual level of the beverage concentrate in the storage receptacle to an anticipated level of the beverage concentrate.
Claim 14.
An apparatus for brewing a beverage, comprising:
a brew station configured to brew a beverage concentrate using hot water;
a heat exchanger configured to cool the beverage concentrate from a first temperature to a predetermined second temperature; and
a storage receptacle in fluid communication with the heat exchanger to hold the beverage concentrate received from an output of the heat exchanger,
wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is further cooled from the second temperature to the third temperature while the beverage concentrate is held in the storage receptacle.
Claim 3:
An apparatus for brewing a beverage, comprising:
a brew station configured to brew a beverage concentrate using hot water;
a heat exchanger configured to cool the beverage concentrate from a first temperature to a predetermined second temperature; and
a storage receptacle in fluid communication with the heat exchanger to hold the beverage concentrate received from an output of the heat exchanger,
wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is further cooled from the second temperature to the third temperature while the beverage concentrate is held in the storage receptacle;
wherein the apparatus forecasts estimated times for the next brews of the beverage concentrate.
Claim 14.
An apparatus for brewing a beverage, comprising:
a brew station configured to brew a beverage concentrate using hot water;
a heat exchanger configured to cool the beverage concentrate from a first temperature to a predetermined second temperature; and
a storage receptacle in fluid communication with the heat exchanger to hold the beverage concentrate received from an output of the heat exchanger,
wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is further cooled from the second temperature to the third temperature while the beverage concentrate is held in the storage receptacle.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20220313006) in view of Mikkelsen et al. (US 20240016335).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses an apparatus (abstract, i.e. called a beverage manufacturing machine) for brewing a beverage, comprising:
a brew station (see figure 1) configured to brew a beverage concentrate (i.e. an appropriate concentration of coffee, tea bag, powder, fruit tea powder or tea leaf.) using hot water (¶ 0001, 0003);
a heat exchanger 35 (fig. 2) configured to cool the beverage concentrate from a first temperature (i.e. a hot drinking water temperature and/or a hot drink temperature) to a predetermined second temperature (¶ 0013, i.e. a first cooling temperature and/or a room temperature water); and
a storage receptacle 33, 34 (fig. 2, i.e. a coolant container and/or a coolant buffer) in fluid communication with the heat exchanger (35) to hold the beverage concentrate received from an output of the heat exchanger (35) (¶ 0023, 0029),
wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is further cooled from the second temperature (¶ 0013, i.e. a first cooling temperature and/or a room temperature water) to a third temperature (i.e. a second cooling temperature or called an iced drink temperature) (¶ 0031) while the beverage concentrate is held in the storage receptacle 33, 34 (fig. 2, i.e. a coolant container and/or a coolant buffer).
Chang discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein upon completion of brewing the beverage concentrate, the apparatus compares an actual level of the beverage concentrate in the storage receptacle to an anticipated level of the beverage concentrate.
However, Mikkelsen teaches wherein upon completion of brewing the beverage concentrate, the apparatus (i.e. a controller 116 of the beverage machine 100) compares an actual level of the beverage concentrate (i.e. the present remaining volume) in the storage receptacle (i.e. in the liquid supply tank) to an anticipated level of the beverage concentrate (i.e. lower than the expected threshold volume) (¶ 0013, 0017, 0048).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a beverage machine. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chang and Mikkelsen before him or her, to include such comparison configurations of Mikkelsen because it provides an indication to the user that the remaining volume in liquid supply tank is insufficient to form any possible beverage. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it determines whether a beverage forming machine has a sufficient volume of the base liquid to form a given beverage.
Regarding claim 2, Chang in view of Mikkelsen discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Mikkelsen further discloses wherein the apparatus (i.e. a controller 116 of the beverage machine 100) disables (i.e. end of beverage cycle) future brews of beverage concentrate if it determines that the actual level of the beverage concentrate (i.e. the present remaining volume) in the storage receptacle (i.e. in the liquid supply tank) does not correspond to the anticipated level (i.e. lower than the expected threshold volume) (¶ 0047, 0048).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chang and Mikkelsen before him or her, to include such process/operation configurations of Mikkelsen because it provides an indication to the user that the remaining volume in liquid supply tank is insufficient to form any possible beverage. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it determines whether a beverage forming machine has a sufficient volume of the base liquid to form a given beverage.
Claim(s) 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20220313006) in view of Burke et al. (US 6,752,069).
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses an apparatus (abstract, i.e. called a beverage manufacturing machine) for brewing a beverage, comprising:
a brew station (see figure 1) configured to brew a beverage concentrate (i.e. an appropriate concentration of coffee, tea bag, powder, fruit tea powder or tea leaf.) using hot water (¶ 0001, 0003);
a heat exchanger 35 (fig. 2) configured to cool the beverage concentrate from a first temperature (i.e. a hot drinking water temperature and/or a hot drink temperature) to a predetermined second temperature (¶ 0013, i.e. a first cooling temperature and/or a room temperature water); and
a storage receptacle 33, 34 (fig. 2, i.e. a coolant container and/or a coolant buffer) in fluid communication with the heat exchanger (35) to hold the beverage concentrate received from an output of the heat exchanger (35) (¶ 0023, 0029),
wherein the temperature of the beverage concentrate is further cooled from the second temperature (¶ 0013, i.e. a first cooling temperature and/or a room temperature water) to a third temperature (i.e. a second cooling temperature or called an iced drink temperature) (¶ 0031) while the beverage concentrate is held in the storage receptacle 33, 34 (fig. 2, i.e. a coolant container and/or a coolant buffer).
Chang discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein the apparatus forecasts estimated times for the next brews of the beverage concentrate.
However, Burke teaches wherein the apparatus (i.e. a beverage brewer) forecasts estimated times for the next brews of the beverage concentrate (col. 6, lines 29-col. 7, lines 21).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor a coffee brewing machine. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chang and Burke before him or her, to include such estimated brewing time configurations of Burke because it provides a beverage brewer having a water level sensor indicating when water is needed in the reservoir for beverage brewing operations and which activates either the external water supply or manual pour-over operations to add water to the reservoir. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a brew signal to said controller and for displaying the status of certain operations of said brewer (col. 2, lines 14-16).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Chang in view of Burke discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Burke further discloses wherein the apparatus subtracts an average hourly depletion of the beverage concentrate in the storage receptacle from a current weight of the beverage concentrate in the storage receptacle to calculate the estimated times (col. 6, lines 29 - col. 7, lines 21).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chang and Burke before him or her, to include such estimated brewing time calculations of Burke because it provides a beverage brewer having a water level sensor indicating when water is needed in the reservoir for beverage brewing operations and which activates either the external water supply or manual pour-over operations to add water to the reservoir. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a brew signal to said controller and for displaying the status of certain operations of said brewer (col. 2, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 5, Chang in view of Burke discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Burke further discloses wherein the apparatus displays (i.e. on the touch pad 24) the estimated times for the next brews of the beverage concentrate (col. 6, lines 29-col. 7, lines 21).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chang and Burke before him or her, to include such estimated brewing time displaying of Burke because it provides a beverage brewer having a water level sensor indicating when water is needed in the reservoir for beverage brewing operations and which activates either the external water supply or manual pour-over operations to add water to the reservoir. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a brew signal to said controller and for displaying the status of certain operations of said brewer (col. 2, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 6, Chang in view of Burke discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Chang further discloses a plurality of storage receptacles 33, 34 (fig. 2, i.e. a coolant container and/or a coolant buffer).
Burke discloses wherein the apparatus forecasts the estimated times for the next brews of the beverage concentrate for each one of the plurality of storage receptacles (col. 6, lines 29 - col. 7, lines 21). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chang and Burke before him or her, to include such estimated brewing time configurations of Burke because it provides a beverage brewer having a water level sensor indicating when water is needed in the reservoir for beverage brewing operations and which activates either the external water supply or manual pour-over operations to add water to the reservoir. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a brew signal to said controller and for displaying the status of certain operations of said brewer (col. 2, lines 14-16).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Chang in view of Burke discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Burke further discloses wherein the apparatus displays (i.e. on the touch pad 24) the estimated times for each one of the plurality of storage receptacles (col. 6, lines 29-col. 7, lines 21).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chang and Burke before him or her, to include such estimated brewing time displaying of Burke because it provides a beverage brewer having a water level sensor indicating when water is needed in the reservoir for beverage brewing operations and which activates either the external water supply or manual pour-over operations to add water to the reservoir. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a brew signal to said controller and for displaying the status of certain operations of said brewer (col. 2, lines 14-16).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hansen et al. (US 20220322867). Burrows (US 20160338527). And Gussmann et al. (US 20120135119).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights