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 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: “pressure relief member” claims 9 and 18.
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.
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.
GROUND 1: Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “a second changeover valve” which is unclear in view of the specification and the customary use of the meaning of the term “valve” as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). That is, a valve is known to be a device which is used to start, stop or regulate fluid flow therethrough. Para 0028 states that the “second changeover valve 4 is a four-way pipe”, which is not a valve, but merely a fitting along the fluid paths of the coffee machine. Thus, it does not appear from the disclosure or drawings, that the second changeover valve 4 is capable of starting, stopping or regulating fluid flow therethrough. Appropriate clarification and correction i required.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claim 1.
Claims 9 and 18 recite a pressure relief member which “makes pressure-relieved water flow back to the water tank” which leads to confusion as to how the relief member actually makes the water return to the tank. Para 0029, which describes the pressure relief member 8, but fails to disclose any structural elements thereof. In order to “make” the water return, the member must be a pump or other means which forces the water to return. However, it is unclear form the specification what the Applicant intends to claim.
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.
GROUND 2: Claim(s) 1-5, 9-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2023/117246 to Rossetto et al.
In regard to claims 1 and 11, Rossetto et al. disclose a water path control system for a coffee machine, comprising a water tank 1, a water pump 2, a first changeover valve 14, a second changeover valve (not labeled), a heating device 3 and an extraction assembly 4, wherein the water tank, the water pump and the first changeover valve are sequentially connected, the first changeover valve is sequentially connected with the heating device and the second changeover valve to form a first water path structure, the first changeover valve is connected with the second changeover valve to form a second water path structure, and the second changeover valve is connected with the extraction assembly (See Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claims 2 and 12, Rossetto et al. disclose a water path control system, wherein when the water pump draws a liquid in the water tank through the first water path structure to the extraction assembly while continuously pressurizing the liquid, an output pressure of the water pump is a first pressure value, and the output pressure is kept stable until extraction is completed (See Fig. 1 and pages 6-7).
In regard to claims 3, 5, 13 and 15, Rossetto et al. disclose a water path control system, wherein the first pressure value is 6 bar to 10 bar (see pages 2 and 7). It is noted, Rossetto et al. disclose a pump capable of pumping dispending water at a pressure between 4 bar and 25 bar, which reads on the cited claims. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claims 4 and 14, Rossetto et al. disclose a water path control system, wherein when the water pump draws a liquid in the water tank through the second water path structure to the extraction assembly while continuously pressurizing the liquid, an output pressure of the water pump is a first pressure value, and the output pressure is kept stable until extraction is completed (See Fig. 1 and pages 6-7).
In regard to claims 9 and 19, Rossetto et al. disclose a water path control system, further comprising a flow controller 16 connected and arranged between the water tank and the water pump.
In regard to claims 10 and 20, Rossetto et al. disclose a water path control system, further comprising a steam assembly 22 connected with the second changeover valve (See Figs. 2-3). It is noted, as disclosed in the instant invention (see para 0031), the use and placement of “steam devices” in coffee machines are commonly known in the art. Furthermore, as broadly as claimed, the language does not require a steam assembly to be connected to the second valve, but merely connected with the second valve and thus may be connected to difference components.
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.
GROUND 3: Claim(s) 6-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/117246 to Rossetto et al. in view of US Patent No. 11,839,326 to Juve.
In regard to claims 6-7 and 16-17, Rossetto et al. disclose a water path control system, wherein when the water pump draws a liquid in the water tank through the second water path structure to the extraction assembly (See rejections above) but are silent with respect to the water pump draws the liquid in the water tank while intermittently. Juve teaches of an analogous coffee machine having flow control over the water path thereof including the water pump, to enable control over the rate of water supplied to the coffee extraction system (See Figs. 1-4 and 9-21). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to intermittently pressure fluid to the extraction system of Rossetto et al. to create different flavor profiles of coffee as desired by the consumer, as tuaght by Juve and is well known in the art.
GROUND 4: Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/117246 to Rossetto et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0000237 to Wu.
In regard to claims 8 and 18, Rossetto et al. disclose a water path control system (See rejections above), but are silent with respect to a pressure relief member connected and arranged between the water pump and the first changeover valve, wherein the pressure relief member is connected to the water tank and makes pressure-relieved water flow back to the water tank. Wu teaches of an analogous coffee machine comprising a pressure relief valve 24 that returns water to the water tank 21 via pipe 27 (see Figs. 2-3 and para 0016). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to provide a pressure relief valve with return means in system of Rossetto et al. to conserve water as tuaght by Wu and is well known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM--3PM.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights