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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should avoid using the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,”. Therefore, the phrases, “comprises (line 1)” should be changed to “includes”, and “comprising (line 3)” should be changed to “including”.
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricard (ES 1068799U, in view of Morris et al. (hereinafter “Morris”) (US 5,109,763) and Suter et al. (hereinafter “Suter”) (US 2010/0050880 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ricard discloses a device (see the drawings) for separating infusion capsules (Ca), comprising a base unit (12) and a plunger (2), the base unit (12) having a face with an aperture (see fig. 4 and the drawing #1 below) for receiving a body part of the capsule (Ca) (fig. 4); the plunger (2) comprising a projection (2’, see the drawing #1 below) sized to fit within the aperture (fig. 4, and the drawing #1 below) having a tip (see the drawing #1 below) for contacting/pressing on the infusion capsules,
Drawing #1:
PNG
media_image1.png
178
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ricard does not expressly disclose a surface of the tip that contact the capsule is concave.
Morris can be applied to teach a crusher unit having a plunger (fig. 8), the plunger comprising a crushing head (22) having a bottom surface for contacting/crushing a filter (24), the bottom surface is concave (figs. 7 and 10) with a diameter size slightly greater than a diameter of the filter (24) (see col. 5, lines 61-63) to help engage and center the filter in a pre-bending of the oil filter (col. 6, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface of the tip that contact the capsule of Ricard, to include a concave surface, as taught by Morris, to assist in centering the capsule so that the capsule does not tilt during a separating process.
As to the base unit being in the form of a hollow cup, Ricard discloses the coffee expelled from the capsules (see figs. 3-4 and page 3, next to last paragraph of the English translation), but Ricard does not expressly disclose a hollow cup to contain the expelled coffee.
Suter, in a related art, discloses a device (1) for separating content of a coffee capsule, the device having a base (3, 8-9) in a form of a hollow cup for receiving expelled coffee from the capsule (fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the base of Ricard with a hollow cup, as taught by Suter, in order to contain the expelled coffee.
Regarding claim 4, The device according to claim 1, Ricard discloses the aperture as set forth above. Ricard does not expressly disclose the aperture is circular.
Suter can also be applied to teach an aperture (8) for disposing a capsule therethrough, the aperture is circular (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aperture of Ricard in a circular shape, as taught by Suter, in order to conform with the shape of the capsule so that all of the material in the capsule are discharged from the capsule.
Regarding claim 5, The device according to claim 1, Ricard discloses the aperture is sized to receive a body of a standard-sized infusion capsule (Ca), but not an exterior rim (1) thereof (see fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, The device according to claim 1, Ricard discloses the projection (2’) is sized so that, when fully inserted via the aperture, it extends beyond the face by a distance which is not greater than but is a substantial part of the depth of a standard-sized infusion capsule (Ca) (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, The device according to claim 1, modified Ricard discloses the concaved tip of the projection is defined by a recess (see figs. 7 and 10 of Morris) formed on the tip (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, The device according to claim 1, Ricard discloses the infusion capsule (Ca) contains ground coffee (see abstract).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricard, Morris, and Suter, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hollnagel (US 5,337,656).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Ricard discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above. Ricard does not expressly disclose the face has one or more upstanding ridges surrounding the aperture, and the upstanding ridges are located so as to surround a rim of a standard-sized infusion capsule.
Hollnagel discloses a filter crusher having a base (fig. 1), the base having an aperture (22) for draining liquid expelled from the filter (col. 2, lines 54-56), a face of the base having an upstanding ridge (20) surrounding the aperture (fig. 1), and the upstanding ridge is located so as to surround a rim of a filter (F) (fig. 2) in order to assure proper positioning the filter (F) on the base (col. 2, lines 49-51) and prevent the filter from sliding off the base during crushing by laterally retaining the filter (col. 2, lines 51-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the face of the base of Ricard with an upstanding ridge surrounding the aperture, as taught by Hollnagel, so that the upstanding ridge surrounds a rim of the capsule to assure proper positioning the capsule on the base and prevent the capsule from sliding off the base during a separation process of the capsule (col. 2, lines 49-53).
Regarding claim 3, as set forth above, modified Ricard discloses the base including the upstanding ridge surround a rim of a standard-sized infusion capsule. As to the ridge is in a form of a plurality of ridges, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the ridge into a plurality of ridges, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show:
WO 2018/235044 A1 discloses a capsule recycling system.
WO2008/139322 A1 discloses a device for removing coffee grounds from a capsule.
US 4,133,261 discloses a base having a plurality of ridges (10) for supporting a can of a can crusher.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725