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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 08/28/2023, claims 1-15 are pending.
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.
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:
Claim 2 recites: “a flow-rate adjusting mechanism for adjusting a liquid-discharging flow of the liquid-discharging hole group”;
Claim 10 recites: “the fixing mechanism is used to fix the cup lid to the main body”;
Claim 12 recites: “the anti-dropping mechanism is used to limit the rotating cup body to move downwardly relative to the main cup body”;
Claim 13 recites: “the limit member … limit the rotating cup body to move downwardly relative to the main cup body”.
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “flow-rate adjusting mechanism” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Par.0008. recites “Preferably, the flow-rate adjusting mechanism includes a rotating cup body rotatably arranged on the main cup body, and output hole groups arranged on the rotating cup body at the positions corresponding to the liquid-discharging hole groups. The rotating cup body can be rotated relative to the main cup body so that a cup wall of the rotating cup body can gradually close the liquid-discharging hole groups or the output hole groups can gradually communicate with the liquid-discharging hole groups”.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “fixing mechanism”, Applicant’s Specification, pub. Par.00030. recites: “Preferably, the fixing mechanism includes a snap-fit hole arranged between the cup lid and the main cup body, and a snap-fit member located between the cup lid and the main cup body and fittingly arranged within the snap-fit hole. The snap-fit member is provided with a hook portion, when the cup lid is covered on the main cup body, the hook portion rests against the snap-fit hole, so that the cup lid is fixed to the main cup body.”
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “anti-dropping mechanism”, Applicant’s Specification, pub. Par.00032. recites:” Preferably, the anti-dropping mechanism includes a limiting member provided on the bottom of the main cup body, a through-hole provided on the rotating cup body at a position corresponding to the limiting member, and a limiting slot arranged on a periphery of the through-hole”.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “limit member”, Applicant’s Specification, pub. Par.0033 recites: “Preferably, the limiting member includes a communicating portion provided on the bottom of the main cup body, and a limiting rim provided on an outer periphery of the communicating portion. The communicating portion extends along a length direction of the main cup body. When the rotating cup body is sleeved on the main cup body, the communicating portion fittingly extends into the through-hole, and the limiting rim rests against a bottom of the limiting slot, so as to limit the rotating cup body to move downwardly relative to the main cup body.”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 the term “its” in line 3 is indefinite because it is unclear which previously recited element is being referenced. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. For examination purposes, the term “its” is construed as “of the cleaning cup”.
Claims 2-15 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rivera (US 20210137302 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Rivera discloses A cleaning cup (700, see fig.23. The term “cleaning” recites purpose or intended use so that the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction, see MPEP 2111, II) for coffee machine (see para.003), comprising a main cup body (combo 705 and 707, see fig.23), wherein the main cup body (combo 705 and 707) is provided with a water injection assembly (708, see fig.23 and para.0108: “The inflow fluid received through the bay 708 is dispersed onto the grounds in a manner that would depend in part on the character of the perforations in the bay 708”), a downwardly extending liquid-discharging tube (702, see fig.23 and para.0106: “ The apertured extension 702 can be included as the passageway described above, or can be included in addition to the passageway, to provide an additional avenue for beverage outflow”) at its bottom (bottom of the cup 700, see fig.23), and at least a liquid-discharging hole group (706, see fig.23 and para.0107) on its peripheral side (peripheral side of the cup 700, see fig.23).
Regarding claim 7, Rivera further discloses the main cup body (combo 705 and 707, see fig.23) includes a main body (705) and a cup lid (707) arranged on the main body (705), and the water injection assembly (708) is arranged on the cup lid (707); when the cup lid (707) is covered on the main body (705), the water injection assembly (708) is communicated with an inside of the main cup body (705) so as to inject water into the main cup body (See para.0108).
Regarding claim 15, Rivera further discloses the cleaning cup for coffee machine according to claim 1.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivera in view of Aymes (US 5234588 A)
Regarding claim 2, Rivera discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the main cup body is provided with a flow-rate adjusting mechanism for adjusting a liquid-discharging flow of the liquid-discharging hole group.
However, Aymes discloses a device for use in a system for cleaning a swimming pool, comprising:
the main cup body (16, see fig.2) is provided with a flow-rate adjusting mechanism (32, see fig.2) for adjusting a liquid-discharging flow of the liquid-discharging hole group (30, see fig.2 and col.3, lines 56-61: “ an optional cup-shaped closure element 32 rotatably mounted to the receptacle along a lower portion thereof for adjusting an effective size of apertures 30, thereby varying flow rate of pool water through receptacle 16 and concomitantly modifying the dispersion rate of the chlorinating tablet”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the main cup body of Rivera to incorporate “a flow-rate adjusting mechanism for adjusting a liquid-discharging flow of the liquid-discharging hole group” as taught by Aymes in order to adjust an effective size of apertures of the main cup body thereby varying flow rate of the fluid through the main cup.
Regarding claim 3, Rivera in view of Aymes further discloses the flow-rate adjusting mechanism (32, see fig.2 of Aymes) includes a rotating cup body rotatably arranged on the main cup body (16, see fig.2 and col.3, lines 56-61 of Aymes: “ an optional cup-shaped closure element 32 rotatably mounted to the receptacle along a lower portion thereof for adjusting an effective size of apertures 30, thereby varying flow rate of pool water through receptacle 16 and concomitantly modifying the dispersion rate of the chlorinating tablet”), and at least an output hole group (elongate apertures of 32, see fig.2 and col.3 lines 61-63 of Aymes: “Closure element 32 is provided with elongate apertures or slits …larger than apertures 30”) arranged on the rotating cup body (32);
the rotating cup body (32) is rotatable relative to the main cup body (16) so that a cup wall of the rotating cup body (wall of 32) gradually closes the liquid-discharging hole group (30) or the output hole group (elongate apertures of 32) gradually communicates with the liquid-discharging hole group (see fig.2 and col.3, lines 56-61 of Aymes).
Regarding claim 4, Rivera in view of Aymes further discloses the liquid-discharging hole group (706 of Rivera, see para.0107 and fig.23 of Rivera) comprises a first-stage liquid-discharging hole (see annotated fig.23 of Rivera below) provided on an outer wall of the main cup body (combo 705 and 707, see fig.23 of Rivera),
PNG
media_image1.png
737
1432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a second-stage liquid-discharging hole (see annotated fig.23 of Rivera above) spaced apart from the first-stage liquid-discharging hole see annotated fig.23 of Rivera above) along a circumferential direction of the main cup body (705, see fig.23 of Rivera), and liquid in the main cup body (705) is discharged from the first-stage liquid-discharging hole or/and the second-stage liquid-discharging hole (See para.0107 of Rivera),
the output hole group (elongate apertures of 32 of Aymes) comprises a first-stage output hole (See first-stage output hole in annotated fig.2 of Aymes below) provided on an outer wall of the rotating cup body (32, see fig.2 of Aymes), and a second-stage output hole (See second-stage output hole in annotated fig.2 of Aymes below) spaced apart from the first-stage output holes (See annotated fig.2 of Aymes below) along a circumferential direction of the rotating cup body (32, see fig.2 of Aymes), and liquid in the main cup body (16 of Aymes) is discharged from the first-stage output hole or/and the second-stage output hole (see fig.2 and col.3, lines 56-63 of Aymes).
PNG
media_image2.png
709
1358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of of Aymes
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivera in view of Talon (US20180141747A1)
Regarding claim 8, Rivera further discloses the water injection assembly (708, see fig.23) includes:
a first-stage bulge (708, see fig.23), which is provided on the cup lid and is provided with a first-stage water injection hole thereon (see para.0108: “the perforations shown in FIG. 23 are thin apertures arranged in a longitudinal direction with respect to the length of the bay 708”);
In figure 23, Rivera does not expressly disclose at least a second-stage bulge, which is provided on an outside of the first-stage bulge and is provided with a second-stage water injection hole thereon; and
at least a check valve, which is sleeved on the second-stage bulge, wherein when the check valve is pushed downwardly by water injected into the second-stage water injection hole to form elastic deformations, the check valve turns on the second-stage water injection hole, so that the second-stage water injection hole is communicated with the inside of the main cup body.
However, as shown in fig.24, Rivera discloses at least a second-stage bulge (810b), which is provided on an outside of the first-stage bulge (810a) and is provided with a second-stage water injection hole thereon (see para.0112).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Rivera, as shown in fig.23, to incorporate the “at least a second-stage bulge, which is provided on an outside of the first-stage bulge and is provided with a second-stage water injection hole thereon” as shown in fig.24. Doing so accommodates more the injection nozzle(s) or needle(s) providing water to the cup if desired (see para.0111-0112 of Rivera).
Rivera discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, but is silent on
at least a check valve, which is sleeved on the second-stage bulge, wherein when the check valve is pushed downwardly by water injected into the second-stage water injection hole to form elastic deformations, the check valve turns on the second-stage water injection hole, so that the second-stage water injection hole is communicated with the inside of the main cup body.
Talon discloses a capsule for beverage preparation, comprising:
at least a check valve (22, see fig.2), which is sleeved on the second-stage bulge (25, see fig.2 and para.0090), wherein when the check valve (22) is pushed downwardly by water injected into the second-stage water injection hole (27, see fig.3) to form elastic deformations (see para.0090 and fig.8), the check valve turns on the second-stage water injection hole (See fig.8), so that the second-stage water injection hole (27) is communicated with the inside of the main cup body (12, see fig.8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Rivera to incorporate the “at least a check valve, which is sleeved on the second-stage bulge, wherein when the check valve is pushed downwardly by water injected into the second-stage water injection hole to form elastic deformations, the check valve turns on the second-stage water injection hole, so that the second-stage water injection hole is communicated with the inside of the main cup body” as taught by Talon.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivera in view of Becker (US 20220338661 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Rivera discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 7.
In fig. 23, Rivera does not expressly disclose a sealing mechanism is arranged between the cup lid and the main body, the sealing mechanism includes a sealing groove arranged between an inner wall of the main body and the cup lid, and a sealing ring fittingly arranged within the sealing groove.
As shown in fig.24, Rivera further discloses a sealing mechanism (813, see fig.24) is arranged between the cup lid (803) and the main body (805), the sealing mechanism includes a sealing groove (813) arranged between an inner wall of the main body (805) and the cup lid (803, see para.0114).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Rivera (fig.23) to incorporate the “sealing mechanism is arranged between the cup lid and the main body, the sealing mechanism includes a sealing groove arranged between an inner wall of the main body and the cup lid” as taught by claim 24. Doing so allows the lid to engage the rim in a fluid-tight manner (See para.0114 of Rivera).
The modification of Rivera discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, but is silent on a sealing ring fittingly arranged within the sealing groove.
However, Becker discloses a portable self-contained beverage brewing apparatus and methods of use to brew a beverage, comprising:
a sealing ring (160, see fig.2C) fittingly arranged within the sealing groove (136, see fig.2A and para.0037).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Rivera to incorporate the “sealing ring fittingly arranged within the sealing groove” as taught by Becker. Doing so improves sealing between the lid and the main body in order to pressurize the brewing liquid (See para.0010 of Becker).
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivera
Regarding claim 10, Rivera discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 7.
In fig. 23, Rivera does not expressly disclose a fixing mechanism is arranged between the main body and the cup lid, when the cup lid is covered on the main body, the fixing mechanism is used to fix the cup lid to the main body.
As shown in fig.24, Rivera further discloses a fixing mechanism (811, see fig.24) is arranged between the main body (805, see fig.24) and the cup lid (803), when the cup lid (803) is covered on the main body (805), the fixing mechanism (811) is used to fix the cup lid (803) to the main body (805, see fig.24).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Rivera (fig. 23) to incorporate the “fixing mechanism is arranged between the main body and the cup lid, when the cup lid is covered on the main body, the fixing mechanism is used to fix the cup lid to the main body” as shown in fig.24, in order to secure the lid during the brewing process.
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Rivera further discloses the fixing mechanism comprises a snap-fit hole (812, see fig.24) arranged between the cup lid (803) and the main body (805), and a snap-fit member (811) located between the cup lid (803) and the main body (805) and matched with the snap-fit hole (812, see para.0114);
the snap-fit member (811) is provided with a hook portion (811), when the cup lid (803) is covered on the main body (805), the hook portion (811) rests against the snap-fit hole (812), so that the cup lid (803) is fixed to the main body (805).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vu (US 20130017303 A1) discloses A brewing container for use with brewing machines, the container including a distribution outlet for dispersing the injected water in at least 3 directions away from vertical within the cartridge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights