DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 11/25/25. As directed by the amendment: claim 1 has been amended; claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-4, 7, and 10 are presently pending in this application.
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.
“a means for stirring water” (cl. 10): (magnet stirrer 158) (“As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 , the brew vessel 102 also includes a magnet stirrer 158 disposed in a lower portion of the brew vessel 102. The magnet stirrer 158 rotates at a speed sufficient to mix the coffee grounds and water under different loads. The speed of the stirrer is preferably fast enough to form a fluid/water vortex. The magnet stirrer is a magnet and may be covered in plastic or other inert material to prevent corrosion from contact with the water during brewing. The magnet stirrer 158 is fitted within a substantially nonmagnetic dish 157 in the bottom of the brew vessel 102. The dish 157 serves to limit the ability of the magnet stirrer 158 from leaving its position in magnetic coupling with the motor 162. In addition, as shown in FIG. 8 , during brewing the lip 159 of the dish 157 directs the flow of the fluidized slurry in a generally upward direction that is substantially parallel or tangential to the surface of the filter 128. The magnet stirrer 158 is capable of stirring the water and ground coffee for a selected amount of time, and at different speeds over the period of time based on the beverage desired to be produced. After the coffee brewing cycle, the magnet stirrer 158 is used to agitate the water and cleaning solution to rinse and clean the beverage brewing system 100 as discussed below. The magnet stirrer 158 is magnetically connected to an electromechanical drive system (e.g. motor 162 and drive train 160) positioned outside of the brew vessel to avoid complex sealing mechanisms and/or the need to seal shafts from the exterior to the interior of the brew vessel 102. It should be appreciated that the motor 162 may also directly drive the magnet stirrer 158, without an intervening drive train. As illustrated, the rotating platform and magnet stirrer 158 are rotationally positioned in a substantially centrally located position of the base 108.” (para. [0056]-[0058]).
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:
“stirrer member” (cl. 1): (shuttle 8) (“Stirring shuttle 8 radiates from the center and stretches out at least one shuttle head 81 that has cylindrical head (being four shuttle heads the present embodiment); Be inlaid with permanent magnet 11 in the cylindrical head of shuttle head 81, funnel 6 sides are provided with handle 13.Like Fig. 1, shown in 6, driving wheel 7 is socketed on the outlet of funnel seat 9 bottoms protrusion, and its center is coaxial with the center of stirring shuttle 8; Its end face is corresponding with the shuttle head 81 that stirs shuttle 8, also is inlaid with permanent magnet in the driving wheel 7, when motor 16 rotations; The output shaft of motor 16 rotates and drives belt 17 rotations, thereby drives driving wheel 7 rotations, is inlaid with permanent magnet owing in the driving wheel 7; Its magnetic pole is attracted each other with stirring the permanent magnet of inlaying in the shuttle 8 11, thereby drives shuttle head 81 rotations of stirring shuttle 8.”, pg. 4, ln. 14-18)
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 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 has been amended to recite “and is a second outlet for removal of the used coffee grounds”; however, it is unclear what structural element is the claimed “second outlet”. With regard to Claim 5, the Applicant indicates has been incorporated into claim 1 and the Applicant further indicates that claim 5 has been cancelled. However, claim 5 recited “in which there is a second outlet for removal of the used coffee grounds”, indicating that a separate structure is related to the claimed “a second outlet” of cancelled claim 5. However, the newly amended limitation of claim 1 appears to indicate that an existing structural feature is the claimed “a second outlet”; however, it is unclear which structural feature is said claimed second outlet. Appropriate correction is required in view of the aforementioned comments.
The remaining claims are rejected for at least the reason of their direct and/or indirect dependency from independent 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 (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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 102727098) in view of Nosler et al. (US 20100154645).
With regard to claim 1, Zhang teaches a coffee machine (FIG. 1) comprising a brew vessel (6), an input (hole at center of 10) to said brew vessel (6) for water and coffee grounds (“press ' beginning ' key, coffee machine is started working, when coffee machine adds hot water to design temperature; Hot water sprays from conduit; The flow through bucket cover of net-filter assembly, the hole that flows into the bucket cover center again gets in the funnel, pg. 4, ln. 35-37); a first outlet (drain pipe around 12) for brewed coffee (“point valve 12 in the drain pipe; Also be provided with control lever 14 and push pedal 15 with point valve 12 correspondence positions on the funnel seat 9, be used to control the break-make of the point valve 12 on the funnel, promptly can control control lever 14 and control in the coffee inflow coffee cup in the funnel through control circuit”, pg. 4, ln. 23-25), a filter (5) for filtering used coffee grounds from the brewed coffee, a stirrer member (8) in said brew vessel (6) to mix the water and coffee grounds (FIG. 1), said stirring member (8) located below at least a portion of said filter (5)(FIG. 1).
Zhang further teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with regard to claim 1; however, Zhang does not explicitly teach there is a second outlet for removal of the used coffee grounds. However, Nosler teaches the aforementioned limitation(s) of a second outlet (identified as 44 in FIGS. 14-15): “residual 160 runs downward; because the valve 150 is in its second position to allow residual in the beverage-transporting unit 44 (a conduit in this embodiment) to drain, the residual 160 collects at the bottom of the brewing chamber 72. Referring to FIG. 14, to drain the residual 160 from the brewing chamber 72, the valve 150 moves into its second position, and thus allows the residual to collect in the valve and in the beverage-transporting unit 44. Next, referring to FIG. 15, to drain the residual 160 from the valve 150 and the beverage-transporting unit 44, the valve moves back into its second position, and thus allows the residual to drain to the liquid-waste-disposal unit 50 (also a conduit in this embodiment).”, para. [0092] – [ 0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Zhang reference, such that there is a second outlet for removal of the used coffee grounds, as suggested and taught by Nosler, for the purpose of removing residual grounds to a liquid waste disposal location (Nosler: para. [0094]).
With regard to claim 2, Zhang teaches in which the stirrer member (8) creates a flow of the mixture of said water and coffee grounds substantially parallel to the surface of the filter (5) (“in the funnel through stirring coffee powder and the hot water that shuttle stirs, after the filtration through the cylindricality filter screen, flow into coffee liquid and get in the coffee pot, machine detects on the control lever and lifts simultaneously, will stop to stir the companion.”, pg. 4, ln. 46-48; FIGS. 1 & 4).
With regard to claim 3, Zhang teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with regard to claim 1; however, Zhang does not explicitly teach the filter includes openings of approximately 35-75 microns. However, Nosler which is from the same field of endeavor directed to a method for brewing a beverage such as coffee teaches the aforementioned limitation(s): “The top mesh layer 110 may have openings with diameters in the range of 30-150 microns (μm) (e.g., 70 μm) or within another range depending on the filter resolution desired for the filter 98.”, para. [0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Zhang reference, such that the filter includes openings of approximately 35-75 microns, as suggested and taught by Nosler, for the purpose of providing a desired filter resolution to achieved a desired infusion flow (Nosler: para. [0059]).
With regard to claim 4, Zhang teaches in which the stirrer member (8) is a magnet (11)(“ Stirring shuttle 8 radiates from the center and stretches out at least one shuttle head 81 that has cylindrical head (being four shuttle heads the present embodiment); Be inlaid with permanent magnet 11 in the cylindrical head of shuttle head 81, funnel 6 sides are provided with handle 13.”, pg. 4, ln. 14-18).
With regard to claim 7, Zhang teaches including a base (1) in contact with the brew vessel and a heat exchanger in said base, said heat exchanger heated or cooled by circulating water from a water source (“Be provided with heater in the body and drive the pump that boiling water or steam flow to the coffee funnel through conduit, coffee funnel below is provided with the coffee liquid outlet”, pg. 2, ln. 14-15).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 102727098) in view of Wong (US 20020029694).
With regard to claim 10, Zhang teaches a coffee machine (FIG. 1) comprising a brew vessel (6), a means for stirring water (8) in in the brew vessel (6), a source of hot water (“coffee machine adds hot water to design temperature; Hot water sprays from conduit; The flow through bucket cover of net-filter assembly”, pg. 4, ln. 35-36), a controller for controlling the temperature of the source of water, a temperature sensor for sensing the temperature of water in the brew vessel (“when the flow of hot water reaches setting value, control circuit control motor rotates, the rotation of driven by motor belt,”, pg. 4, ln. 38-40).
Zhang does not teach a water circulation system comprising a water input into the brew vessel and a water output from the brew vessel and a pump for circulating water from said water output to the source of hot water and back into said water input. However, Wong from the same field of endeavor directed toward a coffee making machine teaches the aforementioned limitation(s): “A re-circulating passage 14, which has an in-line electric pump 15 and a heat exchanger 16, is provided to allow coffee to be fed from a bottom outlet 17 of the vessel 10 into the top of the basket 11. This enables controllable and desired mixing, over chosen periods of time, between the hot water and the coffee grounds to take place. The pump 15 and the heat exchanger 16 are controlled by a controller unit 18 so that the coffee is heated and controlled to be at a chosen or predetermined temperature. The heat exchanger 16 normally comprises an electrical heating element, but could comprise a coil through which hot water is flowed, to heat the re-circulating passage 14.”, para. [0010]; FIG. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Zhang reference, to include a water circulation system comprising a water input into the brew vessel and a water output from the brew vessel and a pump for circulating water from said water output to the source of hot water and back into said water input, as suggested and taught by Wong, for the purpose of providing enhanced heating to a re-circulated liquid (Wong: para. [0010]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered. The subject prior art rejections have been adapted as appropriate in view of the newly presented claim limitations.
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 JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761