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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by Dworzak et al. (PGPUB# US 2007/0199452 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dworzak teaches a hot beverage preparation device (figure 1 and abstract), comprising: at least one hot water boiler (par. 25 and 80: Tank 7 and parts within tank) for heating and storing hot water and/or hot steam for preparing hot beverages, the at least one hot water boiler has a cold water inlet (Plug 70 defines an inlet for cold water) , a storage vessel (6) having a heater (45), and a hot water and/or steam outlet (92: Hot water outlet); and the storage vessel is at least partially provided or surrounded with a vacuum insulation (par. 69, at least one internal wall 72 and external wall 74 is provided with a vacuum insulating layer 73.).
Regarding claim 2, Dworzak teaches wherein an outer wall (72) of the storage vessel includes a double-walled area (71) at least in some regions for the vacuum insulation and the double-walled area of the outer wall encloses an evacuated space (par. 69, at least one internal wall 72 and external wall 74 is provided with a vacuum insulating layer 73.).
Regarding claim 3, Dworzak teaches wherein the storage vessel (6) which includes the double-walled area at least in some regions has a non-vacuum-insulated cover (70), through which at least one of electrical or hydraulic connections (90,92, 910) are led.
Regarding claim 4, Dworzak teaches wherein the storage vessel (6) is received in an external envelope (74) that has a double-walled area at least in some regions, the double-walled area (71) of which encloses an evacuated space, for the vacuum insulation (par. 69, at least one internal wall 72 and external wall 74 is provided with a vacuum insulating layer 73.).
Regarding claim 5, Dworzak teaches wherein the external envelope which includes the double-walled area at least in some regions has a non-vacuum-insulated cover (70), through which at least one of electrical or hydraulic connections (90,92, 910) are led.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dworzak et al. (PGPUB# US 2007/0199452 A1) in view of Diester et al. (DE 102014104907 A1 using machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Dworzak teaches wherein the storage vessel (6/8) is a pressure vessel. (par. 71)
Dworzak does not explicitly teach in which the hot water is stored in operation at a temperature of greater than 100C and the hot water outlet is connected to a metering valve (40) for adding cold water in a metered manner, in order to admix cold water to the hot water during dispensing, so that mixed water having a temperature of less than 100C is dispensed for the beverage preparation.
However, Diester teaches a similar hot beverage preparation device. (par. 1-4 and figure 1) Diester teaches that it is known to provide metering valves to provide dosed amounts of hot and cold water to provide water at a lower temperature than the temperature provided in the water boiler suitable for use in preparing a hot beverage. (par. 5, 22-41) Diester teaches hot water provided at 90-130C, cold water at 1-35C, to create a mixed water at a temperature of 70-100C. (par. 50-54)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a mixing unit with metered valves providing hot and cold water of Diester, to the apparatus of Dworzak, in order to provide water at a lower temperature than the temperature provided in the water boiler suitable for use in preparing a hot beverage as taught by Diester. The mixing unit would be applied using the discharge of the hot water 92 of Dworzak.
Regarding claim 7, Dworzak teaches wherein the storage vessel (6/8) is configured to store hot water in operation at a temperature of greater than 110°C. (par. 56)
Regarding claim 8, Dworzak does not explicitly wherein the metering valve (40) for adding cold water comprises a controllable valve, and the hot beverage preparation device has a temperature sensor (44) for determining a mixed water temperature and a control device for regulating the mixed water temperature by activating the metering valve (40).
However, Diester teaches a similar hot beverage preparation device. (par. 1-4 and figure 1) Diester teaches that it is known to provide metering valves to provide dosed amounts of hot and cold water to provide water at a lower temperature than the temperature provided in the water boiler suitable for use in preparing a hot beverage. (par. 5, 22-41) Diester teaches hot water provided at 90-130C, cold water at 1-35C, to create a mixed water at a temperature of 70-100C. (par. 50-54) Diester teaches using a temperature measuring device/sensor in use with a control unit by selectively activating dosing valves to control the temperature of water that exits the water mixing unit. (par. 35-37 and 61-63)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a mixing unit with metered valves providing hot and cold water and temperature sensor and control unit of Diester, to the apparatus of Dworzak, in order to provide water at a lower temperature than the temperature provided in the water boiler suitable for use in preparing a hot beverage as taught by Diester. The mixing unit would be applied using the discharge of the hot water 92 of Dworzak.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dworzak et al. (PGPUB# US 2007/0199452 A1) in view of Diester et al. (DE 102014104907 A1 using machine translation) and Urech (PGPUB# US 2021/0284522 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Dworzak in view of Diester teaches a mixing unit positioning between metering valves and temperature sensor. (Diester Figure 1, par. 35, 36, and 63)
The combination of Dworzak in view of Diester does not explicitly a static mixer arranged between the metering valve and the temperature sensor for mixing the cold and hot water flows.
However, Urech teaches a similar hot beverage preparation device. (Abstract and figure 1) Urech teaches that it is known in the art to provide a static mixing tube as a mixing unit. (par. 19)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the static mixer of Urech, into the mixing unit of Dworzak in view of Diester, in order to provide simple means of mixing the hot and cold streams.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dworzak et al. (PGPUB# US 2007/0199452 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN211022227U using machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Dworzak does not explicitly teach wherein the heater (45) comprises a heating coil arranged inside the storage vessel.
However, Wang teaches a heating coil for use in a kettle. (figure 1 and abstract). Wang teaches that it is known in the art to produce the heater by using a coiled tube with a coiled heating wire inside. Wang teaches that the gaps between the tube and wire are filled with magnesium oxide sand. (par. 10, 31, 32 and figures 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the heater tube/wire/magnesium oxide , for the heater of Dworzak, as doing so would have been simple substitution of known water heating elements.
Regarding claim 11, Dworzak does not explicitly teach wherein the heating coil extends inside a coiled heating tube.
However, Wang teaches a heating coil for use in a kettle. (figure 1 and abstract). Wang teaches that it is known in the art to produce the heater by using a coiled tube with a coiled heating wire inside. Wang teaches that the gaps between the tube and wire are filled with magnesium oxide sand. (par. 10, 31, 32 and figures 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the heater tube/wire/magnesium oxide , for the heater of Dworzak, as doing so would have been simple substitution of known water heating elements.
Regarding claim 12, Dworzak does not explicitly wherein the coiled heating tube is filled with magnesium oxide powder for the electrical insulation of the heating coil.
However, Wang teaches a heating coil for use in a kettle. (figure 1 and abstract). Wang teaches that it is known in the art to produce the heater by using a coiled tube with a coiled heating wire inside. Wang teaches that the gaps between the tube and wire are filled with magnesium oxide sand. (par. 10, 31, 32 and figures 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the heater tube/wire/magnesium oxide , for the heater of Dworzak, as doing so would have been simple substitution of known water heating elements.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dworzak et al. (PGPUB# US 2007/0199452 A1) in view of Arimura et al. (JP2017127630A using machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, Dworzak teaches the claimed hot water boiler surrounded with vacuum insulation as cited in claim 1.
Dworzak does not explicitly teach a second hot water boiler provided for steam production, and the second hot water boilers are both provided or surrounded with the vacuum insulation.
However, Arimura teaches a similar hot beverage system. (figures 1&2) Arimura teaches that separate hot water tank 13 and steam tank 11 can be used while forming a desired hot beverage. (par. 1-15)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the additional tank of Arimura, into the apparatus of Dworzak, in order to provide steam into the beverage formation system. It would have also been obvious to have vacuum insulated both tanks in order to efficiently retain heat in each tank as taught by Dworzak.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dworzak et al. (PGPUB# US 2007/0199452 A1) in view of Peteri et al. (US Pat#6,612,268 B1).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Dworzak does not explicitly teach a getter material introduced into the evacuated space (claim 14) and a reflective film introduced into the evacuated space (claim 15).
However, Peteri teaches a similar hot beverage system. (figures 1 and abstract) Peteri teaches that it is known to provide a reflective film on a vacuum wall surrounding a tank in order to inhibit the loss of radiation. Peteri further teaches it is known in the art to provide a getter inside the evacuated space to maintain a high vacuum for years. (col. 5, lines 64-67)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the reflective foil and getter material of Peteri, into the evacuated space of the apparatus of Dworzak, in order to inhibit radiation loss and maintain a vacuum for years as taught by Peteri.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dworzak et al. (PGPUB# US 2007/0199452 A1) in view of Peteri et al. (US Pat#6,612,268 B1) and Nelson (PGPUB US 2015/0377544 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Dworzak does not explicitly teach a controller configured with programming, which is connected to a temperature sensor arranged inside the at least one hot water boiler for at least one of monitoring or regulating the hot water temperature or steam temperature, and the controller is configured to detect a cooling time after the heater is switched off and to generate an error message, which indicates a defective vacuum insulation, upon falling below a threshold value.
However, Peteri teaches a similar hot beverage system. (figures 1 and abstract) Peteri teaches the use of a temperature sensor inside a hot water boiler coupled to a thermostatically regulated control unit to maintain the heated water at a set temperature. (figure 1 and col. 4 lines 48-61)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the temperature and control unit of Peteri, into the apparatus of Dworzak, in order to automatically maintain the heated water at a set temperature as taught by Peteri.
The combination of Dworzak and Peteri does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to detect a cooling time after the heater is switched off and to generate an error message, which indicates a defective vacuum insulation, upon falling below a threshold value.
However, Nelson teaches solving the problem of monitoring the state of operation of a vacuum insulated panel. (par. 2-6) Nelson teaches that measuring the amount of heat loss to the exterior can be used to determine whether a failure of the vacuum insulation has occurred. Nelson teaches that monitoring the heat loss can be conducted by measuring the temperature difference between the inside and outside of the vacuum insulated panel. (par. 33) Nelson teaches that once a controller determines that a temperature/heat loss threshold has passed a failure notification can be sent to the user to prompt a repair. (par. 35 and 52)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the temperature/heat loss montoring/warning system of Nelson, into the apparatus of Dworzak in view of Peteri, in order to send a warning to a user that vacuum insulation has failed and is in need of repair as taught by Nelson.
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 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No 19/119556. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both make claims to a similar hot beverage apparatus with vacuum insulation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights