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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on January 2nd 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 2nd 2026.
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.
Such claim limitations are:
In Claims 1 and 9: “delivery unit”.
In Claims 1-5 and 7-8: “dispensing unit”.
In Claims 1-7: “collection unit”.
In Claim 7: “flow restriction element”.
In Claim 5: “sealing element”.
In Claim 5: “biasing member”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Reference is made to the Specification filed on 12/20/2023 for what each claim limitations are being interpreted as:
Interpretations:
Delivery unit is being interpreted as “may comprise at least one or a plurality of delivery lines… may also comprise one or a plurality of pumps” (Page 10 Line 25-30).
Dispensing unit is being interpreted as “The dispensing unit 3 may comprise an outlet port” (Page 11 line 15-16).
Collection unit is being interpreted as “The collection unit 8 can comprise an inlet port… may comprise a cup-shaped receiving section” (Page 12 Line 20-23).
Flow restriction element is being interpreted as “a pinch valve” (Page 11 Line 33).
Sealing element is being interpreted as “circumferential rubber rim section” (Page 4 Line 14-19).
Biasing member is being interpreted as “ a spring” (Page 4 Line 1).
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boussemart (US Patent No. 20100159097).
Regarding Claim 1, Boussemart teaches a beverage preparation machine, comprising: a delivery unit for delivering a liquid through the beverage preparation machine (Figure 1 and Paragraph 33, Coffee machine 1 with a water pump 13 that delivers water to an extraction module 11), a dispensing unit for dispensing the liquid delivered by the delivery unit (Figure 1 and Paragraph 33, Coffee machine 1 with an Extraction module 11 that dispense Flavored liquid through beverage outlet 14), and a collection unit being fluidly connectable to the dispensing unit to selectively form a liquid path to collect the liquid dispensed by the dispensing unit (Figure 4 and Paragraph 45-46, The drip collecting device 8 acts as a collection unit and is connected to the Coffee machine 1 with an Extraction module 11 to collect fluid through axis O).
Regarding Claim 2, Boussemart teaches that the dispensing unit comprises an outlet port for dispensing the liquid (Figure 1 and Paragraph 33, Coffee machine 1 with an Extraction module 11 that dispense Flavored liquid through beverage outlet 14.), and/or wherein the collection unit comprises an inlet port for being fluidly connectable to the dispensing unit to form the liquid path (Figure 4 and Paragraph 45-46, The drip collecting device 8 acts as a collection unit and is connected to the Coffee machine 1 with an Extraction module 11 to collect fluid through axis O).
Regarding Claim 4, Boussemart teaches that the collection unit is relatively moveable with respect to the dispensing unit (Figure 4-6 and Paragraph 45-46, The drip collecting device 8 acts as a collection unit and is movable with respect to the Extraction module 11 and its outlet) between a connected position to fluidly connect the collection unit with the dispensing unit to form the liquid path (Figure 4-6 and Paragraph 45-46, The drip collecting device 8 acts as a collection unit and is movable to a collecting position with fluid path at axis O), and a retracted position to allow the dispensing unit for dispensing the liquid out of the beverage preparation machine (Figure 4-6 and Paragraph 45-46, The drip collecting device 8 acts as a collection unit and is movable to a retracted position where liquid falls to the recipient placed below).
Regarding Claim 6, Boussemart teaches that the collection unit is fluidly connected to a receptacle for collecting the liquid (Paragraph 46, Drip collection device 8 is fluidly connected to drip tray 88 that collects liquids.).
Regarding Claim 9, Boussemart teaches that the beverage preparation machine comprises a heater for heating the liquid preferably in the delivery unit (Paragraph 33, Water can be heated through a heater 15 in Extraction module 11).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boussemart (US Patent No. 20100159097) in view of Tinkler (US Patent No. 20150201791).
Regarding Claim 3, Boussemart fails to teach that the collection unit comprises a cup-shaped receiving section for receiving at least part of the dispensing unit.
Tinkler teaches a beverage making apparatus (Abstract, Beverage Making Apparatus) where the collection unit comprises a cup-shaped receiving section for receiving at least part of the dispensing unit (Figure 1 and Paragraph 29, Holder 9 Has a cup shaped opening 11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boussemart to incorporate a cup shaped opening as stated in Tinkler. The cup shaped opening allows user to use flavored cartridges (Paragraph 29, Cup Shaped).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boussemart (US Patent No. 20100159097) in view of Fontbonne (US Patent No. 20170215625) and further in view of Carhuff (US Patent No. 20040118291).
Regarding Claim 5, Boussemart fails to teach a biasing member for allowing the dispensing unit and the collection unit be biased relative to each other towards or away from forming the fluid connection, and a sealing element is provided between the dispensing unit and the collection unit for sealingly closing the liquid path when being fluidly connected.
Fontbonne teaches a machine for dispensing a beverage (Abstract, A machine for dispensing a beverage) with a biasing member for allowing the dispensing unit and the collection unit be biased relative to each other towards (Paragraph 93-95, Return Spring helps moves Beverage guide 11 into a position to receive liquid from outlet 20) or away from forming the fluid connection (Paragraph 93-95, Return Spring helps moves Beverage guide 11 into a collecting position where liquid is served to a service area).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boussemart to incorporate a biasing member as stated in Fontbonne. The biasing member helps guide residual beverage to a service area to maintain a clean environment for the apparatus (Paragraph 93-96, Service area).
Boussemart in view of Fontbonne fails to teach a sealing element that is provided between the dispensing unit and the collection unit for sealingly closing the liquid path when being fluidly connected.
Carhuff teaches an automated food product dispenser (Abstract, an automated food product dispenser) with a sealing element that is provided between the dispensing unit and the collection unit for sealingly closing the liquid path when being fluidly connected (Paragraph 67-69 and Figure 4-5, Gaskets 532 and 534 work together to seal cleaning chamber 528, acts as collection unit form cleaning liquid, when liquid is dispensed though).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boussemart in view of Fontbonne to incorporate a sealing element as stated in Carhuff. The gaskets helps recirculate the cleaning liquid into a recuperation tank and maintain a closed circuit (Paragraph 67, Gaskets).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boussemart (US Patent No. 20100159097) in view of Carhuff (US Patent No. 20040118291) and further in view of Branko (US Patent No. 20190059639).
Regarding Claim 7, Boussemart fails to teach a flow restriction element for selectively restricting or stopping the dispensing of liquid through the dispensing unit, wherein the flow restriction element is moveable between a flow restriction position to restrict or stop liquid flowing through the dispensing unit, and a flow position to allow free flow of liquid through the dispensing unit, and wherein a movement of the flow restriction element is at least partially linked to a relative movement of the collection unit with respect to the dispensing unit.
Carhuff teaches an automated food product dispenser (Abstract, an automated food product dispenser) with a flow restriction element for selectively restricting or stopping the dispensing of liquid through the dispensing unit (Paragraph 90 and Figure 3 and 9, Pinch valve 260 stops liquid from flowing throughout Dispenser 100), wherein the flow restriction element is moveable between a flow restriction position to restrict or stop liquid flowing through the dispensing unit (Paragraph 90 and Figure 3 and 9, Pinch valve 260 can move to a position where it stops liquid from flowing throughout Dispenser 100), and a flow position to allow free flow of liquid through the dispensing unit (Paragraph 90 and Figure 3 and 9, Pinch valve 260 can move to a position where it allows liquid to flow throughout Dispenser 100),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boussemart to incorporate a flow restriction element as stated in Carhuff. The pinch valve helps maintain a sterile condition in the dispenser (Paragraph 90, Pinch valve).
Boussemart in view of Carhuff fails to teach that the movement of the flow restriction element is at least partially linked to a relative movement of the collection unit with respect to the dispensing unit.
Branko teaches a machine for preparing and dispensing a beverage (Abstract, A machine for preparing and dispensing a beverage) where the movement of the flow restriction element is at least partially linked to a relative movement of the collection unit with respect to the dispensing unit (Paragraph 136-138, Machine 1 utilizes guide 22, reads as collection unit, to direct liquid to be either be dispensed or collected into the waste collector 19. When the preparation units are in operation, the dispensing head 20 is deployed and the guide 22 is moved to a dispensing configuration, the guide 22 moves into a collecting configuration to the waste collector when dispensing head 20 is in its retracted position. Paragraph 146-148, The guide 22 and the Dispensing head 20 are mechanically connected and control the liquid flowing out of the outlet 21).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boussemart in view of Carhuff to incorporate movement of the flow restriction element with respect to the collection unit and the dispensing unit as stated in Branko. The movement helps direct the desired liquid into the cup and the undesired liquid into the waste section (Paragraph 136-138 and 146-148, Guide 22).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boussemart (US Patent No. 20100159097) in view of Flick (EP Patent No. 3818915).
Regarding Claim 8, Boussemart fails to teach a UV lamp for irradiating the dispensing unit.
Flick teaches an automated food product dispenser (Abstract, a beverage preparation machine) with a UV lamp for irradiating the dispensing unit (Figure 1 and Paragraph 89, A UV sanitization unit 4 in water tank 2's Chamber 8 which is part of the dispensing process).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boussemart to incorporate a UV lamp as stated in Flick. The UV sanitization unit is configured to sanitize the liquid received in the chamber. (Paragraph 89, The UV sanitization unit).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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 at (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 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.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights