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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-16 remain pending in the application. Claims 11-16 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 03/24/2026 except for the ones that are repeated in this office action.
Specification
The amended title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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:
delivery device in claim 1, interpreted as pump as described “the delivery device 23 may comprise a liquid delivery device 24 (Fig. 3) and a gas delivery device 26 (Fig. 2). The liquid delivery device 24 may include a pump” in page 14, lines 15-21 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof,
injection element in claim 1, interpreted as tube as described “the first injection element 14 and the second injection element 16 may substantially have a rectilinear shape. The first injection element 14 and the second injection element 16 may include respective hollow needles or canulae” in page 12, lines 20-25 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof,
discharge element in claim 1, interpreted as tube as described “The discharge element 20 may substantially have a rectilinear shape. The discharge element 20 may include a hollow needle or canula” in page 13, lines 5-10 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al., US 9968216 (Smith), and further in view of Smith et al., US 20210289982 (hereafter Smith-982).
Regarding claim 1,
Beverage preparation machine comprising: (Fig. 1)
a chamber for receiving a capsule carrying a beverage component, (cartridge holder 3 in Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
415
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Smith
a beverage preparation device having: a delivery device for delivering a fluid to the chamber, (pump 112 in Fig. 12)
PNG
media_image2.png
465
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 12 in Smith
a first injection element and a second injection element, the first and second injection elements being selectively fluidly connectable to the delivery device for injecting a fluid into the chamber, respectively, (Column 20, lines 48-55 teaches “To introduce liquid into the cartridge, for example, as shown in FIG. 14, a portion of the lid 38 generally circumscribed by the periphery 32 may be pierced by an inlet piercing element 46 (e.g., a needle) so that water or other liquid may be injected into the cartridge 1. Other inlet piercing arrangements are possible, such as multiple needles”.)
PNG
media_image3.png
386
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs. 14 and 15 in Smith
a discharge device having a discharge element for discharging the delivered fluid out of the chamber, (Column 21, lines 5-13 teaches “The cartridge 1 may also be penetrated by an outlet piercing element 45 (e.g., a needle) at a second portion of the lid 38 outside of the periphery 32 and apart from the inlet opening. As with the inlet piercing arrangement, the outlet piercing arrangement may be varied in any suitable way. Thus, the outlet piercing element 45 may include one or more hollow or solid needles, knives, blades, tubes, and so on.”)
…and the first injection element protrudes farther into the chamber than the discharge element, (Fig. 15 in Smith teaches injection element 54 farther protruded into the chamber than discharge element 45.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to position first injection element farther into the chamber than the discharge element as taught in Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would allow better drainage of beverage from cartridge due to gravity.)
wherein the second injection element comprises an outlet opening which is directed towards the discharge element and configured to jet or spray the fluid onto the discharge element, (The limitation is interpreted as Fig. 7 of the original disclosure wherein second injection element 16 and discharge element 20 protrude from the same side of capsule such that water injected from element 16 sprays discharge element 20.
PNG
media_image4.png
441
737
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of the original disclosure
Smith teaches in Fig. 15 that second injection element 54 and discharge element 45 protrude from the same side of capsule, and thus water injected from inlet 54 into the area 14b is configured to spray or jet on discharge element 45.)
and a region at which the second injection element protrudes into the chamber is located higher than a region at which the discharge element protrudes into the chamber. (Fig. 15 in Smith teaches inlet ports 46, 54 are located higher than outlet port 45.)
Smith is silent about the first injection element protrudes farther into the chamber than the second injection element.
Smith-982 teaches the first injection element protrudes farther into the chamber than the second injection element (Fig. 8 in Smith-982 teaches a central inlet port that protrudes farther than the peripheral ports.)
PNG
media_image5.png
365
703
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 in Smith-982
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to protrude the first injection element farther compared to 2nd injection element as taught in Smith-982 to the device in Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In some embodiments, the beverage machine is able to selectively dispense from each inlet port individually and independently of one another. Having the ability to selectively dispense from subsets of inlet ports may permit adjustability of various characteristics of the formed beverage” as taught in paragraphs [52-53] in Smith-982.
Regarding claim 3,
Beverage preparation machine according to claim 1,wherein a region at which the first injection element protrudes into the chamber is located higher than the region at which the discharge element protrudes into the chamber. ( Fig. 15 in Smith.)
Regarding claim 4,
Beverage preparation machine according to claim 1,wherein the second injection element protrude(s) into the chamber at an upper or uppermost region thereof. ( Fig. 15 in Smith.)
Regarding claim 5,
Beverage preparation machine according to claim 1,wherein the first injection element, the second injection element and the discharge element all protrude from the same side of the beverage preparation device into the chamber. (Fig. 15 in Smith.)
Regarding claim 6,
Beverage preparation machine according to claim 1,further comprising a capsule holder for holding the capsule. (cartridge holder 3 in Fig. 1 in Smith)
Regarding claim 7,
Beverage preparation machine according to claim 1, wherein the fluid is a liquid, (Column 4, lines 10-13 in Smith teaches “introducing liquid to the cartridge to form a beverage”)
wherein the delivery device comprises a liquid delivery device for delivering the liquid to the chamber, (pump 112 in Fig. 12)
and valves are provided to selectively deliver the liquid to at least one of the first injection element and the second injection element. (Smith is silent about this.
Smith-982 teaches “Each delivery line may have its own designated valve that may be independently controllable” in paragraph [64].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the valves in delivery lines for injection elements as taught in Smith-982 to the device in Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In some embodiments, the beverage machine is able to selectively dispense from each inlet port individually and independently of one another. Having the ability to selectively dispense from subsets of inlet ports may permit adjustability of various characteristics of the formed beverage” as taught in paragraphs [52-53] in Smith-982.
Regarding claim 9,
Beverage preparation machine according to claim 7,wherein the valves comprise: a first valve for selectively connecting the first injection element either to the gas delivery device or to the liquid delivery device, and a second valve for selectively connecting the second injection element either to the gas delivery device or to the liquid delivery device. (Smith is silent about this.
Smith-982 teaches “a central delivery line 70 that delivers liquid to the central inlet port 30, and a peripheral delivery line 80 that delivers liquid to the peripheral inlet ports 41 and 42. Each delivery line may have its own designated valve that may be independently controllable” in paragraph [64].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the valves in delivery lines for injection elements as taught in Smith-982 to the device in Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In some embodiments, the beverage machine is able to selectively dispense from each inlet port individually and independently of one another. Having the ability to selectively dispense from subsets of inlet ports may permit adjustability of various characteristics of the formed beverage” as taught in paragraphs [52-53] in Smith-982.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Smith-982 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Godfrey et al., US 20200253414 (hereafter Godfrey).
Beverage preparation machine according to claim 1,wherein the delivery device comprises a gas delivery device for delivering a gas to the chamber, (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Godfrey teaches air purging the brew chamber in paragraph [26]. Paragraph [27] teaches “the conduit 113 may provide air to the pump 112 to allow the pump 112 to pump air through the conduit 115 and to the heater tank 118, e.g., to purge the conduit 115, heater tank 118 and/or other conduits downstream of the heater tank 118.”)
the gas delivery device being fluidly connectable selectively to the first injection element and to the second injection element via conduits. (Godfrey teaches “In such a case, the conduit 113 may include a valve that can be opened to permit air flow to the pump 112” in paragraph [27]. Here the valve connects the gas delivery device to injection elements via conduits.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the gas delivery device to injection elements via valve as taught in Godfrey to the device in Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In embodiments where a user can adjust an amount of air or steam delivered to purge the brew chamber, the beverage machine may cause an air pump or liquid heater to operate or not depending on whether a user indicates whether a purge should occur” as taught in paragraph [26] in Godfrey.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Smith-982 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Godfrey et al., US 20200253414 (hereafter Godfrey).
Beverage preparation machine according to claim 7,wherein the valves comprise: a third valve configured to selectively connect the second injection element to a gas exhaust port, (Smith teaches in column 22, lines 18-27 “The cartridge 1 may be provided with a vent that is separate from the beverage outlet that permits the release of gas from the cartridge as it is filled with liquid. The vent may be provided by a one-way valve (e.g., a septum, duck bill valve, or other) that is attached to the lid 38 or container 12 and opens in response to increased pressure in the cartridge 1, may be provided by a piercing element 54 that pierces the lid 38 (as shown in FIG. 15) or container 12 to allow gas and/or liquid to escape, and other arrangements.” It is implied that injection element 54 is connected to a gas exhaust port to permit release of gas via valve.)
and a fourth valve configured to selectively connect the discharge element to either a dispense conduit or to a liquid exhaust port. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Godfrey teaches in paragraph [20] “the beverage machine 10 may include an outlet valve that can stop dispensing to a user's cup when an adjusted volume of beverage has been dispensed. In cases where additional beverage is produced, but not desired based on the user's changed beverage volume, the outlet valve may divert additional unwanted beverage to a drip tray or waste tank rather than delivering the beverage to the user's cup.”
Paragraph [33] teaches “The cover 4, cartridge holder 3 or other portion of the system 100 may also include one or more outlet needles 45 or other elements to puncture or pierce the cartridge 1 at an outlet side to permit the formed beverage to exit the cartridge 1.” It is implied that the outlet valve connects outlet port 45 to dispense conduit or drip tray.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the valve to connect discharge element to dispense conduit or exhaust port as taught in Godfrey to the device in Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In other embodiments, the beverage machine 10 may include an outlet valve that can stop dispensing to a user's cup when an adjusted volume of beverage has been dispensed. In cases where additional beverage is produced, but not desired based on the user's changed beverage volume, the outlet valve may divert additional unwanted beverage to a drip tray or waste tank rather than delivering the beverage to the user's cup” as taught in paragraph [20] in Godfrey.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/28/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-10 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claim 1 to recite that wherein the second injection element comprises an outlet opening which is directed towards the discharge element and configured to jet or spray the fluid onto the discharge element, and argued on pages 9-10 that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art. The limitation is interpreted as Fig. 7 of the original disclosure wherein second injection element 16 and discharge element 20 protrude from the same side of capsule such that water injected from element 16 sprays discharge element 20.
PNG
media_image6.png
442
737
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of the original disclosure
Smith teaches in Fig. 15 that second injection element 54 and discharge element 45 protrude from the same side of capsule, and thus water injected from inlet 54 into the area 14b is configured to spray or jet on discharge element 45.
PNG
media_image7.png
361
516
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 15 in Smith
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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights