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 § 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.
GROUND 1: Claims 7, 17 and 20 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 7, 17 and 20 contain the trademark/trade name K-cup capsule, a Dolce Gusto capsule, and a Nespresso capsule. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a single-serve capsule and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
GROUND 2: Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 12-13, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0145038 to Apone et al.
In regard to claims 1, 13, 16 and 18, Apone et al. disclose a coffee brewing apparatus 100, and method of producing coffee, comprising: a housing; a grinding system associated with the housing (See Fig. 1 and paras 0017-0018), the grinding system having a grinding mechanism 214 for grinding coffee beans to transform the coffee beans into coffee grounds (See Fig. 2a and paras 0020-0034); and a brewing system 250 associated with the housing, the brewing system including a brewing chamber for receiving a cartridge 210, and a flow pathway for delivering heated water to the cartridge (See Fig. 2b and paras 0042-0043, 0046-0055).
In regard to claims 2, Apone et al. disclose a coffee brewing apparatus, wherein: the grinding system and the brewing system are located on a front side of the housing and are positioned adjacent to one another (See Figs. 1 and 2a-b).
In regard to claim 3, Apone et al. disclose a coffee brewing apparatus, wherein:
the grinding system includes an outlet for discharging the coffee grounds (See para 0026); and wherein the coffee brewing apparatus further includes a cartridge holder beneath the outlet of the grinding system for holding the cartridge beneath the outlet, for collection of the coffee grounds discharged by the outlet in the cartridge (See Fig. 2b and para 0042).
In regard to claim 4, Apone et al. disclose a coffee brewing apparatus, wherein: the cartridge is a reusable beverage pod (See para 0020).
In regard to claim 5, Apone et al. disclose a coffee brewing apparatus, wherein: the reusable beverage pod is selectively configurable in both a high-pressure brewing mode or a low-pressure brewing mode (See paras 0034-0035).
In regard to claims 6 and 19, Apone et al. disclose a coffee brewing apparatus, wherein: the brewing system is configured to alternately receive a plurality of cartridge holders which are each configured to receive one of a plurality of single serve capsules each having a different style or configuration (See paras 0020 and 0042).
In regard to claim 9, Apone et al. disclose a coffee brewing apparatus, wherein:
the grinding mechanism is one of a conical burr grinder, flat burr grinder, and blade
grinder (See para 0028).
In regard to claim 10, Apone et al. disclose a coffee brewing apparatus, wherein: the brewing system includes a brew head having an upper portion and a lower portion, the lower portion containing the brewing chamber, the upper portion being moveable relative to the lower portion between an open position and a closed position; and wherein the brewing system further includes a locking mechanism for maintaining a seal between a sealing element surrounding a water outlet in the brew head and the cartridge (See Fig.s 2b and paras 0042-0044).
In regard to claim 12, Apone et al. disclose a coffee brewing apparatus, wherein: the coffee brewing apparatus is operable in both a high-pressure brewing mode to produce an espresso style coffee beverage, and a low-pressure brewing mode to produce a drip style coffee beverage (See paras 0034 and 0060).
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.
GROUND 3: Claim(s) 8 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0145038 to Apone et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0176625 to Brockman et al.
In regard to claims 8 and 14-15, Apone et al. disclose a coffee brewing apparatus and method of producing coffee (see rejections above) but are silent with respect to the grinding system includes a hopper for receiving the whole coffee beans, the grinding mechanism, and an adjustment mechanism for selecting a coarseness of the coffee grounds produced by the grinding mechanism. Brockman et al. teach of an analogous a coffee brewing apparatus, and method of producing coffee, comprising an adjustment mechanism for selecting a coarseness of the coffee grounds produced by the grinding mechanism (see Para 0034). Specifically, a grinder included in the cartridge 200 can produce coffee grounds in a range of sizes from 400 microns to 800 microns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Apone et al. to include an adjustable grinder to allow multiple different coffee beverages to be brewed as taught by Brockman et al. Claim 15 contains nearly identical limitations to claim 5, which is rejected above under GROUND 1.
GROUND 4: Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0145038 to Apone et al. in view of EP 4032445 to Kirschner et al.
In regard to claim 11, Apone et al. disclose a coffee brewing apparatus and method of producing coffee (see rejections above) but are silent with respect to a drip tray slidably received by the housing and movable between a raised position and a
lowered position. Kirschner et al. teach of an analogous a coffee brewing apparatus, comprising a drip tray slidably received by the housing and movable between a raised position and a lowered position (See paras 3-4). Specifically, the closing element 5 is pivotally mounted for rotation it about a horizontal axis 25 in the drip tray 1 above the opening 19, such that the closing element closes the opening of the drainage device when the covering element is not properly installed in the drip tray, and the closing element is engaged with the covering element to hold open the opening of the drainage device when the covering element is properly installed in the drip tray (see paras. 0010 and 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Apone et al. to include a drip tray slidably received by the housing and movable between a raised position and a lowered position to provide a drainage device equipped to prevent the machine from clogging with waste particulates as taught by Kirschner et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM--3PM.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights