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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 15 and 26-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cross et al. (EP 2,833,764).
In claim 15, Cross discloses the invention as claimed including a beverage preparation machine (generally 1), a brewing unit having two corresponding brewing chamber halves (10, 20) arranged to be movable relative to each other to be brought from an open position for dispensing and inserting a capsule to a closed position for forming a brewing chamber and for enclosing and extracting the capsule (see para. 0020), the brewing chamber having an inlet (generally supply line next to member 18) for introducing an extraction liquid, an outlet 7, for discharging the prepared beverage, and at least one further access 18, for rinsing the brewing chamber with a rinsing liquid, a pump 54, for pumping the extraction and/or rinsing liquid; a first fluid line between the pump and the inlet with a first valve 57, for opening and closing the first fluid line, a second fluid line between the pump (no number but line between valve 57 and pump 54 in figure 2) and the further access with a second valve 21 for opening and closing the second fluid line (“Tee” coupling member in figure 2) and a controller for controlling at least one of the valves and the pump (not shown, see para. 0023)(see also para. 0019-0023).
In claims 26 and 31, Cross discloses the invention as claimed including inserting a capsule 30, into a brewing chamber 10, 20, closing the brewing chamber, filling the brewing chamber with a rinsing liquid through at least one rinsing liquid access 18, draining the rinsing liquid from the brewing chamber to a collection container, introducing an extraction liquid into the brewing chamber through an inlet different from the further access so that the extraction liquid flows into the capsule ( see figure 2 and para. 0028-0032).
In claims 27 and 28, Cross discloses the invention as claimed including filling and rinsing the chamber repeatedly and partially simultaneously (see para. 0030-0031).
In claims 29 and 30, Cross discloses the invention as claimed including reducing the chamber size by lowering the chamber half into contact with the other.
In addition, although Cross does not disclose the expansion of the cartridge pod and resulting volume, it is an inherent feature of the device to expand the pod as the use of pressurized water pumped into the chamber would inherently expand the pod as a consequence of producing a beverage. MPEP §112 recites in part “the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” As such, the rejection of these claims have been anticipated.
In claim 32, Cross discloses the invention as claimed including capsule 30, utilized in a beverage machine set forth in claim 15 (see figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 16-21,32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross et al.
Cross discloses the invention substantially as claimed including multiple fluid lines (see figure 2) except for the use of third and fourth valves and fluid lines controlled by the controller with a predetermined pressure.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the machine of Cross with multiple fluid lines having respective fluid pumps, which conveys water to a brewing operation in lieu of a pump working in conjunction with a single valve, hysterically controlled by a controller (the controller controls the pressure to be used in the process) for the purpose of dispensing a brewed beverage and subsequent cleaning. The Applicant has not disclosed any specific importance of the number of lines and pumps. The fluid arrangement as disclosed by Cross would perform the functions claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-25,33 and 34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Affolter, Hesselbrock, Corti and Smith have been cited to show the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL R DURAND whose telephone number is (571)272-4459. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-400.
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.
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.
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights