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 Objections
Claims 1, 5, 10, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “said ingredient” in line 9 to “the flavouring ingredient” or “said flavouring ingredient” to clarify that the ingredient refers to the previously recited flavouring ingredient. Further, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “the processing unit” in line 11 to “the beverage processing unit” to clarify that the processing unit refers to the previously recited beverage processing unit.
Regarding claim 5, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “one part relative to the other part” in line 3 to “the first or second part relative to the other of the first or second part” to clarify that the parts refer to the first and second parts previously recited.
Regarding claim 10, Examiner respectfully suggests deleting the additional space between “claim” and “1” in line 1. Further, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “and or” in line 3 to “and/or”.
Regarding claim 14, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “the seat” in line 3 to line 5 to “the ingredient mixing seat” to clarify that the seat refers to the ingredient mixing seat previously recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation “the first and second relative positions” in line 23. However, it is unclear whether the first and second relative positions refers to the distant and proximate relative positions of the relative position that is close to at least one of the first and and proximate relative positions as recited in line 19-20. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the first and second relative positions as the distant and proximate relative positions. However, clarification and correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "e.g." and “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “relative to one or more of the foot” in line 2. However, claim 11 and claim 12, which claim 13 depends from, recites only one foot and it is unclear whether the claim requires one foot or multiple feet when one foot has only been previously recited for. For the purpose of Examination, Examiner will interpret claim 13 to recite one foot (“relative to the foot”). However, clarification and correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Lo Faro et al. (US20150017288).
Regarding claim 1, Lo Faro teaches a machine for preparing a beverage from a flavouring ingredient by mixing water with the flavouring ingredient (dispenser 11 in Figure 1; Abstract: The present disclosure relates to dispensing of a substance from a capsule by means of a dispensing apparatus. Specifically, the exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure relates to: (1) a capsule, (2) a beverage dispenser for receiving the capsule and [0032] The opening may be shaped to allow a fluid such as water to be injected into the capsule 11 for dissolving or mixing the mixing agent within the capsule 11. In addition, the opening may also be shaped to allow the mixed content to flow out of the capsule 11), such machine comprising:
a beverage processing unit (cover 101 and base 115; Figure 1) having a first part (base 115; Figure 1) and a second part (cover 101; Figure 1) that are movable one relative to the other from a distant relative position (see Figure 1, 1A, and 1B) to a proximate relative position (see Figure 2B), the first and second parts forming in the proximate position an ingredient mixing seat (receiving compartment 108; Figure 2A) for mixing said ingredient with water and in the distant relative position a passage for insertion of said ingredient into the mixing seat and/or removal of said ingredient from the mixing seat ([0056] Specifically, FIG. 1B shows the dispenser 100 in an open position. The capsule 11 has been inserted into the receiving compartment 108. The capsule 11 top 111 rests on top of the receiving compartment 108 and [0070] The cover 101 may be opened again, and the empty or nearly empty capsule 11 may be removed, ejected, or otherwise discarded); and
a dampening device (bumper 130; Figure 2A- Figure 2D) associated with the processing unit and configured for dampening a relative movement of the first and second parts when moving one relative to the other ([0048] a bumper 130 may be attached the cover 100 to provide a dampening effect when the cover 101 pivots down into a closed position),
the dampening device is:
operative to dampen the relative movement of the first and second parts moving one relative to the other when the first and second parts are at a relative position that is close to the proximate relative position ([0048] a bumper 130 may be attached the cover 100 to provide a dampening effect when the cover 101 pivots down into a closed position); and
inoperative to dampen the relative movement of the first and second parts moving one relative to the other when the first and second parts are at a relative position that is remote from the first and second relative position (see bumper 130 in Figure 2A at position between first and second relative position where bumper 130 is not engaged with rear housing 103 to provide damping affect).
Regarding claim 2, Lo Faro teaches the machine of claim 1, wherein the first and second parts moving one relative to the other are close to at least one of the distant and proximate relative positions when their relative position is closer to said at least one distant and proximate relative positions than 10% of a spacing, e.g. a distance spacing and/or an angular spacing, extending from the distant relative position to the proximate relative position (Lo Faro teaches a range of motions are possible between the first and second parts as they move between the distant and proximate relative positions such that the machine would be capable of having the distance spacing of the first and second parts be a relative position closer than 10% of a spacing extending from the distant relative position to the proximate relative position).
Regarding claim 3, Lo Faro teaches the machine of claim 1, wherein the first and second parts moving one relative to the other are remote from at least one of the distant and proximate relative positions when their relative position is different to their relative close position (Lo Faro teaches a range of motions are possible between the first and second parts as the second part moves between the distant and proximate relative positions such that the machine would be capable of having a relative position of the second part be remote from at least one of the distant and proximate relative positions when its relative position is different to its relative close position).
Regarding claim 4, Lo Faro teaches the machine of claim 1,wherein the dampening device is operative to dampen the relative movement of the first and second parts when the first and second parts are at a relative position that is close to the proximate relative position or to the proximate relative position (see Figure 2B and [0048] a bumper 130 may be attached the cover 100 to provide a dampening effect when the cover 101 pivots down into a closed position).
Regarding claim 7, Lo Faro teaches the machine of claim1, wherein the dampening device forms an end-of-movement bumper that is stressed when the first and second parts reach the proximate relative position ([0048] a bumper 130 may be attached the cover 100 to provide a dampening effect when the cover 101 pivots down into a closed position; see Figure 2B).
Regarding claim 8, Lo Faro teaches the machine of claim 1, wherein the dampening device comprises a resilient member ([0048] a bumper 130 may be attached the cover 100 to provide a dampening effect when the cover 101 pivots down into a closed position; see Figure 2B).
Regarding claim 9, Lo Faro teaches the machine of claim 1, wherein the dampening device is stationary or mobile relative to one part of the first and second parts (see bumper 130 stationary relative to the second part and mobile relative to the first part in Figure 2B), the other part of the first part comprising a member that contacts and stresses the dampening device when the dampening device is operative to dampen (base 115 comprising rear housing 103 contacts and stresses bumper 130 when the camping device is operative to dampen as shown in Figure 2B).
Regarding claim 10, Lo Faro teaches the machine of claim 1, wherein the dampening device comprises a recess and at least one of the first and second parts comprises a member having a protruding part, and or vice-versa (Examiner is interpreting the limitation “and or vice-versa as the opposite of the preceding limitation such that the dampening device comprises a protruding part and at least one of the first and second parts comprises a member having a recess). Lo Faro teaches the dampening device comprises a protruding part and at least one of the first and second parts comprises a member having a recess as shown in annotated Figure 2A below. Further, Lo Faro teaches the protruding part entering the recess and contacting the dampening device so as to stress
PNG
media_image1.png
756
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Lo Faro teaches the machine of claim 1, wherein the first part has a cavity (shield 107; Figure 2B) and the second part has a cover (retractable shield 105; Figure 1), the cavity and the cover defining the seat in the proximate relative position (see receiving compartment 108 holding capsule 11 in Figure 2B), the processing unit comprising a water feed conduit (mixing nozzle 202; Figure 2B) for feeding said water into the seat ([0061] The intake of the mixing nozzle 202 may be connected to a mixing fluid source (not shown). The mixing fluid source may provide filtered water or other liquid that is at an ambient temperature) and a beverage outlet passage for passing said beverage out of the seat ([0067] The flow of mixed contents may combine with the finishing stream 203A to form a combined flow stream that may be a laminar flow stream 203B, which may be directed down through the shield 107 and into a beverage container (not shown); see Figure 2B).
Regarding claim 15, Lo Faro teaches the machine of claim 1, which comprises:
a fluid line extending from a source of water to a beverage outlet ([0061] The intake of the mixing nozzle 202 may be connected to a mixing fluid source (not shown). The mixing fluid source may provide filtered water or other liquid that is at an ambient temperature… [0067] The flow of mixed contents may combine with the finishing stream 203A to form a combined flow stream that may be a laminar flow stream 203B, which may be directed down through the shield 107 and into a beverage container (not shown)) and a removable ingredient container (capsule 11; Figure 1).
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) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo Faro et al. (US20150017288), and further in view of Tinkler et al. (US20110200726).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 6, Lo Faro teaches machine of claim 1. Lo Faro teaches the processing unit comprises an electric actuator that is actuated to pivot a hinged portion that partially opens the removable ingredient container ([0060] in the position shown in FIG. 2B, the capsule 110 and receiving compartment 108 are about 5 degrees above least a 5 degree angle with respect to the plane parallel to the base, and dispenser 100 has actuated the motor 220 or other mechanism for causing the hinged portion 110 to pivot up and partially open the capsule 11). Further, Lo Faro teaches second part may be lifted and lowered by handle 102 shown in Figure 1([0041]). However, Lo Faro fails to teach the electric actuator is configured to move by urging one part relative to the other part into at least one of the distant and proximate relative positions such that the dampening device is operative to dampen the relative movement of the first and second parts. Further, Lo Faro teaches
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a beverage preparing machine, Tinkler teaches a motor is configured to urge one part relative to the other part into at least one of the distant and proximate relative position as an alternative to opening and closing the second part by a handle ([0016] A brew chamber 1 may be opened, e.g., by lifting a handle 3, so that a beverage cartridge may be inserted into the brew chamber 1 for forming a beverage… it should be understood that the brew chamber 1 may be opened in other ways, such as by push button actuation of a motor-driven mechanism, manual opening of a drawer that slides linearly outwardly to receive a cartridge, and so on).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the opening and closing mechanism of Lo Faro with a motor-driven mechanism, as taught by Tinkler, to achieve the predicable result of urging one part relative to the other part into at least one of the distant and proximate relative position. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success, since both Lo Faro and Tinkler teach a handle is used for urging the first and second parts between the relative positions, and Tinkler teaches a motor-driven mechanism as an alternative to a handle mechanism. Further, Lo Faro teaches an electric actuator is configured to operate components of the machine.
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo Faro et al. (US20150017288), and further in view of Byun et al. (US20200107669).
Regarding claim 11, Lo Faro teaches the machine of claim 1. However, Lo Faro fails to show the bottom portion of the machine and fails teach the machine has a foot configured to rest and be stationary on an external support surface during beverage preparation, the processing unit and the dampening device being directly or indirectly mounted to the foot.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a beverage preparing machine, Byun teaches a beverage dispensing machine comprising a foot (placement member(s) 30e; Figure 10) configured to rest and be stationary on an external support surface during beverage preparation ([0086] Machine 1 includes at least one placement member 30e for resting onto a generally flat external support surface 5 in a configuration such that the above unit is in an orientation for preparing and dispensing the beverage), a processing unit being directly mounted to the foot (see user-handle 43 and interface device 31 in Figure 3). The foot provides a stability of the machine ([0087] At least one placement member 30e is movable and has: [0088] a deployed placement position providing a stability of the unit in the above orientation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the machine of Lo Faro comprise a foot configured to rest and be stationary on an external support surface during beverage preparation, the processing unit of Lo Faro comprising the dampening device being directly or indirectly mounted to the foot, as taught by Byun, for the benefit of stabilizing the machine on an external support surface.
Regarding claim 12, Lo Faro modified with Byun teaches the machine of claim 11.
Further, Byun teaches wherein the first is stationary relative to the foot and the second part is movable relative to the foot when moving one part relative to the other part (see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the machine of Lo Faro comprise a foot configured to rest and be stationary on an external support surface during beverage preparation, wherein the first is stationary relative to the foot and the second part is movable relative to the foot when moving one part relative to the other part, as taught by Byun, for the benefit of stabilizing the machine on an external support surface.
Regarding claim 13, Lo Faro modified with Byun teaches the machine of claim 12.
Further, Byun teaches wherein the second part if movable relative to the foot.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the machine of Lo Faro comprise a foot configured to rest and be stationary on an external support surface during beverage preparation, wherein the second part of Lo Faro comprising the dampening device is movable relative to the foot, as taught by Byun, for the benefit of stabilizing the machine on an external support surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights