DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 11/24/25 . As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 11 have been amended; claims 7 and 17 have been cancelled; and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are presently pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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. The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“holder body means” (cl. 11): 11, FIG. 47
“movable liquid-dispensing means” (cl. 11): 202b, FIG. 46c
“plurality of extension means” (cl. 11): 202b, FIG. 46c
“movable liquid-dispensing means” (cl. 20): 202b, FIG. 46c
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lassota (US 7,717,026) in view Pope (US 2004/0194631).
With regard to claims 1 and 11, Lassota teaches a brewing material holder (49) configured for use with a beverage brewer (20) (FIG. 2), comprising: a holder body/holder body means (70) configured to hold brewing material (30) and to be removably placed (“brew basket removably mounted to the brewer”, cl. 23) in a brewing chamber (chamber of 49) of the beverage brewer (118); and a movable liquid-dispensing member/movable liquid-dispensing means (112) configured to couple with the holder body (70) and to receive a flow of liquid (liquid flow illustrated at FIG. 2 via downward arrows); wherein the liquid-dispensing member includes a plurality of arms/extension means (“arms 112”, col. 8, ln. 11-16); wherein the movable liquid-dispensing member/liquid-dispensing means is configured to move due only to the flow of liquid through the ports (“the jet force of the dispense water being discharged out of the ends or out of radially directed intermediate outlet ports located along the length of the arms 112 can be used to provide the necessary jet stream force to rotate the arms.”, col. 8, ln. 11-16).
Lassota does not teach in the primary embodiment wherein the center member crosses an axis of motion of the liquid-dispersing member, and the plurality of arms extend from the center member so as to be offset from the axis of rotation; however, in a second embodiment Lassota teaches the aforementioned limitations as detailed in the annotated drawing presented hereafter:
PNG
media_image1.png
692
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotatable water dispersion member (112, FIG. 2) in the primary embodiment of Lassota, such that the center member crosses an axis of motion of the liquid-dispersing member, and the plurality of arms extend from the center member so as to be offset from the axis of motion, as suggested and taught by the secondary embodiment of Lassota, for the purpose of providing enhanced water distribution to predetermined locations. Furthermore, assuming it was determined that the first and second arms are determined as not extending from the center portion as to be offset from the axis of rotation, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve a desired spray pattern at predetermined locations.
Lassota teaches in the primary embodiment that each of the arms of the liquid-dispensing member may include outlet ports along their lengths to dispense liquid into the holder body (see col. 8, lines 11-16), however, the primary embodiment does not explicitly teach that the plurality of ports are arranged on an underside of the at least one arm/extension means. However, the alternative embodiment of Lassota teaches a plurality of ports as detailed in the above annotated figure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as an alternative teaching, Pope from the same field of endeavor directed toward a variable flow spray system teaches a spray head 20 with a plurality of ports 22 on an underside of the head spraying a beverage brewing substance 24 (FIG. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Lassota reference, such that the plurality of ports are arranged on an underside of the at least one arm/extension means, as suggested and taught by Pope, for the purpose of providing a varied spray pattern to agitate the brewing substance as desired to achieve an enhanced brewing product (para. [0043]).
With regard to claims 2 and 12, Lassota teaches the movable liquid-dispensing member/means (112) is configured to rotate due to the flow of liquid (“the jet force of the dispense water being discharged out of the ends or out of radially directed intermediate outlet ports located along the length of the arms 112 can be used to provide the necessary jet stream force to rotate the arms.”, col. 8, ln. 11-16).
With regard to claims 3 and 13, Lassota teaches the movable liquid-dispensing member/means (112) is configured to rotate due only to the flow of liquid (“the jet force of the dispense water being discharged out of the ends or out of radially directed intermediate outlet ports located along the length of the arms 112 can be used to provide the necessary jet stream force to rotate the arms.”, col. 8, ln. 11-16).
With regard to claims 4 and 14, Pope teaches the ports (22) are angled away from a vertical centerline of the liquid-dispensing member/means (FIG. 1 illustrates spray ports 22 angled away from a vertical centerline).
With regard to claims 5 and 15, with regard to the limitation of the ports are configured to produce a spray pattern having a horizontal component, it is submitted that an inherent feature of parent claims 4 and 14 is that the ports are angled away from a vertical centerline and as such the instant limitations are taught by the cited art.
With regard to claims 6 and 16, Lassota teaches the spray pattern is configured to provide a force that generates torque to rotate the liquid-dispensing member/means (“the jet force of the dispense water being discharged out of the ends or out of radially directed intermediate outlet ports located along the length of the arms 112 can be used to provide the necessary jet stream force to rotate the arms.”, col. 8, ln. 11-16).
With regard to claims 8 and 18, Lassota teaches the movable liquid-dispensing member/means (112) is configured to move due to a force of pressure provided by the flow of liquid (“the jet force of the dispense water being discharged out of the ends or out of radially directed intermediate outlet ports located along the length of the arms 112 can be used to provide the necessary jet stream force to rotate the arms.”, col. 8, ln. 11-16).
With regard to claims 9 and 19, Lassota teaches the force of pressure provided by the flow of liquid is caused by a weight of the liquid (“the jet force of the dispense water being discharged out of the ends or out of radially directed intermediate outlet ports located along the length of the arms 112 can be used to provide the necessary jet stream force to rotate the arms.”, col. 8, ln. 11-16).
With regard to claims 10 and 20, Lassota teaches A beverage brewer, comprising: the brewing material holder of claim 1/11 (as detailed above); a liquid container/liquid container means (29), and a nozzle/nozzle means (58) configured to provide liquid from the liquid container to the movable liquid-dispensing member/means (“the jet force of the dispense water being discharged out of the ends or out of radially directed intermediate outlet ports located along the length of the arms 112 can be used to provide the necessary jet stream force to rotate the arms.”, col. 8, ln. 11-16)..
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the newly presented prior art rejections as detailed herein above.
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 JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761