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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p) (5) because no reference character is provided for display screen. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
2. 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.
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 limitations are: a cold beverage apparatus for, a driving apparatus for in claim 1; a display space for, a display port for in claim 2; an upper heat dissipating port for in claim 3; a communicating region for in claim 4; a heat exchanger housing for in 5; and a multifunctional machine for in claim 13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert cabinet et al. (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2025/0234890 A1), hereinafter referred to as Robert et al. ‘814, in view of XUE (English Translated Chinese Pub No.: CN215181836 U), hereinafter referred to as XUE ‘836, further in view of Fonte et al. (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2020/0056814 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fonte et al. ‘814.
Regarding claim 1, Robert et al ‘890 disclose a cold beverage maker (100), comprising a cabinet (102), a separation plate (220) provided in the cabinet, a cold beverage apparatus (202) for making a cold beverage, and a compressor (214) for refrigerating the cold beverage apparatus, wherein through the separation plate, the cabinet is separated into an upper device space (104) and a lower device space (102) {as shown in Figs. 1 and 3: ¶¶ [0003], [0068-0069], wherein the space above the separation plate constitutes an upper device space, and the space below the separation plate constitutes a lower device space}; and the cold beverage apparatus and the compressor are respectively provided in the upper device space and the lower device space {as shown in Fig. 2}; the cold beverage apparatus comprises an evaporator (202), and a driving apparatus (208/2204) for driving the stirring member {as shown in Figs. 8 and 22A: ¶¶ [0067] and [0121]}; a display region (112/1500/1700) is provided on a front or a top of the cabinet {as shown in Figs. 1-3, 15 and 17: ¶¶ [0064], [0110] and [0113]}; and a feed region (FR) is provided on the top of the cabinet {as shown in annotated Fig. 7A}; and at the feed region, the top of the cabinet is recessed to form a feed groove (G){as shown in annotated Fig. 7A}; a detachable feed hopper (106) is provided in the feed groove {as shown in Figs. 13A, 24(A-B) and Figs. 26 and 27A}; and the feed hopper communicates (162) with the cold beverage cartridge {as shown in Figs. 24(A-B), 26 and 27A: ¶¶ [0129-0130]}.
However, Robert et al ‘890 fail to explicitly disclose the limitations of the cabinet is internally separated into an upper device space and a lower device space; and a cold beverage cartridge provided in the evaporator, a stirring member provided in the cold beverage cartridge.
XUE ‘836 teaches: the concept of the cabinet (1) is internally separated into an upper device space and a lower device space {as shown in Fig. 1: Abstract Page 1, Page 2, ¶5}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Robert et al ‘890 in view XUE ‘836 to include the cabinet being internally separated into an upper device space and a lower device space, in order to facilitate drainage of condensed fluid from the evaporator onto the upper surface of the partition plate away from the compressor below the partition plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Robert et al ‘890 in view of XUE ‘836 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Fonte et al ‘814 teach: the concept of a cold beverage cartridge (150) provided in the evaporator (108); a stirring member (160) provided in the cold beverage cartridge {as shown in Figs. 3A: ¶ [0094]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Robert et al ‘890 evaporator by the evaporator of Fonte et al ‘814 so as to include the use a cold beverage cartridge provided in the evaporator; a stirring member provided in the cold beverage cartridge, in order to facilitate producing cooled food or drinks from ingredients in a pod containing the ingredients {Fonte et al ‘814 – ¶ [0007]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Robert et al ‘890 in view of Fonte et al ‘814 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Robert et al ‘890, XUE ‘836 and Fonte et al ‘814 disclose and teach the cold beverage maker according to claim 1, Robert et al ‘890 disclose wherein at the display region, the front or the top of the cabinet inclines upward to form, in the cabinet, a display space for mounting a display screen {as shown in Figs. 1-3, 15 and 17: ¶¶ 116204[0064] and [0077]}; and a display port for mounting a display panel (1504/1702) is formed at the display region {as shown in Figs. 15 and 17: ¶¶ [0110] and [0113-0114]}.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Robert et al ‘890, XUE ‘836 and Fonte et al ‘814 disclose and teach the cold beverage maker according to claim 1, Robert et al ‘890 disclose wherein the upper device space is laterally divided into a refrigerating space (104) and a driving heat dissipating space (122){as shown in Figs. 1, 5A and 13C: ¶¶ [0064-0067], [0088] and [0102]}; and the evaporator (202) and the driving apparatus (208) are respectively provided in the refrigerating space and the driving heat dissipating space {as shown in Fig. 2: ¶ [0068]}; and on the cabinet, a discharge hole (2902) matching with the cold beverage cartridge {see Figs. Figs. 29(A-B and D): ¶ [0136]} and an upper heat dissipating port (2238) for dissipating heat are respectively formed at a left end and a right end of the upper device space (as shown in Fig. 22(B-C): ¶¶ [0125-0126]}.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Robert et al ‘890, XUE ‘836 and Fonte et al ‘814 disclose and teach the cold beverage maker according to claim 3, Robert et al ‘890 as modified by XUE ‘836 further teach the limitations of wherein the separation plate is provided with a communicating region (3) for communicating the upper device space and the lower device space {as shown in Fig. 1: Page 3}; and a plurality of communicating holes (4) are formed in the communicating region {as shown in Fig. 1: Page 3}; and the communicating region corresponds to the driving heat dissipating space {see Abstract, Page 1; and Page 2}.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Robert et al ‘890, XUE ‘836 and Fonte et al ‘814 disclose and teach the cold beverage maker according to claim 4, Robert et al ‘890 disclose wherein a bracket (B) for supporting the separation plate (220) and a heat exchanger housing (102) for mounting a heat exchanger (216) are respectively provided at two inner sides of the lower device space {as shown in Figs. 2 ¶¶ [0064-0070]]}; and the bracket and the heat exchanger housing jointly support the separation plate {as shown in annotated Fig. 2}.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Robert et al ‘890, XUE ‘836 and Fonte et al ‘814 disclose and teach the cold beverage maker according to claim 5, wherein the heat exchanger (216) provided for the compressor (214) is provided in the heat exchanger housing (102) {as shown in Figs. 1-2}; a cooling fan (2202) is further provided in the heat exchanger housing {as shown in Fig. 22A: ¶ [0121]}; and the cooling fan is located under the communicating region {as shown in Fig. 22A}.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Robert et al ‘890, XUE ‘836 and Fonte et al ‘814 disclose and teach the cold beverage maker according to claim 1, Robert et al ‘890 disclose wherein a communicating tube (162) communicating with the cold beverage cartridge is provided on a bottom of the feed groove {as shown in Fig. 24B: ¶ [0129]}; and the feed hopper matches with the feed groove in shape, so as to cover a surface (160) of the feed groove {as shown in Fig. 24: [0129]}.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Robert et al ‘890, XUE ‘836 and Fonte et al ‘814 disclose and teach the cold beverage maker according to claim 1, Robert et al ‘890 disclose wherein the cold beverage maker is an ice cream maker or a smoothie maker or a multifunctional machine for making ice cream and smoothie {see ¶ [0003]}.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert et al. ‘814, XUE ‘836 and Fonte et al. ‘814 as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wagstaff (U.S. Patent No.: 5,040,595), hereinafter referred to as Wagstaff ‘595.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Robert et al ‘890, XUE ‘836 and Fonte et al ‘814 disclose and teach the cold beverage maker according to claim 1, EXCEPT for the limitations of wherein a rabbet of the feed groove extends upward to form an extension edge of a preset length, thereby forming a guide channel housing communicating with the feed groove.
Wagstaff ‘595 teaches: the concept of a rabbet (34) of the feed groove (52) extends upward to form an extension edge (48) of a preset length, thereby forming a guide channel (58) housing communicating with the feed groove {as shown in Fig. 2; Col 7, lines 14-25}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Robert et al ‘890 in view Wagstaff ‘595 to include the use a rabbet of the feed groove extends upward to form an extension edge of a preset length, thereby forming a guide channel housing communicating with the feed groove, in order to facilitate easy and secure supportive interlocking edge between the hopper outer edge to the feed groove.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Robert et al ‘890 in view of Wagstaff ‘595 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
PNG
media_image1.png
734
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
847
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
4. Claims 8-11 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
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20160183716-A1 to Harrington; John
US-5967226-A to Choi; Sang Kyong.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571)272-6681. 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.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
07/11/2026
Prosecution Insights