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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “plant” is misspelled as “plat” in the 4th line. Appropriate correction is required.
The use of “and/or” in the second line of claim 17 is objected to because it would be more clear if only recitation of “and” were used.
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 13-14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “0.5 mm at the most”, and the claim also recites “0.2 mm at the most” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 is also rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 2,413,687 to Bogoslowsky, hereinafter “Bogoslowsky”.
Regarding claim 1, Bogoslowsky discloses a method for producing a suspension (method for making coffee infusion suspension; title), the method comprising:
feeding water by a pump from a storage container through a mixing chamber (water is feed from water storage container 1 in the figure by pump screw conveyor 23 through mixing chamber tube 22 by way of passages 26 therethrough; col. 3, line 28-64);
mechanically comminuting plant parts from real nuts, kernels, grains, and/or seeds by a comminuting element to form comminuted plant parts (coffee bean seeds are mechanically comminuted by grinding element 18 in the figure; col. 3, line 18-22 and col. 3, line 74 through col. 4, line 3);
mixing the comminuted plant parts with the water in the mixing chamber to form a mix (ground coffee is mixed with water in mixing chamber tube 22 by conveyor 23; col. 3, line 28-50);
pressing the mix through a filter that passes the suspension through and retains a pomace that remains from the plant parts (conveyor 23 press the mix through filter 24 in the figure which retains coffee pomace from the coffee bean seeds; col. 3, line 47-53),
wherein a pump wheel of the pump forms the comminuting element (screw conveyor 23 forms comminuting grinding element 18 in the figure).
Regarding claim 2, Bogoslowsky anticipates the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Bogoslowsky further discloses the suspension flows from the mixing chamber into a capture container (the coffee suspension flows from mixing chamber tube 22 into container 1 after passing through filter 24).
Regarding claim 3, Bogoslowsky anticipates the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Bogoslowsky further discloses the storage container is the capture container (container 1 in the figure is the storage container and the capture container).
Regarding claim 12, Bogoslowsky anticipates the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Bogoslowsky further discloses the comminuting element is a rasp (comminuting grinder element 18 is a rasp).
Regarding claim 15, Bogoslowsky anticipates the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Bogoslowsky further discloses the mixing chamber has a constant, at the most sextuple rotation symmetrical cross section in a vertical axial direction. Mixing chamber tube 22 has a constant, symmetrical cross section in the vertical axial direction as shown in the figure.
Regarding claim 16, Bogoslowsky anticipates the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Bogoslowsky further discloses using: a drive element axially movable in the mixing chamber and substantially closing the mixing chamber below the plant parts (drive element shaft 17 is axially movable within mixing chamber tube 22 with grinder element 18 and pump screw conveyor 23 thereon substantially closing mixing chamber tube 22 below the plant part coffee bean seeds shown in the drawing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogoslowsky in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,975,295 to Sierra, hereinafter “Sierra”.
Regarding claim 4, Bogoslowsky anticipates the method according to claim 1 as explained above. However, Bogoslowsky does not disclose:
pressing the plant parts into a shape of a tablet and drying the tablet;
introducing the tablet into the mixing chamber; and
comminuting the tablet by the comminuting element.
In the field of manufacturing seed tablets, Sierra teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to press dry plant parts, i.e. ground coffee, into a shape of a tablet. See the abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the coffee tablet taught by Sierra for the coffee beans disclosed by Bogoslowsky in Bogoslowsky’s method as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized applying the teaching of Sierra to Bogoslowsky’s method would achieve the predictable result of comminuting a coffee tablet in Bogoslowsky’s method instead of comminuting whole coffee beans.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogoslowsky.
Regarding claim 13, Bogoslowsky anticipates the method according to claim 1 as explained above. However, Bogoslowsky does not expressly disclose the gap between mixing chamber tube 22 and pump screw conveyor 23 in the figure is a filter and is silent regarding a gap dimension. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the gap dimension between mixing chamber tube 22 and pump screw conveyor 23 to 0.5mm at the most, or 0.2mm at the most since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the method of Bogoslowsky would not perform differently with the claimed gap dimension between mixing chamber tube 22 and pump screw 23. Further, applicant places no criticality on the gap dimension claimed, indicating merely it is advantageous to configure the gap as claimed. See paragraph [0016] of applicant’s written description.
Regarding claim 14, Bogoslowsky renders the method according to claim 13 unpatentable as explained above. Bogoslowsky further discloses the pump wheel (pump screw conveyor 23 in the figure) defines the gap (gap between mixing chamber tube 22 and pump screw conveyor 23 in the figure).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogoslowsky in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,624,177 to Ito et al., hereinafter “Ito”.
Regarding claim 17, Bogoslowsky renders the method according to claim 13 unpatentable as explained above. Bogoslowsky discloses a drive and a housing including the mixing chamber and the pump wheel are mounted to the storage container. That is, drive shaft 17 and grinder unit 5 with mixing chamber 22 and pump screw conveyor 23 appended thereto are mounted on top of container 1. However, Bogoslowsky does not disclose grinder unit 5 is connected to storage container 1 by disengage-able connections configured as a snapped, clamped, magnet, or bayonet connection.
In the same field of coffee grinding and brewing machines, Ito teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect an upper, lid-type housing (lid 18 in Fig. 10) to a lower container (brewer cup 19 in Fig. 10) by a bayonet-type disengage-able connection (51 and 52 in Fig. 10). See column 8, line 56-68.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a bayonet-type disengage-able connection to mount Bogoslowsky’s grinder unit 5 to Bogoslowsky’s storage container 1 in the same way Ito teaches. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized applying the teaching of Ito to Bogoslowsky’s disclosed apparatus would achieve the predictable result of using a bayonet-type connection to connect Bogoslowsky’s grinder unit 5 to container 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P.D.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725