DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/09/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 15, and 16 have been amended; claim 10 has been cancelled; and claim 21 has been added. Thus, claims 1-9 and 11-21 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 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, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 24, and 27 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 “a steam outlet positioned adjacent the water outlet and in fluid communication with the interior chamber”, it is unclear which structure element is “in fluid communication with the interior chamber” (i.e., is it either the steam outlet or the water outlet?). The remaining claims are rejected for at least the reason of their direct and/or indirect dependency from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 24 and 27 recite “the interior chamber comprises a water tray sloped relative to a frame of the nozzle from the water inlet to the water outlet”; however, claims 1 and 15 from which the aforementioned claims respectively depend each recite “a bottom surface of the interior chamber sloped downward from the water inlet to the water outlet”. It is unclear whether the newly recited “water tray” relates to the aforementioned “bottom surface” or if the “water tray” is situated at another location from that of the claimed “bottom surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4, 9, 11 13, 15, 16, 18-23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazer (US 2016/0206134) in view of Hulett et al. (US 8910563) and Hufnagl (US 5,388,502).
With regard to claims 1 and 15, Frazer teaches An automatic pour over coffee machine (100, FIG. 1) comprising: a machine housing (110); a coffee filter assembly (120) supported on the machine housing (FIG. 1).
Furthermore, Frazer does not teach the following limitations in a single embodiment. Instead, Frazer teaches in another embodiment illustrated by FIG. 11 (from that of the above embodiment of FIG. 1) the coffee filter assembly comprising a basket (1140) for holding a filter (150), the basket removably insertable into a gasket assembly (1170/1160). 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 primary embodiment in the Frazier reference, to include the coffee filter assembly comprising a basket for holding coffee grounds with the basket removably insertable into a gasket assembly, as suggested and taught by Frazer in an alternative embodiment, for the purpose of providing a holding mechanism which is easily cleanable and refillable due to the subject separability.
Additionally, Frazer teaches in another embodiment illustrated by FIG. 3 (from that of the above embodiment of FIG. 1); a water delivery system (via movable nozzle 310, FIG. 3) arranged within the machine housing, the water delivery system configured to dispense heated water over coffee grounds in the filter (150) in a laminar flow (“FIG. 3 shows a rotating filter 300 with a moveable nozzle 310. As illustrated, the coffee grounds still have a circular valley due only to rotation 365 of rotating filter 300 about an axis 360 without moving moveable nozzle 310. As moveable nozzle 310 is moved along the line 315, either toward the center of the rotating filter 300 or toward the outer wall, the top surface of the coffee grounds would become more even.”, para. [0025]: the term “laminar flow” is illustrated by FIG. 3 which shows two water droplets which are stacked in a single downward line), the water delivery system comprising: a nozzle (310, FIG. 3) for receiving the heated water, the nozzle comprising a water outlet (see water dispense droplets from nozzle 310 illustrated in FIG. 3); and a linear motor (inherently present to further linear movement 315 illustrated in FIG. 3) operatively coupled to the nozzle (310) for moving the nozzle laterally relative to the machine housing (“As moveable nozzle 310 is moved along the line 315, either toward the center of the rotating filter 300 or toward the outer wall, the top surface of the coffee grounds would become more even. “, para. [0025]). 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 primary embodiment in the Frazier reference, to include a rotation motor operatively coupled to and rotating the basket relative to the machine housing, a water delivery system arranged within the machine housing and configured to dispense heated water over the coffee grounds in a laminar flow with a nozzle comprising a water outlet and a linear motor operatively coupled to the nozzle for moving the nozzle laterally relative to the machine housing, as suggested and taught by Frazer in an alternative embodiment, for the purpose of providing enhanced brewing by providing heated water along an entirety of a given brewing material perimeter.
With regard to claim 15 which is directed toward a method of producing a desired “pour over” coffee flavor profile in an automatic pour over coffee machine, it is submitted that as the instant claim includes the same limitations as claim 1 which is directed toward an automatic pour over coffee machine except that claim 15 is directed toward a method, with respect to the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01(I)".
With regard to the limitation of the nozzle defining an interior chamber comprising a wáter inlet and a wáter outlet, a bottom surface of the interior chamber sloped downward from the wáter inlet to the wáter outlet, although Frazer teaches a nozzle as detailed above, the citation does not teach the aformentioned limitations explicitly. However, Hulett from the same field of Endeavor directed toward an apparatus for brewing a beverage teaches the aformentioned limitation as detailed in the following annotated figure:
PNG
media_image1.png
470
653
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 device in the Frazer reference, such that the nozzle defining an interior chamber comprising a wáter inlet and a wáter outlet, a bottom Surface of the interior chamber sloped downard from the wáter inlet to the wáter outlet, as suggested and taught by Hulett, for the purpose of providing a water output at a predetermined location.
Frazer does not teach the nozzle further comprises: a steam outlet positioned adjacent the water outlet and in fluid communication with the chamber for releasing steam from the chamber, the steam outlet configured to release steam created by the heated water to an exterior of the interior chamber, and wherein the release of the steam from the interior chamber causes removal of turbulence from the heated water and helps create, at least in part, the laminar flow of the dispensed heated water; however, Hufnagl from the same field of endeavor directed toward an espresso coffee machine teaches the aforementioned limitations, namely a steam outlet (second duct): “Steam can be taken from the espresso coffee machine through the second duct in order to steam and froth beverages, the steam being produced in the water heater as well”, Abstract; .
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 Frazer reference, such that the nozzle of Frazer includes adjacent thereto a steam outlet in fluid communication with the chamber for releasing steam from the chamber the steam outlet configured to release steam created by the heated water to an exterior of the chamber, as suggested and taught by Hufnagl, for the purpose of providing a predetermined amount of steam to a brewed product to enhance an extraction operation. It is respectfully submitted that if it was determined that the citation does not explicitly teach the limitation of “wherein the release of the steam from the interior chamber causes removal of turbulence from the heated water and helps create, at least in part, the laminar flow of the dispensed heated water”, it is submitted that as the prior art teaches the structure as detailed above, something which is old does not become patentable upon the discovery of a new property (i.e., laminar flow being facilitated due to steam removal) (see MPEP 2112: I. Something Which is Old Does Not Become Patentable Upon the Discovery of a New Property).
With regard to claims 2 and 16, Frazer teaches the rotation of the basket (part of 300 in this embodiment) and the lateral movement of the nozzle (310) operate together to dispense the heated water in the laminar flow in a pattern over the coffee grounds (“As moveable nozzle 310 is moved along the line 315, either toward the center of the rotating filter 300 or toward the outer wall, the top surface of the coffee grounds would become more even.”, para. [0025]). Additionally, Frazer teaches in another embodiment illustrated by FIG. 3 (from that of the above embodiment of FIG. 1) a rotation motor (“A reciprocating or oscillating or other motion can be accomplished with electronic servo motors, a crank and gear device, belt drive with reversing motors, an eccentric flywheel motor, and by other suitable motors, gears, linkages, electromagnetism, physical movement of magnets, etc.”, para. [0023]) operatively coupled to and rotating the basket (300, FIG. 3 corresponds to gasket assembly 1170/1160 of FIG. 11) relative to the machine housing. 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 primary embodiment in the Frazier reference, to include the a vibration motor operatively coupled to the gasket assembly for vibrating the basket in a selected vibration sequence; wherein a combination of rotation of the basket, lateral movement of the nozzle, and vibration of the basket in the selected vibration sequence produces a desired “pour over” coffee flavor profile, as suggested and taught by Frazer in an alternative embodiment, for the purpose of providing enhanced heated water distribution over a brewing material to enhance a brewing operation. Furthermore, it is submitted that the flow of water would necessarily be in one of a spiral or a circular pattern as the basket is being rotated relative to the machine housing with the water being dispensed thereover.
With regard to claim 18 Frazer teaches the pattern is one of a spiral and a circular pattern (“As moveable nozzle 310 is moved along the line 315, either toward the center of the rotating filter 300 or toward the outer wall, the top surface of the coffee grounds would become more even.”, para. [0025])..
With regard to claim 4, Frazer teaches the basket comprises: a flat lower surface (see lower flat surface of 1160, FIG. 11) and is configured to receive a cone-shaped coffee filter holder (1145).
With regard to claim 9, Frazer teaches the water outlet ( outlet of 310) is configured to dispense the heated water in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to the nozzle (310) (water droplets emitted in the claimed direction are illustrated in FIG. 3).
With regard to claim 11, Hufnagl teaches the steam outlet as detailed above, and it is submitted that it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art such that the steam outlet of Hufnagl is positioned above the water outlet of Frazer and is configured to release steam created by the heated water in a same direction as the dispensed heated water as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as an obvious rearrangement of parts since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (“Steam can be taken from the espresso coffee machine through the second duct in order to steam and froth beverages, the steam being produced in the water heater as well”, Abstract).
With regard to claim 13, although Frazer does not explicitly teach a sensor for sensing a speed and direction of the lateral movement of the nozzle relative to the machine housing, it is submitted that as the citation does teach feedback control of the filter backet, such a sensor/switch is well known in the art and could be adapted to be utilized within the context of a nozzle as use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention made to control a brewing operation in a predetermined manner.
With regard to claim 19, Frazer teaches vibrating the basket in the selected vibration sequence comprises: vibrating the basket before, during, or after dispensing the heated water over the coffee grounds (“While the illustrated embodiment shows a reciprocation assembly, other embodiments may use vibration, a sloshing or rocking motion, oscillation, mechanical stirring, or other relative motions between coffee grounds and water during a brewing process.”, para. [0023]). Furthermore, the citation teaches rotating the gasket assembly and the basket relative to the housing and vibrating the basket by vibrating the gasket assembly in a selected vibration sequence (Frazer teaches in another embodiment illustrated by FIG. 3 (from that of the above embodiment of FIG. 1) a rotation motor (“A reciprocating or oscillating or other motion can be accomplished with electronic servo motors, a crank and gear device, belt drive with reversing motors, an eccentric flywheel motor, and by other suitable motors, gears, linkages, electromagnetism, physical movement of magnets, etc.”, para. [0023]) operatively coupled to and rotating the basket (300, FIG. 3 corresponds to gasket assembly 1170/1160 of FIG. 11) relative to the machine housing. 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 primary embodiment in the Frazier reference, to include the a vibration motor operatively coupled to the gasket assembly for vibrating the basket in a selected vibration sequence; wherein a combination of rotation of the basket, lateral movement of the nozzle, and vibration of the basket in the selected vibration sequence produces a desired “pour over” coffee flavor profile, as suggested and taught by Frazer in an alternative embodiment, for the purpose of providing enhanced heated water distribution over a brewing material to enhance a brewing operation. Furthermore, it is submitted that the flow of water would necessarily be in one of a spiral or a circular pattern as the basket is being rotated relative to the machine housing with the water being dispensed thereover.).
With regard to claim 20, with regard to the limitation of the selected vibration sequence comprises: after a first pour of water, vibrating the basket for ten seconds; and after at least one other pour of water, vibrating the basket for ten seconds, it is submitted that although the citation does not teach the explicit steps claimed, such limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as an optimum value to maximize a brewing operation since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 21, Frazer teaches an interior surface of the body of the gasket assembly comprises at least one recessed area configured to engage a corresponding projection on an outer surface of the basket (“FIG. 11 shows an embodiment 1100 having a filter basket 1160 and an attachment portion such as ring 1170. In this embodiment, ring 1170 can be connected to filter basket 1160 to hold a filter 1140 in place. In one example, filter 1140 may have a crown or fluted section 1145 that may be fixed between ring 1170 and filter basket 1160. Ring 1170 may be magnetically fastened to filter basket 1160, or may be threadedly engaged, have a press fitting, or may be otherwise fixedly attached to filter basket 11600. In this way, as filter basket 1160 undergoes an oscillation the force is directly applied through filter 1140 and therefore results in a greater movement of coffee grounds or other brewed or steeping matter within the filter. In the present embodiment, the top portion is ring 1170, while other non-circular shaped filter baskets may use a ring 1170 they may also use other shaped complements to ring 1170 that may still suitably attach to the filter basket to secure a filter.”, para. [0034]).
With regard to claims 22 and 25, Frazer teaches all of the heated water delivered into the interior chamber is dispensed through the water outlet in the laminar flow under force of gravity alone without a need of a pumping mechanism (the Examiner provides teachings above regarding “laminar flow” and the term “pump” is not present within Frazer, additionally all of the heated water would necessarily be dispensed through the water outlet as no additional water outlet is taught by the citation).
With regard to claims 23 and 26, Frazer teaches the water inlet is configured to deliver the heated water in a substantially vertical direction relative to the interior chamber (“FIG. 3 shows a rotating filter 300 with a moveable nozzle 310. As illustrated, the coffee grounds still have a circular valley due only to rotation 365 of rotating filter 300 about an axis 360 without moving moveable nozzle 310. As moveable nozzle 310 is moved along the line 315, either toward the center of the rotating filter 300 or toward the outer wall, the top surface of the coffee grounds would become more even.”, para. [0025]: the term “laminar flow” is illustrated by FIG. 3 which shows two water droplets which are stacked in a single downward line).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazer (US 2016/0206134) and Hulett et al. (US 8910563) as detailed above, and further tin view of DeMonte (US 2006/0249520).
With regard to claim 5, Frazer teaches in an alternative embodiment a vibration motor operatively coupled to the gasket assembly for vibrating the basket in a selected vibration sequence; wherein a combination of rotation of the basket, lateral movement of the nozzle, and vibration of the basket in the selected vibration sequence produces a desired “pour over” coffee flavor profile (“While the illustrated embodiment shows a reciprocation assembly, other embodiments may use vibration, a sloshing or rocking motion, oscillation, mechanical stirring, or other relative motions between coffee grounds and water during a brewing process … Additionally, various types of vibration can be used, including a slight up and down motion, a slight back and forth motion, a combination of these motions, etc. In some embodiments, an eccentric motor can be attached to a lever that bridges to the filter basket and increases this vibration. While the illustrated embodiments are discussed with reference to coffee grounds, they may be used for other food materials that may be steeped or brewed, such as tea, infusions, etc. Additionally, in some embodiments a filter may be used, a filter basket in conjunction with a filter, a filter basket that operates as a filter itself, etc. Therefore a filter may be a conventional paper filter, a filter basket itself, or other suitable filtering devices…..”, para. [0023]; “For example, in some embodiments a motor powering the filter basket oscillation may be controlled according to a pattern or based upon feedback from the filter basket so as to enhance a brewing process, …”, para. [0036] (emphasis added).
Frazer and Hulett teach the invention as claimed as detailed above; however, the citation does not teach the limitation of at least one dampener configured to dampen vibration from the vibration motor. It is respectfully submitted that DeMonte teaches the aforementioned limitation which it is respectfully submitted is well known in the art and/or the written description of the instant patent application does not provide details of any unexpected results that would be expected with the claimed arrangement: “a rubberized ring or seal 58 disposed between the planar and opposing surface portions of the first and second disk elements. The purpose of the rubberized seal is to assist in vibration dampening in a dynamic environment and it is also envisioned that the seal can be reconfigured such that it is secured at any planar extending location established between the first disk 10 and the bottom of the beverage container or between the disk element 20 and secondary support surface.”, para. [0046].
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 Frazer reference, to include a dampener positioned at a predetermined location, as suggested and taught by DeMonte, for the purpose of providing a reduced vibrational impact.
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.
Conclusion
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
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights