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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed on 07/29/2026. Claims 1-8, 10-21 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1-8, 10-20 have been amended; claim 9 cancelled; claim 21 has been newly added.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04/29/2026.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04/29/2026, except for the “grinding elements” previously recited in claim 6. See details below in the Claim Interpretation section.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04/29/2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/29/2026 have created another 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections, see details below in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/29/2026 have changed the scope of the claims; therefore, the claims interpretation has been changed. Accordingly, the previously cited primary reference De’ Longhi (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0320842 A1) is no longer relied upon in any rejections in this Office Action. Furthermore, the previously cited prior art Van Den Aker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0266740 A1) is now relied upon as the primary reference in the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C 103 Claim Rejections, see details in the 35 U.S.C 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Additionally, Examiner would like to note that Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/29/2026 are directed only to the combination of De’ Longhi in view of Van Den Aker. Specifically, Applicant alleges that: “First, applicant argued that the combination rests on impermissible hindsight because the stated reason for the combination (i.e., to "enable rapid, high-efficiency extraction ... [and] achieve nice taste in a very short time") is drawn entirely from benefits asserted by Van Den Aker and is not tied to any problem identified in De'Longhi, which is directed to estimating the caffeine content of a delivered beverage.”, “Second, it would not have been obvious to modify De'Longhi because the modification would change its principle of operation.”, and “Third, it would not have been obvious to combine De'Longhi and Van Den Aker because they are operationally incompatible.”, see details on pages 9-10 of the Remarks dated 07/29/2026. However, Applicant did not provide any arguments regarding the teachings of Van Den Aker alone, see details on pages 9-10 of the Remarks dated 07/29/2026. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8, 10-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a selected one of the plurality of brewing processes” in lines 12-13. This should be changed to “the selected one of the plurality of brewing processes” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (lines 2-3).
Claims 2-8, 10-21 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“pressurising arrangement configured to pressurise the brewing chamber” in claim 8 (line 2) and “pressurising arrangement is configured selectively to increase the pressure within the brewing chamber to a level above atmospheric pressure and/or to decrease the pressure within the brewing chamber to a level below atmospheric pressure” in claim 8 (lines 3-5). This limitation uses generic placeholder “arrangement” (Prong A); the term “arrangement” is modified by functional language “configured to pressurise the brewing chamber” / “configured selectively to increase the pressure within the brewing chamber to a level above atmospheric pressure and/or to decrease the pressure within the brewing chamber to a level below atmospheric pressure” (Prong B); and the term “arrangement” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “pressurising arrangement” will be interpreted as “pump or valve” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification, specifically, Par.00047 states: “The brewing chamber 15 is optionally pressurised or de-pressurised by pump 16 which communicates with both the brewing chamber 15 and the external environment via suitable pipes”, and Par.00043 states: “The pipe 12 (and every other pipe disclosed here) may be closed by an automatically-actuatable valve at one, or both, ends to control flow of water or other material through it.”.
“dispensing arrangement configured to dispense the brewed beverage through the restrictor plate at a pressure of at least one of: no less than 25 PSI, no less than 30 PSI, and between 30 and 40 PSI” in claim 13 (lines 7-10). This limitation uses generic placeholder “arrangement” (Prong A); the term “arrangement” is modified by functional language “configured to dispense the brewed beverage through the restrictor plate at a pressure of at least one of: no less than 25 PSI, no less than 30 PSI, and between 30 and 40 PSI” (Prong B); and the term “arrangement” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “dispensing arrangement” will be interpreted as “dispensing outlet” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.00015: “dispensing outlet of the apparatus for dispensing the brewed beverage”.
“dilution arrangement for diluting the brewed beverage with water” in claim 14 (lines 2-4). This limitation uses generic placeholder “arrangement” (Prong A); the term “arrangement” is modified by functional language “for diluting a brewed beverage with water” (Prong B); and the term “arrangement” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “dilution arrangement” will be interpreted as “valves associated with a pipe connecting the water reservoir with outlet” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.00052: “Where the beverage is contained in the reservoir 20, but in concentrated form, the CPU may control valves associated with a pipe 25 connecting the water reservoir 11 with the outlet 21 to dilute the beverage prior to or during dispensing into the receptacle 22.”.
“heating/cooling element” in claim 18 (line 3). This limitation uses generic placeholder “element” (Prong A); the term “element” is modified by functional language “heating” or “cooling” (Prong B); and the term “element” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “heating/cooling element” will be interpreted as a through-flow type heater/cooler through which water flows continually, or may be omitted, or avoided via optional by-pass pipe 27, where RTP (room temperature and pressure) or ambient water is desired, as indicated by Specification Par.00044: “the heating and/or cooling element 13 may be a “through-flow” type element through which water flows continually, or may be omitted, or avoided via optional by-pass pipe 27, where RTP (room temperature and pressure) or ambient water is desired”.
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 § 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 2, 7, 13, 15 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 2 recites the limitation “a temperature of at least one of: between 25°C and 75°C and between 30°C and 50°C” in lines 2-4. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because the phrase “at least one of” permits one or two of the recited alternatives to be selected. However, one of the recited alternative overlaps and is nested within the other. For example, if both “between 25°C and 75°C” and “between 30°C and 50°C” are selected, it is unclear what scope is intended because every value within 30°C – 50°C necessarily also falls within 25°C – 75°C. Therefore, it is unclear what additional or distinct limitation results when two of the alternatives are selected pursuant to the recitation “at least one of”. Accordingly, the limitation “a temperature of at least one of: between 25°C and 75°C and between 30°C and 50°C” recited in claim 2 is unclear.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the hot brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with the water at a temperature at or near boiling point” in lines 4-5 (Examiner’s Note: claim 2 was amended to change “fluid” to “the water”, and also cancel the “at least one”; thus, these amendments change the scope of the claim. Specifically, previously, the hot brewing process could be carried out with a fluid different from the water used in another brewing process among the plurality of brewing processes recited in claim 1. However, claim 2 now recites “the water”, which directly refers to the water used in the hot brewing process at a temperature of between 90 and 97 degrees C, as recited in claim 1. Therefore, Applicant’s amendment to claim 2 gives rise to this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).). It is unclear what is meant by the limitation “the hot brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with the water at a temperature at or near boiling point” recited in claim 2 because claim 2 depends on claim 1; however, claim 1 recites “the hot brewing process comprises brewing a brewing substance with water at a temperature of between 90 and 97 degrees C” in lines 15-16. Specifically, it is unclear what temperature is required by the limitation “at a temperature at or near boiling point” as recited in claim 2. Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and therefore incorporates all limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 recites that “the hot brewing process comprises brewing a brewing substance with water at a temperature of between 90 and 97 degrees C” in lines 15-16. Moreover, as amended, claim 2 recites “the water”, thereby referring back to the water used in the hot brewing process of claim 1, rather than merely reciting a separate or unspecified fluid. Thus, when claims 1 and 2 are read together, the same hot brewing process is required to brew the brewing substance with water at a temperature “between 90 and 97 degrees C” as recited in claim 1, and “at or near boiling point” as recited in claim 2. It is unclear whether “at or near boiling point” is intended to be limited within the “between 90 and 97 degrees C” as required by claim 1, or whether claim 2 is intended to encompass temperatures outside that range, such as the boiling point of water at approximately 100 degrees C under standard atmospheric conditions. If the latter is intended, the temperature requirement of claim 2 would be inconsistent with the temperature range incorporated from claim 1. Accordingly, the limitation “the hot brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with the water at a temperature at or near boiling point” recited in claim 2 is unclear.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “an average particle size is at least one of: between 1150 and 1600 microns, between 1300 and 1400 microns, and approximately 1350 microns” in lines 3-5. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because the phrase “at least one of” permits any one, two, or all three of the recited alternatives to be selected. However, the recited alternatives overlap and are nested within one another. For example, if both “between 1150 and 1600 microns” and “between 1300 and 1400 microns” are selected, it is unclear what scope is intended because every value within 1300-1400 microns necessarily also falls within 1150-1600 microns. Likewise, if “approximately 1350 microns” is selected together with either or both of the “between 1150 and 1600 microns” and “between 1300 and 1400 microns”, approximately 1350 microns necessarily falls within those ranges. Therefore, it is unclear what additional or distinct limitation results when two or more of the alternatives are selected pursuant to the recitation “at least one of”. Accordingly, the limitation “an average particle size is at least one of: between 1150 and 1600 microns, between 1300 and 1400 microns, and approximately 1350 microns” recited in claim 7 is unclear.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the restrictor plate is moveable between at least one of a first position obstructing the outlet, a second position not obstructing the outlet, and a third position partially obstructing the outlet” in lines 4-7. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because the phrase “at least one of” permits selection of only one of the recited positions; however, if only one recited position is selected, it is unclear how the restrictor plate can be “movable between” that single position since the claim does not identify another position between which the restrictor plate is movable. For example, if only the “first position obstructing the outlet” is selected, it is unclear what other position defines the movement recited by “movable between”. Accordingly, the limitation “the restrictor plate is moveable between at least one of a first position obstructing the outlet, a second position not obstructing the outlet, and a third position partially obstructing the outlet” recited in claim 13 is unclear.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a pressure of at least one of: no less than 25 PSI, no less than 30 PSI, and between 30 and 40 PSI” in lines 8-10. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because the phrase “at least one of” permits any one, two, or all three of the recited alternatives to be selected. However, the recited alternatives overlap and are nested within one another. For example, if both “no less than 25 PSI” and “no less than 30 PSI” are selected, it is unclear what scope is intended because every value that is no less than 30 PSI is necessarily also no less than 25 PSI. Likewise, if “between 30 and 40 PSI” is selected together with either or both of the “no less than 25 PSI” and “no less than 30 PSI”, every value that is between 30 and 40 PSI is necessarily no less than 20 PSI and no less than 30 PSI. Therefore, it is unclear what additional or distinct limitation results when two or more of the alternatives are selected pursuant to the recitation “at least one of”. Accordingly, the limitation “a pressure of at least one of: no less than 25 PSI, no less than 30 PSI, and between 30 and 40 PSI” recited in claim 13 is unclear.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the hot brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with the water at a temperature at or near boiling point” in lines 3-5 (Examiner’s Note: claim 15 was amended to change “fluid” to “the water”, and also cancel the “at least one”; thus, these amendments change the scope of the claim. Specifically, previously, the hot brewing process could be carried out with a fluid different from the water used in another brewing process among the plurality of brewing processes recited in claim 1. However, claim 15 now recites “the water”, which directly refers to the water used in the hot brewing process at a temperature of between 90 and 97 degrees C, as recited in claim 1. Therefore, Applicant’s amendment to claim 15 gives rise to this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).). It is unclear what is meant by the limitation “the hot brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with the water at a temperature at or near boiling point” recited in claim 15 because claim 15 depends on claim 1; however, claim 1 recites “the hot brewing process comprises brewing a brewing substance with water at a temperature of between 90 and 97 degrees C” in lines 15-16. Specifically, it is unclear what temperature is required by the limitation “at a temperature at or near boiling point” as recited in claim 15. Claim 15 depends on claim 1 and therefore incorporates all limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 recites that “the hot brewing process comprises brewing a brewing substance with water at a temperature of between 90 and 97 degrees C” in lines 15-16. Moreover, as amended, claim 15 recites “the water”, thereby referring back to the water used in the hot brewing process of claim 1, rather than merely reciting a separate or unspecified fluid. Thus, when claims 1 and 15 are read together, the same hot brewing process is required to brew the brewing substance with water at a temperature “between 90 and 97 degrees C” as recited in claim 1, and “at or near boiling point” as recited in claim 15. It is unclear whether “at or near boiling point” is intended to be limited within the “between 90 and 97 degrees C” as required by claim 1, or whether claim 15 is intended to encompass temperatures outside that range, such as the boiling point of water at approximately 100 degrees C under standard atmospheric conditions. If the latter is intended, the temperature requirement of claim 15 would be inconsistent with the temperature range incorporated from claim 1. Accordingly, the limitation “the hot brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with the water at a temperature at or near boiling point” recited in claim 15 is unclear.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 14-15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Aker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0266740 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Van Den Aker discloses an apparatus for providing a brewed beverage (Van Den Aker Par.0019 discloses: “the appliance according to the present invention is suitable for making ice coffee or hot coffee, depending on a choice of a user of the appliance”) comprising:
a brewing arrangement (brewing arrangement includes the “brewing space” because Van Den Aker Par.0041 discloses: “Although this is not shown in figures, the appliance according to the present invention also comprises a brewing space, i.e. a space where the water at a set temperature is forced to flow through a quantity of coffee extract”) configured to brew a beverage according to a selected one of a plurality of brewing processes, at least one being a hot brewing process and at least one being a cold brewing process (Van Den Aker discloses brewing arrangement configured to brew a beverage according to a selected one of a plurality of brewing processes, at least one being a hot brewing process and at least one being a cold brewing process because Van Den Aker Par.0019 discloses: “the appliance according to the present invention is suitable for making ice coffee or hot coffee, depending on a choice of a user of the appliance. In particular, the controlling means may be further suitable to be used for controlling a process of making hot coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 85° C. to close to the boiling point, to control the ice supplying means for being in a deactivated state, and to control the liquids pumping means for pumping the water, and the hot coffee which is obtained when a coffee extraction process is performed, at a brewing pressure that is significantly higher than ambient pressure, and for performing a pumping action only during an extraction time that is shorter than 60 seconds, wherein means which are operable by a user of the appliance are provided for activating the controlling means for realizing a process of making ice coffee or a process of making hot coffee, depending on input provided by the user.”, and Van Den Aker Par.0016 discloses: “controlling means for controlling a process of making the ice coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 35° C. to 55° C., to control the ice supplying means for being in an activated state, and to control the liquids pumping means for pumping the water, the beverage which is obtained when a coffee extraction process is performed, and the ice coffee which is obtained when this beverage is mixed with the ice, at a normal brewing pressure that is in a range of ambient pressure to 1.5 bar, and for performing a pumping action only during an extraction time that is shorter than 60 seconds.”), in which the brewing arrangement (brewing arrangement includes the “brewing space” because Van Den Aker Par.0041 discloses: “Although this is not shown in figures, the appliance according to the present invention also comprises a brewing space, i.e. a space where the water at a set temperature is forced to flow through a quantity of coffee extract”) includes a brewing chamber (“brewing space”, Van Den Aker Par.0041; specifically, Van Den Aker Par.0041 discloses: “Although this is not shown in figures, the appliance according to the present invention also comprises a brewing space, i.e. a space where the water at a set temperature is forced to flow through a quantity of coffee extract”);
a user interface (“means for receiving input from a user of the appliance”, Van Den Aker Par.0041) configured to receive a user selection comprising a selected beverage from options including at least one beverage brewed using the hot brewing process and at least one beverage brewed using the cold brewing process (Van Den Aker Par.0041 discloses: “the appliance is equipped with means for controlling the coffee making process, and means for receiving input from a user of the appliance and transmitting the input to the controlling means”, and Van Den Aker Par.0019 discloses: “the appliance according to the present invention is suitable for making ice coffee or hot coffee, depending on a choice of a user of the appliance. In particular, the controlling means may be further suitable to be used for controlling a process of making hot coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 85° C. to close to the boiling point, to control the ice supplying means for being in a deactivated state, and to control the liquids pumping means for pumping the water, and the hot coffee which is obtained when a coffee extraction process is performed, at a brewing pressure that is significantly higher than ambient pressure, and for performing a pumping action only during an extraction time that is shorter than 60 seconds, wherein means which are operable by a user of the appliance are provided for activating the controlling means for realizing a process of making ice coffee or a process of making hot coffee, depending on input provided by the user.”; therefore, Van Den Aker discloses user interface configured to receive a user selection comprising a selected beverage from options including at least one beverage brewed using the hot brewing process and at least one beverage brewed using the cold brewing process);
a controller (“controlling means”, Van Den Aker Par.0041) in communication with the user interface (“means for receiving input from a user of the appliance”, Van Den Aker Par.0041) and configured to receive the user selection indicative of the selected beverage (Van Den Aker Par.0041 discloses: “the appliance is equipped with means for controlling the coffee making process, and means for receiving input from a user of the appliance and transmitting the input to the controlling means”), and to control the brewing arrangement to carry out a selected one of the plurality of brewing processes in dependence upon the user selection, and to dispense the selected beverage from the brewing chamber (“brewing space”, Van Den Aker Par.0041; specifically, Van Den Aker Par.0041 discloses: “Although this is not shown in figures, the appliance according to the present invention also comprises a brewing space, i.e. a space where the water at a set temperature is forced to flow through a quantity of coffee extract”) (Van Den Aker Par.0041 discloses: “the appliance is equipped with means for controlling the coffee making process, and means for receiving input from a user of the appliance and transmitting the input to the controlling means”, and Van Den Aker Par.0019 discloses: “the appliance according to the present invention is suitable for making ice coffee or hot coffee, depending on a choice of a user of the appliance. In particular, the controlling means may be further suitable to be used for controlling a process of making hot coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 85° C. to close to the boiling point, to control the ice supplying means for being in a deactivated state, and to control the liquids pumping means for pumping the water, and the hot coffee which is obtained when a coffee extraction process is performed, at a brewing pressure that is significantly higher than ambient pressure, and for performing a pumping action only during an extraction time that is shorter than 60 seconds, wherein means which are operable by a user of the appliance are provided for activating the controlling means for realizing a process of making ice coffee or a process of making hot coffee, depending on input provided by the user.”, and Van Den Aker Par.0016 discloses: “controlling means for controlling a process of making the ice coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 35° C. to 55° C., to control the ice supplying means for being in an activated state, and to control the liquids pumping means for pumping the water, the beverage which is obtained when a coffee extraction process is performed, and the ice coffee which is obtained when this beverage is mixed with the ice, at a normal brewing pressure that is in a range of ambient pressure to 1.5 bar, and for performing a pumping action only during an extraction time that is shorter than 60 seconds.”; therefore, Van Den Aker discloses controlling means in communication with the user interface and configured to receive the user selection indicative of the selected beverage, and to control the brewing arrangement to carry out a selected one of the plurality of brewing processes in dependence upon the user selection, and to dispense the selected beverage from the brewing space); and
wherein the hot brewing process comprises brewing a brewing substance with water at a temperature of between 90 and 97 degrees C and a positive pressure (Van Den Aker Par.0019 teaches: “In particular, the controlling means may be further suitable to be used for controlling a process of making hot coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 85° C. to close to the boiling point, to control the ice supplying means for being in a deactivated state, and to control the liquids pumping means for pumping the water, and the hot coffee which is obtained when a coffee extraction process is performed, at a brewing pressure that is significantly higher than ambient pressure”; it is known that the boiling point of water is 100°C, therefore, Van Den Aker Par.0019 teaches hot water at a temperature of between 85°C and close to 100°C. The courts have held that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of between 90 and 97 degrees C which lies inside the range of between 85°C and close to 100°C disclosed by the prior art Van Den Aker, and therefore, prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.), and wherein the cold brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with water at a lower temperature and a lower pressure (Van Den Aker Par.0016 teaches: “controlling means for controlling a process of making the ice coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 35° C. to 55° C., to control the ice supplying means for being in an activated state, and to control the liquids pumping means for pumping the water, the beverage which is obtained when a coffee extraction process is performed, and the ice coffee which is obtained when this beverage is mixed with the ice, at a normal brewing pressure that is in a range of ambient pressure to 1.5 bar”. Since Van Den Aker Par.0019 teaches hot coffee is made with hot water at a temperature of between 85°C and close to boiling point and with brewing pressure that is significantly higher than ambient pressure, Van Den Aker Par.0016 teaches cold coffee is made with water at a temperature in a range of 35° C to 55° C and with brewing pressure that is in a range of ambient pressure to 1.5 bar; therefore, Van Den Aker teaches the cold brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with water at a lower temperature and a lower pressure).
The courts have held that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of between 90 and 97 degrees C which lies inside the range of between 85°C and close to 100°C disclosed by the prior art Van Den Aker, and therefore, prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Van Den Aker also discloses:
wherein the cold brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with the water at a temperature of at least one of: between 25oC and 75oC and between 30OC and 50OC (it is noted that the limitation “at least one of: between 25oC and 75oC and between 30OC and 50OC” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination), and/or wherein the hot brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with the water at a temperature at or near (it is noted that the limitation “at or near” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination) boiling point (Van Den Aker Par.0016 teaches: “controlling means for controlling a process of making the ice coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 35° C. to 55° C.”, and Van Den Aker Par.0019 teaches: “controlling means may be further suitable to be used for controlling a process of making hot coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 85° C. to close to the boiling point”; therefore, Van Den Aker teaches the at least one cold brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with water at a temperature of between 35°C to 55°C, which lies inside the claimed range of 25oC and 75oC, and wherein the at least one hot brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with water at a temperature near boiling point, as cited and explained above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Van Den Aker also discloses
comprising a temperature controller configured to control the temperature of the water in the brewing chamber (“brewing space”, Van Den Aker Par.0041; specifically, Van Den Aker Par.0041 discloses: “Although this is not shown in figures, the appliance according to the present invention also comprises a brewing space, i.e. a space where the water at a set temperature is forced to flow through a quantity of coffee extract”), and/or comprising a chamber heater configured to heat the brewing chamber and/or the brewing substance contained in the brewing chamber (It is noted that the limitation “comprising a temperature controller configured to control the temperature of the water in the brewing chamber, and/or comprising a chamber heater configured to heat the brewing chamber and/or the brewing substance contained in the brewing chamber” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Van Den Aker discloses temperature controller configured to control the temperature of the water in the brewing chamber because Van Den Aker Par.0029 discloses: “temperature control may be based on heater unit control, wherein a set point is determined”, and Van Den Aker Par.0041 discloses: “the appliance according to the present invention also comprises a brewing space, i.e. a space where the water at a set temperature is forced to flow through a quantity of coffee extract”).
Regarding claim 8, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Van Den Aker also discloses further comprising
a pressurising arrangement (“pumping units”, Van Den Aker Par.0021) (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section above for the interpretation of this limitation “pressurising arrangement”) configured to pressurise the brewing chamber (“brewing space”, Van Den Aker Par.0041; specifically, Van Den Aker Par.0041 discloses: “Although this is not shown in figures, the appliance according to the present invention also comprises a brewing space, i.e. a space where the water at a set temperature is forced to flow through a quantity of coffee extract”) (Van Den Aker discloses pumping units configured to pressurize the brewing space by pumping water thereto at a brewing pressure significantly higher than ambient pressure, such that water at a set temperature is forced to flow through the coffee extract contained within the brewing space, specifically, Van Den Aker Par.0041 discloses: “a brewing space, i.e. a space where the water at a set temperature is forced to flow through a quantity of coffee extract”, Van Den Aker Par.0016 discloses: “the ice coffee which is obtained when this beverage is mixed with the ice, at a normal brewing pressure that is in a range of ambient pressure to 1.5 bar”, Van Den Aker Par.0019 teaches: “In particular, the controlling means may be further suitable to be used for controlling a process of making hot coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 85° C. to close to the boiling point, to control the ice supplying means for being in a deactivated state, and to control the liquids pumping means for pumping the water, and the hot coffee which is obtained when a coffee extraction process is performed, at a brewing pressure that is significantly higher than ambient pressure”), wherein the pressurising arrangement (“pumping units”, Van Den Aker Par.0021) is configured selectively to increase the pressure within the brewing chamber (“brewing space”, Van Den Aker Par.0041; specifically, Van Den Aker Par.0041 discloses: “Although this is not shown in figures, the appliance according to the present invention also comprises a brewing space, i.e. a space where the water at a set temperature is forced to flow through a quantity of coffee extract”) to a level above atmospheric pressure and/or to decrease the pressure within the brewing chamber to a level below atmospheric pressure (It is noted that the limitation “to increase the pressure within the brewing chamber to a level above atmospheric pressure and/or to decrease the pressure within the brewing chamber to a level below atmospheric pressure” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Van Den Aker discloses the pumping units configured selectively to increase the pressure within the brewing chamber to a level above atmospheric pressure because Van Den Aker Par.0016 discloses: “the ice coffee which is obtained when this beverage is mixed with the ice, at a normal brewing pressure that is in a range of ambient pressure to 1.5 bar”, and Van Den Aker Par.0019 teaches: “In particular, the controlling means may be further suitable to be used for controlling a process of making hot coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 85° C. to close to the boiling point, to control the ice supplying means for being in a deactivated state, and to control the liquids pumping means for pumping the water, and the hot coffee which is obtained when a coffee extraction process is performed, at a brewing pressure that is significantly higher than ambient pressure”).
Regarding claim 14, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Van Den Aker also discloses:
wherein the beverage is coffee and/or wherein the beverage is tea, and/or further comprising a dilution arrangement for diluting the brewed beverage with water, and/or wherein the apparatus is a kitchen appliance (It is noted that the limitation “the beverage is coffee and/or wherein the beverage is tea, and/or further comprising a dilution arrangement for diluting the brewed beverage with water, and/or wherein the apparatus is a kitchen appliance” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Van Den Aker discloses the beverage is coffee and the apparatus is a kitchen appliance because the Van Den Aker apparatus is appliance for making coffee, see the Abstract of Van Den Aker).
Regarding claim 15, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Van Den Aker also discloses:
wherein the cold brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with the water at a temperature of between 30OC and 50OC, and/or wherein the hot brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with the water at a temperature at or near (it is noted that the limitation “at or near” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination) boiling point (It is noted that the limitation “wherein the cold brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with the water at a temperature of between 30OC and 50OC, and/or wherein the hot brewing process comprises brewing the brewing substance with the water at a temperature at or near boiling point” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Van Den Aker Par.0019 discloses: “controlling means may be further suitable to be used for controlling a process of making hot coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 85° C. to close to the boiling point”; therefore, Van Den Aker discloses wherein the hot brewing process comprises brewing a brewing substance with water at a temperature near boiling point).
Regarding claim 18, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Van Den Aker also discloses
a pre-programmed cold-brew setting for the cold brewing process (Van Den Aker Par.0016 discloses: “controlling means for controlling a process of making the ice coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 35° C. to 55° C., to control the ice supplying means for being in an activated state, and to control the liquids pumping means for pumping the water, the beverage which is obtained when a coffee extraction process is performed, and the ice coffee which is obtained when this beverage is mixed with the ice, at a normal brewing pressure that is in a range of ambient pressure to 1.5 bar”, Van Den Aker Par.0019 discloses: “the appliance according to the present invention is suitable for making ice coffee or hot coffee, depending on a choice of a user of the appliance … wherein means which are operable by a user of the appliance are provided for activating the controlling means for realizing a process of making ice coffee or a process of making hot coffee, depending on input provided by the user.”, and Van Den Aker Par.0041 discloses: “the appliance is equipped with means for controlling the coffee making process, and means for receiving input from a user of the appliance and transmitting the input to the controlling means”), whereby the controller (“controlling means”, Van Den Aker Par.0016) controls internal pumps (Van Den Aker Par.0021 discloses: “In the appliance which is suitable for making ice coffee or hot coffee, the water heating means may comprise two separate heating units and/or the liquids pumping means may comprise two separate pumping units”), valves (Van Den Aker Par.0021 discloses: “In the appliance, various valves may be arranged at suitable positions, wherein these valves may be of any suitable type, depending on their specific functions”) and a heating/cooling element (Van Den Aker Par.0021 discloses: “In the appliance which is suitable for making ice coffee or hot coffee, the water heating means may comprise two separate heating units”) of the apparatus to provide a cold-brew coffee beverage according to the user selection (Van Den Aker Par.0027 discloses: “an appliance according to the present invention, which is suitable to be used for making ice coffee, and which is also suitable for making hot coffee, so that a user of the appliance may choose which type of coffee he/she would like to have at any given moment.”, Van Den Aker Par.0021 discloses: “In the appliance which is suitable for making ice coffee or hot coffee, the water heating means may comprise two separate heating units and/or the liquids pumping means may comprise two separate pumping units. In general, such an appliance may be designed in various ways, varying from a design having two separate units, wherein one unit is adapted to make ice coffee and another unit is adapted to make hot coffee, to a design having only one set of components which may be operated in different ways. In the appliance, various valves may be arranged at suitable positions, wherein these valves may be of any suitable type, depending on their specific functions.”, and Van Den Aker Par.0016 discloses: “controlling means for controlling a process of making the ice coffee, wherein the controlling means are adapted to control the water heating means for heating the water to a temperature that is in a range of 35° C. to 55° C., to control the ice supplying means for being in an activated state, and to control the liquids pumping means for pumping the water, the beverage which is obtained when a coffee extraction process is performed, and the ice coffee which is obtained when this beverage is mixed with the ice, at a normal brewing pressure that is in a range of ambient pressure to 1.5 bar”).
Claims 3, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Aker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0266740 A1, previously cited) in view of Hufnagl (U.S. Patent No. 5,388,502 A, newly cited).
Regarding claim 3, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of brewing processes comprises at least one of: a filter coffee brewing process; a drip brewing process; a nitrogenated brewing process; and an espresso brewing process, and/or wherein at least one of the plurality of brewing processes comprises a hot bloom process, comprising soaking the brewing substance in a pre-brew fluid, at a temperature above 80 degrees C, before brewing with the water in the brewing chamber.
Hufnagl teaches an apparatus for providing a brewed beverage (Hufnagl Fig.1):
wherein the plurality of brewing processes comprises at least one of: a filter coffee brewing process; a drip brewing process; a nitrogenated brewing process; and an espresso brewing process (It is noted that the limitation “at least one of: a filter coffee brewing process; a drip brewing process; a nitrogenated brewing process; and an espresso brewing process” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Hufnagl teaches espresso brewing process because Hufnagl teaches espresso coffee machine and furthermore, Hufnagl Col.16 lines 52-56 teaches: “Since the hot water is subjected to pressure, it will be pressed through espresso coffee grounds, provided the brewing chamber 8 is filled therewith, and extracts the espresso coffee grounds.”), and/or wherein at least one of the plurality of brewing processes comprises a hot bloom process, comprising soaking the brewing substance in a pre-brew fluid, at a temperature above 80 degrees C, before brewing with the water in the brewing chamber (It is noted that the limitation “wherein the plurality of brewing processes comprises at least one of: a filter coffee brewing process; a drip brewing process; a nitrogenated brewing process; and an espresso brewing process, and/or wherein at least one of the plurality of brewing processes comprises a hot bloom process, comprising soaking the brewing substance in a pre-brew fluid, at a temperature above 80 degrees C, before brewing with the water in the brewing chamber” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Hufnagl teaches espresso brewing process as explained previously.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker, by adding the teaching of the plurality of brewing processes comprises espresso brewing process, as taught by Hufnagl, in order to provide a known pressurized brewing technique for preparing hot coffee and increase the versatility of Van Den Aker’s multi-mode beverage appliance by enabling preparation of espresso in addition to the other disclosed coffee preparation mode(s).
Regarding claim 10, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
comprising at least one filter for the brewing substance, wherein the at least one filter is located within at least one of: the brewing chamber; an outlet of the brewing chamber outlet; and a dispensing outlet of the apparatus for dispensing the brewed beverage, and/or comprising a pump configured to convey the brewing substance through the outlet, and/or further comprising an agitating arrangement configured to agitate contents of the brewing chamber, wherein the agitating arrangement is at least one of: a stirrer, a pump, and a pressurised gas.
Hufnagl teaches an apparatus for providing a brewed beverage (Hufnagl Fig.1):
comprising at least one filter (filter basket 5, Hufnagl Fig.1) for the brewing substance (“coffee grounds”, Hufnagl Col.11 line 13), wherein the at least one filter (filter basket 5, Hufnagl Fig.1) is located within at least one of: the brewing chamber (filter basket holder 1 defining brewing chamber, Hufnagl Fig.1); an outlet of the brewing chamber outlet; and a dispensing outlet of the apparatus for dispensing the brewed beverage (It is noted that the limitation “at least one of: the brewing chamber; an outlet of the brewing chamber outlet; and a dispensing outlet of the apparatus for dispensing the brewed beverage” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Hufnagl teaches comprising filter for the brewing substance, wherein the filter is located within the brewing chamber), and/or comprising a pump configured to convey the brewing substance through the outlet, and/or further comprising an agitating arrangement configured to agitate contents of the brewing chamber, wherein the agitating arrangement is at least one of: a stirrer, a pump, and a pressurised gas (It is noted that the limitation “comprising at least one filter for the brewing substance, wherein the at least one filter is located within at least one of: the brewing chamber; an outlet of the brewing chamber outlet; and a dispensing outlet of the apparatus for dispensing the brewed beverage, and/or comprising a pump configured to convey the brewing substance through the outlet, and/or further comprising an agitating arrangement configured to agitate contents of the brewing chamber, wherein the agitating arrangement is at least one of: a stirrer, a pump, and a pressurised gas” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Hufnagl teaches comprising filter for the brewing substance, wherein the filter is located within the brewing chamber, as explained previously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker, by adding filter for the brewing substance, wherein the filter is located within the brewing chamber, as taught by Hufnagl, in order to securely retain the coffee grounds during pressurized extraction, while allowing the extract coffee beverage to pass through the filter for dispensing, thereby preventing the coffee grounds from being carried with the brewed beverage. Thus, improve the quality and taste of the brewed beverage.
Regarding claim 16, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Van Den Aker also discloses:
wherein the brewing substance is ground coffee (Van Den Aker Par.0005 discloses: “An extraction efficiency which is needed for actually achieving the short extraction time may be obtained by adapting a quantity of coffee extract, which is normally a quantity of ground coffee beans”.)
Van Den Aker does not explicitly disclose:
the hot brewing process is an espresso process
Hufnagl teaches an apparatus for providing a brewed beverage (Hufnagl Fig.1):
wherein the brewing substance is ground coffee (“coffee grounds”, Hufnagl Col.11 line 13), and the hot brewing process is an espresso process (Hufnagl teaches espresso brewing process because Hufnagl teaches espresso coffee machine and furthermore, Hufnagl Col.16 lines 52-56 teaches: “Since the hot water is subjected to pressure, it will be pressed through espresso coffee grounds, provided the brewing chamber 8 is filled therewith, and extracts the espresso coffee grounds.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker, by adding the teaching of the hot brewing process is an espresso process, as taught by Hufnagl, in order to provide a known pressurized brewing technique for preparing hot coffee and increase the versatility of Van Den Aker’s multi-mode beverage appliance by enabling preparation of espresso in addition to the other disclosed coffee preparation mode(s).
Claims 4, 6, 17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Aker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0266740 A1, previously cited) in view of Nosler (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0088560 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 4, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the user selection is indicative of a brewing time
Nosler teaches an apparatus (machine 30, Nosler Fig.19) for providing a brewed beverage:
wherein the user selection is indicative of a brewing time (Nosler Par.0048 teaches: “The control panel and display 70 allows an operator (not shown in FIG. 3) to enter brewing options (e.g., coffee type, cup size, and brewing parameters) or to select brewing options from a menu that the processor 66 may generate on the display. For example, the operator may select via the control panel and display 66 individual brewing parameters (e.g., grind size, water temperature, brewing time, and the coffee-ground-to-water ratio)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker, by adding the teaching of the user selection is indicative of a brewing time, as taught by Nosler, in order to permit adjustment of the duration during which the brewing water interacts with the coffee grounds, thereby controlling the degree of extraction and allowing the strength and/or flavor characteristics of the resulting coffee beverage to be adjusted according to user preference.
Regarding claim 6, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose comprising
a grinder configured to grind the brewing substance to produce a ground material, the grinder being controllable to provide a selected coarseness of the ground material
Nosler teaches an apparatus (machine 30, Nosler Fig.19) for providing a brewed beverage:
a grinder (grinder 174, Nosler Fig.9) configured to grind the brewing substance to produce a ground material (Nosler teaches the grinder 174 configured to grind the brewing substance to produce a ground material because Nosler Par.0093 teaches: “The grinder 174 may be any suitable device for grinding coffee beans or another substance from which a beverage may be brewed.”, and Nosler Par.0094 discloses: “The discharge port 176 provides the ground coffee from the grinder 174 to the grind-transporting unit 54 (FIG. 3), or directly to the beverage-brewing unit 50 (FIG. 3) if the brewing machine 30 (FIG. 3) lacks the grind-transporting unit.”), the grinder (grinder 174, Nosler Fig.9) being controllable to provide a selected coarseness of the ground material (Nosler Par.0092 teaches: “The motor 170 drives the grinder 174 via the shaft 172 in response to the controller 64 ”, Nosler Pars.0045 teaches: “The controller 64 controls the operation of some or all of the other components of the brewing machine 30 as discussed above, and includes a processor 66, a memory 68, a control panel and display 70, and a communications port 72.”, and Nosler Par.0048 teaches: “The control panel and display 70 allows an operator (not shown in FIG. 3) to enter brewing options (e.g., coffee type, cup size, and brewing parameters) or to select brewing options from a menu that the processor 66 may generate on the display. For example, the operator may select via the control panel and display 66 individual brewing parameters (e.g., grind size, water temperature, brewing time, and the coffee-ground-to-water ratio)”; therefore, Nosler teaches the grinder 174 being controllable to provide a selected coarseness of the ground material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker, by adding grinder configured to grind the brewing substance to produce a ground material, the grinder being controllable to provide a selected coarseness of the ground material, as taught by Nosler, in order to permit coffee beans to be freshly ground to a user-selected coarseness prior to brewing, thereby allowing the grind size to be tailored to the desired brewing conditions and resulting beverage characteristics while eliminating the need for the user to separately grind the coffee before supplying it to the brewing space. Thus, reducing preparation time and preserving the freshness and flavor of the coffee.
Regarding claim 17, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the brewing chamber is arranged to receive the brewing substance introduced manually by a user through an inlet, or wherein a grinder communicates with the brewing chamber to deposit the brewing substance into the brewing chamber.
Nosler teaches an apparatus (machine 30, Nosler Fig.19) for providing a brewed beverage:
wherein the brewing chamber is arranged to receive the brewing substance introduced manually by a user through an inlet, or wherein a grinder (grinder 174, Nosler Fig.9) communicates with the brewing chamber (beverage-brewing unit 50, Nosler Fig.3) to deposit the brewing substance (“ground coffee”, Nosler Par.0094) into the brewing chamber (beverage-brewing unit 50, Nosler Fig.3) (It is noted that the limitation “wherein the brewing chamber is arranged to receive the brewing substance introduced manually by a user through an inlet, or wherein a grinder communicates with the brewing chamber to deposit the brewing substance into the brewing chamber” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Nosler teaches grinder communicates with the brewing chamber to deposit the brewing substance into the brewing chamber because Nosler Par.0094 discloses: “The discharge port 176 provides the ground coffee from the grinder 174 to the grind-transporting unit 54 (FIG. 3), or directly to the beverage-brewing unit 50 (FIG. 3) if the brewing machine 30 (FIG. 3) lacks the grind-transporting unit.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker, by adding grinder, wherein the grinder communicates with the brewing chamber to deposit the brewing substance into the brewing chamber, as taught by Nosler, in order to permit coffee beans to be freshly ground and automate preparation and delivery of the ground coffee to the brewing chamber, thereby eliminating a separate transfer step between grinding and brewing, reducing preparation time and user handling, and facilitating brewing of freshly ground coffee.
Regarding claim 21, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the user selection is indicative of a coarseness of the brewing substance.
Nosler teaches an apparatus (machine 30, Nosler Fig.19) for providing a brewed beverage comprising a grinder (grinder 174, Nosler Fig.9):
wherein the user selection is indicative of a coarseness of the brewing substance (Nosler Par.0048 teaches: “The control panel and display 70 allows an operator (not shown in FIG. 3) to enter brewing options (e.g., coffee type, cup size, and brewing parameters) or to select brewing options from a menu that the processor 66 may generate on the display. For example, the operator may select via the control panel and display 66 individual brewing parameters (e.g., grind size, water temperature, brewing time, and the coffee-ground-to-water ratio)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker, by adding the grinder and adding the teaching of the user selection is indicative of a coarseness of the brewing substance, as taught by Nosler, in order to permit coffee beans to be freshly ground to a user-selected coarseness prior to brewing, thereby allowing the grind size to be tailored to the desired brewing conditions and resulting beverage characteristics while eliminating the need for the user to separately grind the coffee before supplying it to the brewing space. Thus, reducing preparation time and preserving the freshness and flavor of the coffee.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Aker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0266740 A1, previously cited) in view of Nosler (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0088560 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Murphy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0053657 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 7, Van Den Aker in view of Nosler teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 6, and Nosler also teaches
the controller (controller 64, Nosler Fig.3) is configured to control the grinder (grinder 174, Nosler Fig.9) to grind the brewing substance (as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 6 above; specifically, Nosler Par.0092 teaches: “The motor 170 drives the grinder 174 via the shaft 172 in response to the controller 64 ”, Nosler Pars.0045 teaches: “The controller 64 controls the operation of some or all of the other components of the brewing machine 30 as discussed above, and includes a processor 66, a memory 68, a control panel and display 70, and a communications port 72.”, and Nosler Par.0048 teaches: “The control panel and display 70 allows an operator (not shown in FIG. 3) to enter brewing options (e.g., coffee type, cup size, and brewing parameters) or to select brewing options from a menu that the processor 66 may generate on the display. For example, the operator may select via the control panel and display 66 individual brewing parameters (e.g., grind size, water temperature, brewing time, and the coffee-ground-to-water ratio), or a set of predetermined brewing parameters stored in the memory 68.”)
Van Den Aker in view of Nosler does not explicitly teach:
when the user selection indicates the cold brewing process, an average particle size of the brewing substance is at least one of: between 1150 and 1600 microns, between 1300 and 1400 microns, and approximately 1350 microns.
Murphy teaches a cold brewing process (Murphy Par.0001):
when the user selection indicates the cold brewing process, an average particle size of the brewing substance is at least one of: between 1150 and 1600 microns, between 1300 and 1400 microns, and approximately 1350 microns (It is noted that the limitation “at least one of: between 1150 and 1600 microns, between 1300 and 1400 microns, and approximately 1350 microns” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Murphy teaches 1300 microns because 1.3 mm = 1300 microns, specifically, Murphy Pars.0025-0026 teaches preparing a cold extraction of coffee from roasted ground coffee beans having the beans may be ground to a mean particle diameter of about 1.3 mm, specifically, Murphy Par.0025 teaches: “To facilitate presentation, the methods below are discussed in the context of preparing a cold extraction of coffee or tea, from roasted ground coffee beans and loose leaf teas of packed tea pellets.”, and Murphy Par.0026 teaches: “For instance, in certain configurations, the coffee beans may be ground to a mean particle diameter of about 1 mm to about 2 mm. In yet further embodiments, the ground coffee beans may be ground to a mean particle diameter of about 1.2 mm to 1.7 mm. In certain configurations, the beans may be ground to a mean particle diameter of about 1.3 mm.”. Therefore, in combination, Van Den Aker in view of Nosler and Murphy teaches when the user selection indicates the cold brewing process, the controller is configured to control the grinder to grind the brewing substance such that an average particle size is at least one of: between 1150 and 1600 microns, between 1300 and 1400 microns, and approximately 1350 microns.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker in view of Nosler, by adding the teachings of the average particle size of about 1.3 mm, as taught by Murphy, in order to provide a particle size suitable for cold extraction and thereby facilitate efficient extraction of soluble coffee components while permitting fluid flow through the ground coffee during the extraction process.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Aker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0266740 A1, previously cited) in view of Ha (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0189404 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the brewing chamber comprises a pH sensor arranged to sense a pH value of the water, and wherein the controller is configured to control one or more parameters of the brewing process and/or arrangement in dependence upon the output of the pH sensor, wherein the one or more parameters comprise at least one of: a volume of the water supplied to the brewing chamber; the temperature of the water and/or brewing substance supplied to or contained in the brewing chamber; and a duration of brewing.
Ha teaches an apparatus for providing a brewed beverage comprising (apparatus 1, Ha Fig.9):
wherein the brewing chamber (container 30, Ha Fig.9) comprises a pH sensor (sensor 62, Ha Fig.9) (Ha Par.0089 teaches: “The second sensor 62 may correspond to a pH sensor which measures the pH value of the solvent 20, or to a chemical sensor which measures catechin, caffeine, aminophenol in the solvent 20.”) arranged to sense a pH value of the water (Ha Par.0089 teaches: “The second sensor 62 may correspond to a pH sensor which measures the pH value of the solvent 20, or to a chemical sensor which measures catechin, caffeine, aminophenol in the solvent 20.”, and it is noted that solvent is water because Ha Par.0003 teaches: “The desired quantity of solvent, i.e. water”), and wherein the controller (control unit 82, Ha Fig.9) is configured to control one or more parameters (it is noted that the limitation “one or more” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination) of the brewing process and/or arrangement in dependence upon an output of the pH sensor (It is noted that the limitation “one or more parameters of the brewing process and/or arrangement in dependence upon the output of the pH sensor” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Ha teaches the control unit 82 is configured to control at least one parameter of the brewing process in dependence upon the output of the pH sensor in order to reach the predetermined level of the composition of solvent 20 because Ha Par.0090 teaches: “The second sensor 62 is connected to the second control unit 82, and supplies a voltage (or current) signal to the second control unit 82, which signal reflects the composition of solvent 30. The second control unit 82 is connected to the air pump 50 such that it can switch off or switch on the electrical power supply of the air pump 50. To this end, the second control unit 82 comprises a comparator for comparing the value of the voltage (or current) signal, and a reference signal REF2. The reference signal REF2 reflects the predetermined parameter level that is desired for the solvent 20. If the voltage (or current) signal is below the reference signal REF2, indicating that the composition parameter level is below the predetermined level, the electrical power supply of the air pump 50 is switched-on. If the voltage (or current) signal is above the reference signal REF2, indicating that the composition parameter level is above the predetermined level, the electrical power supply of the air pump 50 is switched-off. According to this regulation scheme, the composition of solvent 20 is guarantied to reach the predetermined level.”), wherein the parameters comprise at least one of: a volume of fluid supplied to the brewing chamber; the temperature of the water and/or the brewing substance supplied to or contained in the brewing chamber; and a duration of brewing (It is noted that the limitation “at least one of: a volume of fluid supplied to the brewing chamber; the temperature of the water and/or the brewing substance supplied to or contained in the brewing chamber; and a duration of brewing” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Ha discloses duration of brewing because Ha teaches pH sensor arranged to sense the pH value of the brewing water and controller configured to control a parameter of the brewing process in dependence upon an output of the pH sensor, wherein the parameter comprises duration of brewing [Ha Fig.9, Pars.0084-0090] because the Ha pH sensor 62 measures the pH value of solvent 20 (it is noted that the solvent herein is water because Ha Par.0003 teaches: “The desired quantity of solvent, i.e. water”) and provides corresponding signal to control unit 82, which controls air pump 50 and stops the air pump when the sensed parameter reaches a predetermined level, thereby terminating the infusion cycle and avoiding over-infusion [Ha Fig.9 & Par.0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker, by adding pH sensor to the brewing chamber to sense a pH value of the water, and wherein the controller is configured to control one or more parameters of the brewing process and/or arrangement in dependence upon the output of the pH sensor, wherein the one or more parameters comprise duration of brewing, as taught by Ha, in order to accurately control the composition and taste of the brewed beverage and to prevent over-infusion by terminating the brewing process when a desired composition level is reached. Thus, achieve a stable, high-quality final beverage.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Aker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0266740 A1, previously cited) in view of Dworzak et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0199452 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: at least one sensor comprising a chromatographic sensor and/or a spectrometer, and in which the controller is arranged to control one or more components of the brewing arrangement dependent upon an output of the at least one sensor, and the user selection, and/or further comprising a roaster for roasting the brewing substance, wherein the controller is arranged to control the roaster in dependence upon at least one of: an output of a temperature sensor; an output of a colour sensor; and/or an output of a timer, and a property of the brewing substance, and/or comprising a pressurised gas source arranged to selectively add a gas to the water.
Dworzak teaches an apparatus (Dworzak Fig.1) for providing a brewed beverage:
further comprising: at least one sensor comprising a chromatographic sensor and/or a spectrometer, and in which the controller is arranged to control one or more components of the brewing arrangement dependent upon an output of the at least one sensor, and the user selection, and/or further comprising a roaster for roasting the brewing substance, wherein the controller is arranged to control the roaster in dependence upon at least one of: an output of a temperature sensor; an output of a colour sensor; and/or an output of a timer, and a property of the brewing substance, and/or comprising a pressurised gas source arranged to selectively add a gas to the water (gas pressurizing means 65 comprising the gas refill 650, Dworzak Fig.1) arranged to selectively add a gas to the brewing fluid (water inside of the feed chamber 8, Dworzak Fig.1) (Dworzak Par.0075 teaches: “The feed chamber 8 communicates selectively, via the gas conveyance means 90, 901 with the gas pressurizing means 65.”) (It is noted that the limitation “further comprising: at least one sensor comprising a chromatographic sensor and/or a spectrometer, and in which the controller is arranged to control one or more components of the brewing arrangement dependent upon an output of the at least one sensor, and the user selection, and/or further comprising a roaster for roasting the brewing substance, wherein the controller is arranged to control the roaster in dependence upon at least one of: an output of a temperature sensor; an output of a colour sensor; and/or an output of a timer, and a property of the brewing substance, and/or comprising a pressurised gas source arranged to selectively add a gas to the water” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Dworzak teaches comprising a pressurised gas source arranged to selectively add a gas to the water, as cited and explained previously.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker, by adding pressurised gas source arranged to selectively add a gas to the water, as taught by Dworzak, in order to generate the pressure needed for beverage extraction, drive liquid flow without electric pump, thus, enable portability/mobility with no mains power required.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Aker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0266740 A1, previously cited) in view of Dworzak et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0199452 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Bergdahl et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0177220 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 13, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not disclose:
comprising a pressurised gas source arranged to selectively add a gas to the water, and further comprising a restrictor plate located at an outlet of the brewing arrangement, wherein the restrictor plate contains one or more apertures, and wherein the restrictor plate is moveable between at least one of a first position obstructing the outlet, a second position not obstructing the outlet, and a third position partially obstructing the outlet, and further comprising a dispensing arrangement configured to dispense the brewed beverage through the restrictor plate at a pressure of at least one of: no less than 25 PSI, no less than 30 PSI, and between 30 and 40 PSI.
Dworzak teaches an apparatus (Dworzak Fig.1) for providing a brewed beverage:
a pressurised gas source (gas pressurizing means 65 comprising the gas refill 650, Dworzak Fig.1) arranged to selectively add a gas to the water (water inside of the feed chamber 8, Dworzak Fig.1) (Dworzak Par.0075 teaches: “The feed chamber 8 communicates selectively, via the gas conveyance means 90, 901 with the gas pressurizing means 65.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker, by adding pressurised gas source arranged to selectively add a gas to the water, as taught by Dworzak, in order to generate the pressure needed for beverage extraction, drive liquid flow without electric pump, thus, enable portability/mobility with no mains power required.
Van Den Aker in view of Dworzak does not teach:
further comprising a restrictor plate located at an outlet of the brewing arrangement, wherein the restrictor plate contains one or more apertures, and wherein the restrictor plate is moveable between at least one of a first position obstructing the outlet, a second position not obstructing the outlet, and a third position partially obstructing the outlet, and further comprising a dispensing arrangement configured to dispense the brewed beverage through the restrictor plate at a pressure of at least one of: no less than 25 PSI, no less than 30 PSI, and between 30 and 40 PSI.
Bergdahl teaches an apparatus (Bergdahl Fig.1) for providing a brewed beverage, comprising:
a restrictor plate (plate 14, Bergdahl Fig.6 & Par.0109) located at an outlet of the brewing arrangement (chamber outlet 3, Bergdahl Figs.1, 5 & Par.0109) (Bergdahl Par.0109 teaches: “Under the coffee mixing chamber outlet 3, there are means for closing, opening or restricting said outlet nozzle. Said means consists in a plate 14 pierced by a hole 142 of which section is almost as large as the section of the coffee mixing chamber outlet 3 and by a restricted hole 141 of which section is smaller than the section of the coffee mixing chamber outlet 3.”), wherein the restrictor plate (plate 14, Bergdahl Fig.6 & Par.0109) contains one or more apertures (holes 141 and 142, Bergdahl Fig.6 & Par.0109) (Bergdahl Par.0109 teaches: “Said means consists in a plate 14 pierced by a hole 142 of which section is almost as large as the section of the coffee mixing chamber outlet 3 and by a restricted hole 141 of which section is smaller than the section of the coffee mixing chamber outlet 3.”), and wherein the restrictor plate (plate 14, Bergdahl Fig.6 & Par.0109) is moveable between at least one of a first position obstructing the outlet, a second position not obstructing the outlet, and a third position partially obstructing the outlet (Bergdahl teaches the restrictor plate 14 is moveable between at least one of a first position obstructing the outlet, a second position not obstructing the outlet, and a third position partially obstructing the outlet because Bergdahl Par.0109 teaches: “Under the coffee mixing chamber outlet 3, there are means for closing, opening or restricting said outlet nozzle. Said means consists in a plate 14 pierced by a hole 142 of which section is almost as large as the section of the coffee mixing chamber outlet 3 and by a restricted hole 141 of which section is smaller than the section of the coffee mixing chamber outlet 3. This plate 14 is moveable so that either the hole 142 or the restricted hole 141 or no hole at all faces the coffee mixing chamber outlet 3. This plate can be moved by a motor 143 of which notched gear is assembled with a notched plate 144 fixed to the plate 14. Motor 143 can then move the plate to open, close or restrict the coffee mixing chamber outlet.”), and further comprising a dispensing arrangement (plate member 2, Bergdahl Fig.1) (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section above for the interpretation of this limitation “dispensing arrangement”; in this case, the plate member 2 comprises outlet for dispensing coffee from the brewing chamber) configured to dispense the brewed beverage through the restrictor plate (the plate member 2 configured to dispense the brewed beverage through the restrictor plate 14 because Bergdahl Par.0065 teaches: “a plate member 2 comprises four outlet nozzles 4. In addition, the plate member comprises an outlet 3 which is in fluid connection to a coffee mixing chamber 5 which is mounted on the plate member.”, and Bergdahl Par.0109 teaches: “Under the coffee mixing chamber outlet 3, there are means for closing, opening or restricting said outlet nozzle. Said means consists in a plate 14 pierced by a hole 142 of which section is almost as large as the section of the coffee mixing chamber outlet 3 and by a restricted hole 141 of which section is smaller than the section of the coffee mixing chamber outlet 3. This plate 14 is moveable so that either the hole 142 or the restricted hole 141 or no hole at all faces the coffee mixing chamber outlet 3. This plate can be moved by a motor 143 of which notched gear is assembled with a notched plate 144 fixed to the plate 14. Motor 143 can then move the plate to open, close or restrict the coffee mixing chamber outlet.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker in view of Dworzak, by adding a restrictor plate located at an outlet of the brewing arrangement, wherein the restrictor plate contains one or more apertures, and wherein the restrictor plate is moveable between at least one of a first position obstructing the outlet, a second position not obstructing the outlet, and a third position partially obstructing the outlet, and further comprising a dispensing arrangement configured to dispense the brewed beverage through the restrictor plate, as taught by Bergdahl, in order to provide selective control of the flow of coffee discharged from the brewing chamber, including selectively restricting the outlet to modify the flow characteristics and increase shear forces acting on the discharged coffee, thereby permitting improved formation of coffee crema.
Van Den Aker in view of Dworzak and Bergdahl does not explicitly teach:
the brewed beverage is dispensed through the restrictor plate at a pressure of at least one of: no less than 25 PSI, no less than 30 PSI, and between 30 and 40 PSI.
Regarding the limitation that the brewed beverage is dispensed through the restrictor plate at a pressure of at least one of: no less than 25 PSI, no less than 30 PSI, and between 30 and 40 PSI (it is noted that this limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination), the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Bergdahl teaches the dispensing arrangement configured to dispense the brewed beverage through the restrictor plate and wherein the restrictor plate is moveable between at least one of a first position obstructing the outlet, a second position not obstructing the outlet, and a third position partially obstructing the outlet; therefore, there must be a certain dispensing pressure when dispensing the brewed beverage through the restrictor plate, and the dispensing pressure is adjustable by the movable restrictor plate, and having a specific dispensing pressure is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the dispensing pressure is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the dispensing pressure of the beverage would impact the taste, the aroma, and the profile of the brewed beverage. Therefore, the dispensing pressure controls how much and which flavor compounds are extracted, and directly shape the beverage’s strength, balance, body, and aroma. Furthermore, Bergdahl also teaches the restrictor plate is moveable between at least one of a first position obstructing the outlet, a second position not obstructing the outlet, and a third position partially obstructing the outlet; thus, the dispensing pressure is adjustable by the movable restrictor plate. Accordingly, the dispensing pressure is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Van Den Aker in view of Dworzak and Bergdahl dispensing pressure by making the dispensing arrangement configured to dispense the brewed beverage through the restrictor plate at pressure of no less than 25 PSI as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Aker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0266740 A1, previously cited) in view of Abram (U.S. Patent No. 2,878,746 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 19, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Van Den Aker does not disclose comprising
a timer for controlling the brewing process, the timer being arranged to detect when an appropriate strength of cold brew coffee is achieved during the cold brewing process.
Abram teaches an apparatus for providing a brewed beverage (Abram Fig.1):
a timer for controlling the brewing process, the timer being arranged to detect when an appropriate strength of cold brew coffee is achieved during the cold brewing process (Abram Title and Col.1 lines 36-38 teaches cold brewing process and Abram Col.3 lines 10-12 teaches: “A timer is also provided for controlled operation of the pump whereby accurate brewing flavor and strength may be obtained.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker, by adding a timer for controlling the brewing process, the timer being arranged to detect when an appropriate strength of cold brew coffee is achieved during the cold brewing process, as taught by Abram, in order to ensure the brewed beverage reaches the desired strength without becoming bitter; thereby, guaranteeing consistent flavor and strength across batches.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Aker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0266740 A1, previously cited) in view of Burton-Wilcock et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0070348 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 20, Van Den Aker discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Van Den Aker also discloses comprising
a water reservoir (“water tank”, Van Den Aker Par.0030; Van Den Aker Par.0030 discloses: “In the figures, a water tank of the appliance is indicated by reference numeral 1”)
Van Den Aker does not explicitly teach:
the water reservoir being arranged to be filled manually or automatically.
Burton-Wilcock teaches an apparatus (Burton-Wilcock Fig.3) for providing a brewed beverage:
the water reservoir (reservoir(s) 30, Burton-Wilcock Fig.3) being arranged to be filled manually or automatically (Burton-Wilcock Par.0144 teaches: “In addition the reservoir 30 is provided with a filling point where a manual fill 38 may be carried out--for example by accessing the reservoir through a removable lid, or an automatic fill may be carried out using an inlet valve 41 plumbed into a mains supply 40 of water.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Van Den Aker, by adding the teachings of the reservoir being arranged to be filled manually or automatically, as taught by Burton-Wilcock, in order to ensure desired water level in the water tank to keep the brewing apparatus functioning properly and enhance convenience, flexibility, and brewing consistency.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Studor et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0087050 A1) discloses methods and systems described herein may be used to produce and dispense beverages, such as, for example and without limitation, brewed beverages (e.g., hot or cold brewed beverages). Examples of brewed beverages include, but are not limited to, coffee, tea, espresso, and beer.
Vastardis (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0097466 A1) discloses a beverage brewing machine and process that can be used to brew a beverage, such as coffee or tea, or other dried media in cold or hot water.
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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 08/15/2026
