DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 August 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fond et al. US 5,649,472 in view of Prefontaine US 2015/0110935 in view of Bolognese et al. US 2017/0086619 as further evidenced by Streeter et al. US 2005/0126401 and Burrows US 2017/0027367
Regarding claim 10, Fond discloses a method for the preparation of a brewed beverage in a beverage preparation machine from a capsule (sachet 1) containing beverage ingredients (ground coffee 3) by feeding water to the capsule through a first wall (upper surface) of the capsule. Since hot water is supplied it is obvious that a water pump would necessarily have to be present in the machine and under the control of a control unit. The brewed beverage is extracted through a second wall (lower surface) of the capsule and pressure is built up inside the capsule as a result of the water being fed thereto. The method comprises feeding a first volume of water (water . . . introduced into . . . 4 bar) (col. 3, paragraph 6) in the capsule containing beverage ingredients in dry state for prewetting the beverage ingredients (wet it uniformly through its volume) (col. 5, paragraph 7) in the capsule before the brewed beverage is extracted from the second wall (lower surface) of the capsule and then feeding a second volume of water (coffee is extracted at a pressure of . . . 20 bar) (col. 4, paragraph 3) in the capsule to have said beverage extracted from the second wall (lower surface) of the capsule (col. 2, paragraph 5 – col. 5, paragraph 7).
Claim 10 differs from Fond in the feeding of the first volume being controlled by at least one flow rate value that provides a continuous increase of the water pressure from the pump in a first ramp-up phase of water pressure, wherein the at least one flow rate value of the first ramp up phase is maintained according to a pressure profile wherein the at least one flow rate value is further determined by measuring, by a flow meter, a flow rate of water fed by the water pump to the capsule, and the feeding of the second water volume is controlled to start immediately and without flow interruption after the feeding of the first water volume and is controlled to increase the water pressure until at least one pressure of extraction after a second ramp-up phase of pressure which is controlled to be steeper than the first ramp-up phase of the water pressure.
Prefontaine discloses a method for the preparation of a beverage in a beverage preparation machine from a portafilter (110) containing beverage ingredients (coffee grounds) by feeding water to the portafilter through a first portafilter side, i.e. a top of the portafilter by a water pump (226/526) of the machine under the control of a control unit, (208/508) with the brewed beverage being extracted through a second portafilter side (bottom) of the portafilter, and the pressure being built up inside the portafilter as a result of the water being fed which comprises feeding a first volume of water (704) in the portafilter containing beverage ingredients in dry state for prewetting the beverage ingredients in the capsule before beverage is extracted from the second side of the portafilter, and a second volume of water (708) is fed in the portafilter to have beverage extracted from said second side of the portafilter. The feeding of the first volume is controlled at at least one flow rate value that provides a continuous increase of the water pressure from the pump in a first ramp-up phase (P1t0) of water pressure where the at least one flow rate value of the first ramp up phase is maintained according to a pressure profile (paragraph [0117] and fig. 8). The flow rate would be determined by measuring a flow meter (‘935, paragraph [0045] and [0109]) and wherein the feeding of the second water volume is controlled to start immediately and without flow interruption after the feeding of the first water volume and is controlled to increase the water pressure until at least one pressure of extraction after a second ramp-up phase of pressure (P2) which is controlled to be steeper than the first ramp-up phase of the water pressure (paragraph 106 – 120 and fig. 2, 5, 7, and fig. 8 reference sign 802, 806). Prefontaine is feeding a first volume of water being controlled at, at least one flow rate value that provides a continuous increase of the water pressure from the pump in a first ramp-up phase of water pressure where the at least one flow rate value of the first ramp up phase is maintained according to a pressure profile and feeding a second water volume controlled to start immediately and without flow interruption after the feeding of the first water volume and controlled to increase the water pressure until at least one pressure of extraction after a second ramp-up phase of pressure which is controlled to be steeper than the first ramp-up phase of said pressure in order to greatly increase the quality and complexity of the taste profile of the beverage. To therefore modify Fond and feed first and second volumes of water as taught by Prefontaine would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 10 differs from Fond in view of Prefontaine in regulating, via the control unit, the water pressure of the water pump for the feeding of the second volume of water, based on a measurement of a pressure sensor or a sensor measuring the current supplied to the water pump.
Bolognese discloses that the pumps used in many beverage preparation machines can be generally subject to priming problems due to the presence of air within the body of the pump which would result in possible imprecise operation at the start of beverage preparation (paragraph [0007]) as well as excessive vibration and noise issues. In order to resolve these operational issues Bolognese provides a beverage preparation machine capable of preparing a brewed beverage from a capsule (12) containing beverage ingredients (ground coffee) (paragraph [0023] - [0024]) where the feeding of water into the capsule containing the beverage ingredients is regulated by a control unit (15) based on a measurement of a sensor (means 18) measuring the current supplied to the water pump (paragraph [0049] – [0053]).
Bolognese is regulating via the control unit the water pressure of the water pump for feeding a water volume based on a sensor measuring the current supplied to the water pump for the art recognized purpose of providing a substantial advantage to the machine by the use of a motor for the pump in order to increase the possibilities of control of the pump, to reduce the number of components within the machine, and to guarantee a constant pressure (paragraph [0053]) all of which are believed to be applicant’s reasons for doing so as well. To therefore modify Fond in view of Prefontaine and regulate via a control unit the water pressure of the water pump based on a measurement of a sensor measuring the current supplied to the water pump based as taught by Bolognese would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Both Streeter (paragraph [0039]) and Burrows (paragraph [0019]) provide further evidence that it was well established and conventional in the art to measure the water pressure by a sensor measuring a current-related variable of the motor driving the water pump to regulate water pressure.
Further, since Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows teaches that there would be a first and second volume of water (second brew flow rate) (‘935, paragraph [0125]) it is obvious that the water pressure of the water pump for the feeding of the second volume of water would be regulated as well.
Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows further discloses that the pressure is controlled as a function of the current absorbed by, that is, supplied to the water pump and varied with respect to the required pressure (‘935, paragraph [0053]) which is to say that the rate at which water would be fed would be a function of the current supplied to the water pump (motor of the water pump ) (‘935, paragraph [0054]) to increase or decrease the pressure. Since Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows clearly teaches the feeding the second water volume is done at a significant immediate pressure increase (P1 to P2) (‘935, fig. 8) controlled to start immediately and the pressure is controlled as a function of the current supplied to the water pump it is obvious that the feeding of the second water volume is controlled by increasing a current supplied to the water pump to increase the water pressure and it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have done so.
Claims 1 – 9, 11 and 16 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fond et al. US 5,649,472 in view of Prefontaine US 2015/0110935 in view of Bolognese et al. US 2017/0086619 as further evidenced by Streeter et al. US 2005/0126401 and Burrows US 2017/0027367 in view of Sims US 2013/0291737.
Regarding claim 1, Fond discloses a method for the preparation of a brewed beverage in a beverage preparation machine from a capsule (sachet 1) containing beverage ingredients (ground coffee 3) by feeding water to the capsule through a first wall (upper surface) of the capsule. Since hot water is supplied it is obvious that a water pump would necessarily have to be present in the machine and under the control of a control unit. The brewed beverage is extracted through a second wall (lower surface) of the capsule and pressure is built up inside the capsule as a result of the water being fed thereto. The method comprises feeding a first volume of water (water . . . introduced into . . . 4 bar) (col. 3, paragraph 6) in the capsule containing beverage ingredients in dry state for prewetting the beverage ingredients (wet it uniformly through its volume) (col. 5, paragraph 7) in the capsule before the brewed beverage is extracted from the second wall (lower surface) of the capsule and then feeding a second volume of water (coffee is extracted at a pressure of . . . 20 bar) (col. 4, paragraph 3) in the capsule to have said beverage extracted from the second wall (lower surface) of the capsule (col. 2, paragraph 5 – col. 5, paragraph 7).
Claim 1 differs from Fond, if at all, in the feeding of the first volume being controlled by at least one flow rate value that provides a continuous increase of the water pressure from the water pump in a first ramp-up phase of water pressure wherein the at least one flow rate value of the first ramp up phase is maintained according to a pressure profile and the feeding of the second water volume is controlled to start immediately and without flow interruption after the feeding of the first water volume and is controlled to increase the water pressure until at least one pressure of extraction after a second ramp-up phase of pressure which is controlled to be steeper than the first ramp-up phase of the water pressure and the feeding of the second water volume is controlled to provide a continuous or step-wise increase of water pressure over time.
Prefontaine discloses a method for the preparation of a beverage in a beverage preparation machine from a portafilter (110) containing beverage ingredients (coffee grounds) by feeding water to the portafilter through a first portafilter side, i.e. a top of the portafilter by a water pump (226/526) of the machine under the control of a control unit, (208/508) with the brewed beverage being extracted through a second portafilter side (bottom) of the portafilter, and the pressure being built up inside the portafilter as a result of the water being fed which comprises feeding a first volume of water (704) in the portafilter containing beverage ingredients in dry state for prewetting the beverage ingredients in the capsule before beverage is extracted from the second side of the portafilter, and a second volume of water (708) is fed in the portafilter to have beverage extracted from said second side of the portafilter.
The feeding of the first volume is controlled at at least one flow rate value that provides a continuous increase of the water pressure from the pump in a first ramp-up phase (P1t0) of water pressure and the at least one flow rate value of the first ramp up phase is maintained according to a pressure profile (paragraph [0117]).
The feeding of the second water volume is controlled to start immediately and without flow interruption after the feeding of the first water volume and is controlled to increase the water pressure until at least one pressure of extraction after a second ramp-up phase of pressure (P2) which is controlled to be steeper than the first ramp-up phase of the water pressure (paragraph 106 – 120 and fig. 2, 5, 7, and fig. 8 reference sign 802, 806). Further, Prefontaine unequivocally discloses that the feeding of the second water volume is controlled to provide a continuous or step-wise increase of water pressure over time (In some embodiments, this transition may resemble a step function. In other embodiments, the transition in pressure may be continuous and/or may occur more gradually. Pressure profiles 804 and 806 also demonstrate a step function indicating where expresso brew process has transitioned to the extraction phase) (paragraph [0125] and fig. 8).
Prefontaine is feeding a first volume of water being controlled at, at least one flow rate value that provides a continuous increase of the water pressure from the pump in a first ramp-up phase of water pressure where the at least one flow rate value of the first ramp up phase is maintained according to a pressure profile and feeding a second water volume controlled to start immediately and without flow interruption after the feeding of the first water volume and controlled to increase the water pressure until at least one pressure of extraction after a second ramp-up phase of pressure which is controlled to be steeper than the first ramp-up phase of said pressure and the feeding of the second water volume is controlled to provide a continuous or step-wise increase of water pressure over time in order to greatly increase the quality and complexity of the taste profile of the beverage. To therefore modify Fond and feed first and second volumes of water as taught by Prefontaine would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 1 differs from Fond in view of Prefontaine in regulating, via the control unit, the water pressure of the water pump for the feeding of the second volume of water, based on a measurement of a pressure sensor or a sensor measuring the current supplied to the water pump.
Bolognese discloses that the pumps used in many beverage preparation machines can be generally subject to priming problems due to the presence of air within the body of the pump which would result in possible imprecise operation at the start of beverage preparation (paragraph [0007]) as well as excessive vibration and noise issues. In order to resolve these operational issues Bolognese provides a beverage preparation machine capable of preparing a brewed beverage from a capsule (12) containing beverage ingredients (ground coffee) (paragraph [0023] - [0024]).
The feeding of water into the capsule containing the beverage ingredients is regulated by a control unit (15) based on a measurement of a sensor (means 18) measuring the current supplied to the water pump (paragraph [0049] – [0053]).
Bolognese is regulating via the control unit the water pressure of the water pump for feeding a water volume based on a sensor measuring the current supplied to the water pump for the art recognized purpose of providing a substantial advantage to the machine by the use of a motor for the pump in order to increase the possibilities of control of the pump, to reduce the number of components within the machine, and to guarantee a constant pressure (paragraph [0053]) all of which are believed to be applicant’s reasons for doing so as well. To therefore modify Fond in view of Prefontaine and regulate via a control unit the water pressure of the water pump based on a measurement of a sensor measuring the current supplied to the water pump based as taught by Bolognese would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Both Streeter (paragraph [0039]) and Burrows (paragraph [0019]) provide further evidence that it was well established and conventional in the art to measure the water pressure by a sensor measuring a current-related variable of the motor driving the water pump to regulate water pressure.
Further, since Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows teaches that there would be a first and second volume of water (second brew flow rate) (‘935, paragraph [0125]) it is obvious that the water pressure of the water pump for the feeding of the second volume of water would be regulated as well.
Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows further discloses that the pressure is controlled as a function of the current absorbed by, that is, supplied to the water pump and varied with respect to the required pressure (‘935, paragraph [0053]) which is to say that the rate at which water would be fed would be a function of the current supplied to the water pump (motor of the water pump ) (‘935, paragraph [0054]) to increase or decrease the pressure. Since Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows clearly teaches the feeding the second water volume is done at a significant immediate pressure increase (P1 to P2) (‘935, fig. 8) controlled to start immediately and the pressure is controlled as a function of the current supplied to the water pump it is obvious that the feeding of the second water volume is controlled by increasing a current supplied to the water pump to increase the water pressure and it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have done so.
Claim 1 differs from Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows, if at all, in the flow rate value being determined by determining a reduction of volume by time unit of a of a pressurized water chamber of a syringe pump used as the water pump of the beverage preparation machine, which is to say that claim 1 differs from Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows, if at all, in the water pump of the beverage preparation machine being a syringe pump.
Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows disclose that the flow rate value would be determined by determining a reduction of volume by time unit of a pressurized water chamber of a displacement pump used as the water pump of the beverage preparation machine which pump comprises pistons (41) which pistons are caused to displace a volume of a pressurized water (reciprocating displacements of each piston) by the action of a cam and cam-follower by the rotation of an actuation member (44) (‘619, paragraph [0036] – [0037] and [0045] – [0046]) which is, after all, what defines a syringe pump.
Once it was known to provide the beverage preparation machine with a displacement pump the substitution of one known displacement pump for another known displacement pump, such as a syringe pump to obtain predictable results would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II). Nevertheless, Sims discloses a method of preparation of a beverage (infant formula) in a beverage preparation machine from a capsule (cartridge) containing beverage preparation ingredients (paragraph [0007] – [0008]). Sims further discloses that it was well known in the art that in order to deliver accurate metered amounts of water for the beverage suitable conventional pumps would necessarily include a syringe pump (paragraph [0062] and [0018] – [0022]). Sims is disclosing the use of a syringe pump as the water pump of a beverage preparation machine in order to dispense accurate metered amounts of water for making a prepared beverage. To therefore modify Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows and provide the beverage preparation machine with a syringe pump as taught by Sims would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 22, Fond discloses a method for the preparation of a brewed beverage in a beverage preparation machine from a capsule (sachet 1) containing beverage ingredients (ground coffee 3) by feeding water to the capsule through a first wall (upper surface) of the capsule. Since hot water is supplied it is obvious that a water pump would necessarily have to be present in the machine and under the control of a control unit. The brewed beverage is extracted through a second wall (lower surface) of the capsule and pressure is built up inside the capsule as a result of the water being fed thereto. The method comprises feeding a first volume of water (water . . . introduced into . . . 4 bar) (col. 3, paragraph 6) in the capsule containing beverage ingredients in dry state for prewetting the beverage ingredients (wet it uniformly through its volume) (col. 5, paragraph 7) in the capsule before the brewed beverage is extracted from the second wall (lower surface) of the capsule and then feeding a second volume of water (coffee is extracted at a pressure of . . . 20 bar) (col. 4, paragraph 3) in the capsule to have said beverage extracted from the second wall (lower surface) of the capsule (col. 2, paragraph 5 – col. 5, paragraph 7).
Claim 22 differs from Fond, if at all, in the feeding of the first volume being controlled by at least one flow rate value that provides a continuous increase of the water pressure from the water pump in a first ramp-up phase of water pressure wherein the at least one flow rate value of the first ramp up phase is maintained according to a pressure profile and the feeding of the second water volume is controlled to start immediately and without flow interruption after the feeding of the first water volume and is controlled to increase the water pressure until at least one pressure of extraction after a second ramp-up phase of pressure which is controlled to be steeper than the first ramp-up phase of the water pressure and the feeding of the second water volume is controlled to provide a continuous or step-wise increase of water pressure over time.
Prefontaine discloses a method for the preparation of a beverage in a beverage preparation machine from a portafilter (110) containing beverage ingredients (coffee grounds) by feeding water to the portafilter through a first portafilter side, i.e. a top of the portafilter by a water pump (226/526) of the machine under the control of a control unit, (208/508) with the brewed beverage being extracted through a second portafilter side (bottom) of the portafilter, and the pressure being built up inside the portafilter as a result of the water being fed which comprises feeding a first volume of water (704) in the portafilter containing beverage ingredients in dry state for prewetting the beverage ingredients in the capsule before beverage is extracted from the second side of the portafilter, and a second volume of water (708) is fed in the portafilter to have beverage extracted from said second side of the portafilter.
The feeding of the first volume is controlled at at least one flow rate value that provides a continuous increase of the water pressure from the pump in a first ramp-up phase (P1t0) of water pressure and the at least one flow rate value of the first ramp up phase is maintained according to a pressure profile (paragraph [0117]).
The feeding of the second water volume is controlled to start immediately and without flow interruption after the feeding of the first water volume and is controlled to increase the water pressure until at least one pressure of extraction after a second ramp-up phase of pressure (P2) which is controlled to be steeper than the first ramp-up phase of the water pressure (paragraph 106 – 120 and fig. 2, 5, 7, and fig. 8 reference sign 802, 806).
Further, Prefontaine unequivocally discloses that the feeding of the second water volume is controlled to provide a continuous or step-wise increase of water pressure over time (In some embodiments, this transition may resemble a step function. In other embodiments, the transition in pressure may be continuous and/or may occur more gradually. Pressure profiles 804 and 806 also demonstrate a step function indicating where expresso brew process has transitioned to the extraction phase) (paragraph [0125]).
Prefontaine is feeding a first volume of water being controlled at, at least one flow rate value that provides a continuous increase of the water pressure from the pump in a first ramp-up phase of water pressure where the at least one flow rate value of the first ramp up phase is maintained according to a pressure profile and feeding a second water volume controlled to start immediately and without flow interruption after the feeding of the first water volume and controlled to increase the water pressure until at least one pressure of extraction after a second ramp-up phase of pressure which is controlled to be steeper than the first ramp-up phase of said pressure. The feeding of the second water volume is controlled to provide a continuous or step-wise increase of water pressure over time in order to greatly increase the quality and complexity of the taste profile of the beverage. To therefore modify Fond and feed first and second volumes of water as taught by Prefontaine would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Fond in view of Prefontaine also clearly disclose that during the feeding of the second volume of water which starts at t0 there is an immediate increase in pressure. As seen in figure 8 of Prefontaine pressure profile (802) shows that starting at t0, that is at the start of the feeding of the second volume of water, there is an immediate pressure increase from value P1 to an increased value of P2 which is disclosed as a step function of pressure (‘935, paragraph [0125]) and not of flow rate which would obviously be based on the water pressure at an outlet of the pump (pressure remains constant at P1 (‘935, paragraph [0128]).
Claim 22 differs from Fond in view of Prefontaine in regulating, via the control unit, the water pressure of the water pump for the feeding of the second volume of water, based on a measurement of a pressure sensor or a sensor measuring the current supplied to the water pump.
Bolognese discloses that the pumps used in many beverage preparation machines can be generally subject to priming problems due to the presence of air within the body of the pump which would result in possible imprecise operation at the start of beverage preparation (paragraph [0007]) as well as excessive vibration and noise issues. In order to resolve these operational issues Bolognese provides a beverage preparation machine capable of preparing a brewed beverage from a capsule (12) containing beverage ingredients (ground coffee) (paragraph [0023] - [0024]).
The feeding of water into the capsule containing the beverage ingredients is regulated by a control unit (15) based on a measurement of a sensor (means 18) measuring the current supplied to the water pump (paragraph [0049] – [0053]).
Bolognese is regulating via the control unit the water pressure of the water pump for feeding a water volume based on a sensor measuring the current supplied to the water pump for the art recognized purpose of providing a substantial advantage to the machine by the use of a motor for the pump in order to increase the possibilities of control of the pump, to reduce the number of components within the machine, and to guarantee a constant pressure (paragraph [0053]) all of which are believed to be applicant’s reasons for doing so as well. To therefore modify Fond in view of Prefontaine and regulate via a control unit the water pressure of the water pump based on a measurement of a sensor measuring the current supplied to the water pump based as taught by Bolognese would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Both Streeter (paragraph [0039]) and Burrows (paragraph [0019]) provide further evidence that it was well established and conventional in the art to measure the water pressure by a sensor measuring a current-related variable of the motor driving the water pump to regulate water pressure.
Further, since Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows teaches that there would be a first and second volume of water (second brew flow rate) (‘935, paragraph [0125]) it is obvious that the water pressure of the water pump for the feeding of the second volume of water would be regulated as well.
Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows further discloses that the pressure is controlled as a function of the current absorbed by, that is, supplied to the water pump and varied with respect to the required pressure (‘935, paragraph [0053]) which is to say that the rate at which water would be fed would be a function of the current supplied to the water pump (motor of the water pump ) (‘935, paragraph [0054]) to increase or decrease the pressure. Since Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows clearly teaches the feeding the second water volume is done at a significant immediate pressure increase (P1 to P2) (‘935, fig. 8) controlled to start immediately and the pressure is controlled as a function of the current supplied to the water pump it is obvious that the feeding of the second water volume is controlled by increasing a current supplied to the water pump to increase the water pressure and it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have done so.
Claim 22 differs from Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows, if at all, in the flow rate value being determined by determining a reduction of volume by time unit of a of a pressurized water chamber of a syringe pump used as the water pump of the beverage preparation machine, which is to say that claim 22 differs from Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows, if at all, in the water pump of the beverage preparation machine being a syringe pump.
Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows disclose that the flow rate value would be determined by determining a reduction of volume by time unit of a of a pressurized water chamber of a displacement pump used as the water pump of the beverage preparation machine which pump comprises pistons (41) which pistons are caused to displace a volume of a pressurized water (reciprocating displacements of each piston) by the action of a cam and cam-follower and the rotation of an actuation member (44) (‘619, paragraph [0036] – [0037] and [0045] – [0046]) which is, after all, what defines a syringe pump.
Once it was known to provide the beverage preparation machine with a displacement pump the substation of one known displacement pump for another known displacement pump, such as a syringe pump, to obtain predictable results would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II). Nevertheless, Sims discloses a method of preparation of a beverage (infant formula) in a beverage preparation machine from a capsule (cartridge) containing beverage preparation ingredients (paragraph [0007] – [0008]). Sims further discloses that it was well known in the art that in order to deliver accurate metered amounts of water for the beverage suitable conventional pumps would necessarily include a syringe pump (paragraph [0062] and [0018] – [0022]) which is to say applicant is not the first to have used a syringe pump. Sims is disclosing the use of a syringe pump as the water pump of a beverage preparation machine in order to dispense accurate metered amounts of water for making a prepared beverage. To therefore modify Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows and provide the beverage preparation machine with a syringe pump as taught by Sims would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 2, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows in view of Sims disclose the at least one flow rate value of the water pump would be regulated for feeding of the first volume of water until a predetermined flow time or predetermined water volume is reached or a predetermined pressure set point lower than the extraction pressure is reached (‘935, paragraph [0069] and fig. 8).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows in view of Sims disclose the feeding of the first volume of water would be controlled by a predetermined powering of the water pump during a predetermined time (function of time or flow volume) (‘935, paragraph [0091]). Further regarding claim 4, the recited first flow rates and time in seconds would result in a first volume of a minimum of 4.16 ml and a maximum of 33.3 ml of water in the capsule. Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows disclose the first volume of water delivered at a first flow rate would be variable (‘935, paragraph [0109]). Since the purpose of the first volume of water is to pre-wet the beverage ingredient it is seen that the particular flow rate, that is, in milliliters per minute for a given time in seconds, one would choose to employ would be based on multiple factors. These would include variables such as capsule volume size, the amount of a beverage ingredient contained within the capsule volume, the coarseness of the particles of the beverage ingredient, the degree of pre-wetting desired, and/or the rate at which one would desire the pre-wetting to occur. Which is to say that the rate at which the first volume of water would be fed into the capsule would be a result effective variable which the ordinarily skilled artisan would commonly and routinely optimize. The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of flow rates the optimum combination of flow rates and volumes would be based on known factors. It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of proportions, in this case the claimed flow rate, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows in view of Sims disclose the water pressure of the water pump would be regulated for the feeding of the second volume of water to match at least one pressure set point (‘935, paragraph [0058], [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows in view of Sims disclose the second volume of water would be fed until a targeted volume of beverage is extracted (until it is determined that the extraction is complete) (‘935, paragraph [00127]).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows in view of Sims disclose the second volume of water would be controlled to be started before an opening pressure for opening the second wall of the capsule is reached (not enough pressure to force the water through the grounds to produce properly extracted espresso) (‘935, paragraph [0067]). Further regarding claim 21, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows discloses at least one pressure of extraction after the second ramp up phase of pressure is sufficiently high such that the opening is obtained (the openings of the lower wall of the sachet are the result of deformation to breaking point, but only under the effect of and after pressurization by water) (‘472, col. 9, ln 34 – 36).
Regarding claim 8, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows in view of Sims disclose the water pressure is measured by a sensor (means 18) measuring the current supplied to the water pump (‘619, paragraph [0049] – [0053]), which would obviously include the second volume (‘935. Paragraph [0111]).
Regarding claim 9, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows in view of Sims disclose the water pressure would be regulated at a pressure set point of the second ramp up phase of between 8 and 20 bar (during a fifth stage, which is the second ramp up phase of Fond) (‘472, col. 4, paragraph 3) (the pressure increases from value of P1 to an increased value of P2) (‘935, paragraph [0125], [0094]).
Regarding claim 11, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows disclose that the flow rate value would be determined by determining a reduction of volume by time unit of a of a pressurized water chamber of a displacement pump used as the water pump of the beverage preparation machine which pump comprises pistons (41), the base of said pistons which are a displaceable wall, which pistons are caused to displace a volume of a pressurized water (reciprocating displacements of each piston) by the action of a cam and cam-follower (‘619, paragraph [0036] – [0037] and [0045] – [0046]) by the rotation of an electrical actuator (33) (‘619, paragraph [0029] and [0031]).
Once it was known to provide the beverage preparation machine with a displacement pump the substation of one known displacement pump for another known displacement pump, such as a syringe pump to obtain predictable results would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II). Nevertheless, Sims discloses a method of preparation of a beverage (infant formula) in a beverage preparation machine from a capsule (cartridge) containing beverage preparation ingredients (paragraph [0007] – [0008]). Sims further discloses that it was well known in the art that in order to deliver accurate metered amounts of water for the beverage suitable conventional pumps would necessarily include a syringe pump (paragraph [0062] and [0018] – [0022]). Sims is disclosing the use of a syringe pump as the water pump of a beverage preparation machine in order to dispense accurate metered amounts of water for making a prepared beverage. To therefore modify Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows and provide the beverage preparation machine with a syringe pump as taught by Sims would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 17, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows in view of Sims disclose the pressure of the water pump for feeding of the second volume of water is regulated by matching at least one pressure set point (the average pressure may transition to a second average pressure) (‘935, paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claims 18 and 19 Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows in view of Sims disclose the pressure would be regulated at a pressure of between 8 and 20 bar (the coffee is extracted at a pressure to 20 bar) (‘472, col. 1, paragraph 7) (‘935, paragraph [0094]).
Regarding claim 20, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows disclose the feeding of the first water volume is regulated by flow rate (the lower pressure associated with the pre-brew phase allows the water to pre-wet and/or saturate the grounds SLOWLY, but it is not enough pressure to force the water through the grounds) (‘935, paragraph [0067]) and the feeding of the second water volume is regulated by, i.e. a function of pressure, and no longer a flow rate as clearly shown in figure 8 of Prefontaine where pressure profile demonstrates a step function indicating where the second water volume instantaneously transitions from the first volume, prewetting phase to the extraction phase which is a function of pressure (‘935, paragraph 125).
Regarding claim 23, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows disclose that the flow rate value would be determined by determining a reduction of volume by time unit of a of a pressurized water chamber of a displacement pump used as the water pump of the beverage preparation machine which pump comprises pistons (41) which pistons are caused to displace a volume of a pressurized water (reciprocating displacements of each piston) by the action of a cam and cam-follower and the rotation of an actuation member (44) (‘619, paragraph [0036] – [0037] and [0045] – [0046]) which is, after all, what defines a syringe pump.
Once it was known to provide the beverage preparation machine with a displacement pump the substation of one known displacement pump for another known displacement pump, such as a syringe pump, to obtain predictable results would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II). Nevertheless, Sims discloses a method of preparation of a beverage (infant formula) in a beverage preparation machine from a capsule (cartridge) containing beverage preparation ingredients (paragraph [0007] – [0008]). Sims further discloses that it was well known in the art that in order to deliver accurate metered amounts of water for the beverage suitable conventional pumps would necessarily include a syringe pump (paragraph [0062] and [0018] – [0022]) which is to say applicant is not the first to have used a syringe pump. Sims is disclosing the use of a syringe pump as the water pump of a beverage preparation machine in order to dispense accurate metered amounts of water for making a prepared beverage. To therefore modify Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows and provide the beverage preparation machine with a syringe pump as taught by Sims would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fond et al. US 5,649,472 in view of Prefontaine US 2015/0110935 in view of Bolognese et al. US 2017/0086619 as further evidenced by Streeter et al. US 2005/0126401 and Burrows US 2017/0027367 in view of Sims US 2013/0291737 in view of One of Six.
Claim 12, differs from Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows in view of Sims in the capsule type being able to be identified by the beverage preparation machine. One of Six discloses that it was old and well established to provide a beverage preparation machine and associated capsules with an identifier that can be identified by said machine. One of six discloses that by providing capsules of the type that can be identified by the beverage preparation machine brewing parameters such as water, temperature, time, as well as other parameters can allow said machine to make consistent quality beverages from cup to cup which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well (page 1, paragraph 2, page 3, Observations). To therefore modify Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows in view of Sims and have the capsule type identified by the beverage preparation machine as taught by One of Six would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully and carefully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 10 filed 19 August 2026 have been fully and carefully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant urges that claim 10 now requires both (a) controlling the feeding of the second water volume by increasing a current supplied to the water pump to increase the water pressure, and (b) regulating, via the control unit, the water pressure of the water pump for the feeding of the second volume of water, based on a measurement of a pressure sensor or a sensor measuring the current supplied to the water pump.
As set forth above in the rejection of claim 10 Bolognese clearly discloses that the feeding of the second water volume would be controlled by increasing a current supplied to the water pump which would result in an increase of the water pressure.
Applicant further appears to urge the rejections have been made based on hindsight reasoning. In response to applicant's urging that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 19 September 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights