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 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 11 May 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.
Claims 1 – 11 and 16 – 21 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, 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]).
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]) 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.
Further regarding claim 11, note that because claim 1 is in the form of a Markush group, and Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows teaches measuring a rotational speed of the motor of a rotary volumetric pump used as the water pump and computing a flow rate accordingly, it is not required that Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese as further evidenced by Streeter and Burrows meet the further limitation of the non-selected groups via subsequent dependent claims.
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.
Regarding claim 2, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese discloses 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 discloses 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 17, Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese 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 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 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).
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 in view of One of Six.
Claim 12, differs from Fond in view of Prefontaine in view of Bolognese 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 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 filed 11 May 2026 have been fully and carefully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant urges that Prefontaine fails to disclose or suggest the at least one flow rate value of the first ramp up phase would be maintained to a pressure profile, that the pre-brew phase of Prefontaine includes delivering a first volume of water to the coffee grounds to merely saturate the coffee grounds and does not suggest controlling the feeding by a flow rate value that is maintained according to a pressure value. These urgings are not deemed persuasive.
Prefontaine clearly discloses the at least one flow rate value of the first ramp up phase is maintained according to a pressure profile as clearly seen in figure 8 and disclosed in paragraph [0117] where pressure profile 802 (P) ramps up from zero to approximately a pressure value of P1 which is clearly shown in profile 802. The first volume of water prewets the beverage ingredients which are in a dry state before the beverage would be extracted from the beverage ingredients. Regarding applicant’s urging that Prefontaine is delivering a first volume of water to the coffee grounds to merely saturate the coffee grounds, it is not understood how this would be any different that applicant’s prewetting of the beverage ingredients as claimed by first volume of water since both Prefontaine (paragraph [0120]) and the applicant are prewetting the beverage ingredients by the first flow.
In response to applicant's argument 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
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 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 14 May 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights