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
The amendment filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 56, 58-79, 81 remain pending in the application. Claim 82 is new. Claims 67-79, 81 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 10/28/2025.
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:
metering device in claim 56 interpreted as grinder as described “the metering device comprises a coffee bean grinder for grinding coffee beans into ground coffee” in paragraph [38 ] of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: step in claims 56, 59, 60, 82.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 56, 58-66, 82 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 56 recites “a metering parameter” twice. It is not clear if these are same or different parameters.
Claim 62 depends on claim 56, and recites “a predetermined range of target tamp height values”. Claim 56 also recites “a predetermined range of target tamp height values”. It is not clear if claim 62 refers to the same range of values as claimed in claim 56 or different values.
Claims 58-66, 82 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 56.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 56, 59-63, 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia et al., US 20160051081 (hereafter Grassia).
Regarding claim 56,
A machine for filling a coffee filter basket with tamped ground coffee, the machine comprising: (Fig. 27 in Grassia)
PNG
media_image1.png
650
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 27 in Grassia
a dock for receiving the filter basket to be packed with ground coffee; ( Fig. 14 teaches fill head 201 receiving portafilter 200. Paragraph [3] teaches portafilter comprises a filter basket. Here fill head corresponds to dock.)
PNG
media_image2.png
400
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 14 in Grassia
a ground coffee metering device for metering ground coffee into the filter basket when the filter basket is located in the dock; (Fig. 27 teaches a machine with hopper, grinder, and tamper.)
a tamping assembly for tamping coffee added to the filter basket, the tamping assembly having: (Fig. 21 teaches tamping augur 250)
PNG
media_image3.png
636
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 21 in Grassia
a tamping head including a tamping surface; (254 in Fig. 21)
a tamping actuator (motor 251 in Fig. 21)
for moving the tamping surface along a tamping path aligned with the dock (Fig. 19 teaches that auger fan moves along a path aligned with dock 201)
PNG
media_image3.png
636
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 19 in Grassia
and to apply a tamping pressure to the ground coffee in the filter basket; and (Paragraph [3] teaches “The augur fan of the tamping augur rotates within the filter basket to both compress the ground coffee in the filter basket and create a uniform upper surface.” )
a sensor to gather data indicative of the displacement of the tamping surface on the tamping path; (Paragraph [91] teaches tamper height detection mechanism. It is implied that this height detection mechanism is a sensor.)
a controller operatively connected to the metering device and the tamping assembly and adapted to perform the steps of: (Paragraph [90] teaches that main control PCB 320 controls the tamping mechanism and feedback sensors to determine if portafilter is filled.)
(a) metering a first dose of ground coffee into the filter basket with the metering device (step 363 in Fig. 29)
PNG
media_image4.png
670
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 29 in Grassia
in response to a metering parameter; (step 365 in Fig. 29)
(b) determining a displacement of the tamping surface along the tamping path upon application of a tamping pressure by the tamping assembly;(Steps 367 and 369 in Fig. 29 teaches displacement of the tamping surface of the tamping auger. Paragraph [91] teaches a tamper torque sensor or a tamper height detection mechanism to determine whether or not the portafilter is full.)
(c) calculating a tamp height value indicative of an actual tamp height of tamped coffee in the filter basket based on the displacement of the tamping surface. (Paragraph [91] teaches a tamper torque sensor or a tamper height detection mechanism to determine whether or not the portafilter is full. It is implied here that the control unit measures a parameter from torque sensor or height detector. This measured data corresponds to tamp height of the tamped coffee.)
(d) calculating a difference between the calculated tamp height value and a predetermined range of target tamp height values (Paragraph [9] in Grassia teaches “In an automated or semi-automated machine, methods and apparatus are also required for determining when a pre-established fill height or level of compaction has been reached with respect to the grinds in a portafilter.”)
and (e) calculating a metering parameter value associated with a variation amount of ground coffee required to be added to or removed from the filter basket based on the difference between the calculated tamp height value and the predetermined range of target tamp height values. (Grassia teaches in step 367 in Fig. 29 that the microprocessor has a feedback system where it checks a measured data against a predetermined value, and keeps adding more coffee by operating the grinder until the predetermined value is reached. However, Fig. 29 teaches motor current as the measured parameter.
Paragraph [9] in Grassia teaches “In an automated or semi-automated machine, methods and apparatus are also required for determining when a pre-established fill height or level of compaction has been reached with respect to the grinds in a portafilter.” Here Grassia teaches fill height as a parameter.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the fill height of coffee in a portafilter as a parameter to the microprocessor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it is a “way of controlling a coffee grinder and tamping augur in an espresso machine using the interaction between a portafilter and a device that supports it during filling and tamping” as taught in paragraph [16] in Grassia.)
Regarding claim 59,
The machine of claim 56 further adapted to perform the step of: (f) metering the variation amount of ground coffee into the filter basket with the metering parameter value if the calculated tamp height value is less than the predetermined range of target tamp height values. (Grassia teaches in Fig. 29 that the microprocessor has a feedback system where it checks a measured data against a predetermined value, and keeps adding more coffee by operating the grinder until the predetermined value is reached.
However, Fig. 29 teaches motor current as the measured parameter.
Paragraph [9] in Grassia teaches “In an automated or semi-automated machine, methods and apparatus are also required for determining when a pre-established fill height or level of compaction has been reached with respect to the grinds in a portafilter.” Here Grassia teaches fill height as a parameter.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the fill height of coffee in a portafilter as a parameter to the microprocessor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it is a “way of controlling a coffee grinder and tamping augur in an espresso machine using the interaction between a portafilter and a device that supports it during filling and tamping” as taught in paragraph [16] in Grassia.)
PNG
media_image5.png
517
271
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Part of Fig. 29 in Grassia
Regarding claim 60,
The machine of claim 59 further adapted to iteratively repeat the steps (b) to (f) if the calculated tamp height value is less than the predetermined range of target tamp height values. (Grassia teaches in Fig. 29 that the microprocessor has a feedback system where it checks a measured data against a predetermined value, and keeps adding coffee until the predetermined value is reached.
However, Fig. 29 teaches motor current as the measured parameter.
Paragraph [9] in Grassia teaches “In an automated or semi-automated machine, methods and apparatus are also required for determining when a pre-established fill height or level of compaction has been reached with respect to the grinds in a portafilter.” Here Grassia teaches fill height as a parameter.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the fill height of coffee in a portafilter as a parameter to the microprocessor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it is a “way of controlling a coffee grinder and tamping augur in an espresso machine using the interaction between a portafilter and a device that supports it during filling and tamping” as taught in paragraph [16] in Grassia.)
Regarding claim 61,
The machine of claim 56 wherein the controller is adapted to provide an indication to the user based on the calculated tamp height. ( Grassia teaches indicating a signal to the user when the microprocessor determines that portafilter is full in Fig. 29, step 368.
However, Fig. 29 teaches motor current as the measured parameter.
Paragraph [9] in Grassia teaches “In an automated or semi-automated machine, methods and apparatus are also required for determining when a pre-established fill height or level of compaction has been reached with respect to the grinds in a portafilter.” Here Grassia teaches fill height as a parameter.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the fill height of coffee in a portafilter as a parameter to the microprocessor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it is a “way of controlling a coffee grinder and tamping augur in an espresso machine using the interaction between a portafilter and a device that supports it during filling and tamping” as taught in paragraph [16] in Grassia.)
Regarding claim 62,
The machine of claim 56 wherein the controller is adapted to provide an indication to the user based on the difference between the calculated tamp height and a predetermined range of target tamp height values. ( Grassia teaches indicating a signal to the user when the microprocessor determines that portafilter is full in Fig. 29, step 368.
However, Fig. 29 teaches motor current as the measured parameter.
Paragraph [9] in Grassia teaches “In an automated or semi-automated machine, methods and apparatus are also required for determining when a pre-established fill height or level of compaction has been reached with respect to the grinds in a portafilter.” Here Grassia teaches fill height as a parameter.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the fill height of coffee in a portafilter as a parameter to the microprocessor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it is a “way of controlling a coffee grinder and tamping augur in an espresso machine using the interaction between a portafilter and a device that supports it during filling and tamping” as taught in paragraph [16] in Grassia.)
Regarding claim 63,
The machine of claim 56 wherein said first dose is estimated to provide a target tamp height of tamped coffee in the filter basket based on known filter basket parameters. (Step 361 in Fig. 29 teaches that grinder and tamper are activated for 4 second and then check if desired tamp height is achieved in step 362. It is implied that the 4 second timer is estimated to provide a target tamp height of tamped coffee in the filter basket based on known filter basket parameters.)
Regarding claim 65,
The machine of claim 56 wherein the metering device comprises a coffee bean grinder for grinding coffee beans into ground coffee, (grinder 312 in Fig. 27)
a hopper for storage and supply of coffee beans to be ground, (hopper 311 in Fig. 27)
a grinding mechanism driven by an electric motor for grinding the coffee beans (grind adjustment mechanism 313 driven by motor 314 in Fig. 27)
and a grinder outlet (Outlet 316 in Fig. 27)
for directing ground coffee into the filter basket. (Tamping augur 317 in Fig. 27)
Claim(s) 58, and 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Oddera, US 20190254464 (hereafter Oddera).
Regarding claim 58,
The machine of claim 56 wherein the predetermined range of target tamp height values is determined by a target tamp height value and a tolerance range (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Oddera teaches an electronic control with “a first setting of the nominal dose with temporary grinding times; a second setting of the tolerance and reliability ranges of the dispensed doses,” in abstract.
Even though Oddera is silent about tamping height, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the electronic control from Oddera to set a tolerance range around nominal value for tamp height value in the machine of Grassia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to recalculate the predetermined times set in first step as taught in abstract in Oddera.)
Regarding claim 66,
The machine of claim 56 wherein the metering parameter is temporal, and the metering parameter value is a time period. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Oddera teaches in abstract “The method provides: a first setting of the nominal dose with temporary grinding times; a second setting of the tolerance and reliability ranges of the dispensed doses, for the purpose of recalculation; the automatic control of the weight of each actually dispensed dose; the automatic recalculation of the grinding times according to an ordinary calculation logic,”.
Even though Oddera is silent about tamping height, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the electronic control from Oddera to set a temporary time for tamping and recalculate it as taught in Oddera in the machine of Grassia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to recalculate the predetermined times set in first step as taught in abstract in Oddera.)
Claim(s) 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Barnett et al., US 6095032 (hereafter Barnett).
The machine of claim 56 wherein the controller is adapted to determine a calibration parameter based on the difference between the calculated tamp height value and the predetermined range of target tamp height values and wherein the calibration parameter is used to calibrate the ground coffee metering device. (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Barnett teaches in column 2, lines 30-40 “A volume quantity dosing calibrator is configured to regulate by volume, the amount of ground coffee that enters the delivery filter by sensing when the compaction mechanism has been raised a preselected distance due to the accumulation of compressed ground coffee underneath the compaction mechanism, and then terminating the actuation of the compaction mechanism, thereby ceasing the flow of ground coffee.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the volume calibrator as taught in Barnett to the machine of Grassia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “As the volume of compacted ground coffee in the delivery filter increases, the rotary motion of the compaction mechanism becomes upward rotary motion as the mechanism is forced upward against the spring resistance to a predetermined shut off switch of a dosing calibrator, thus insuring that a consistent volume of ground coffee has been portioned and pressed into the delivery filter at a constant pressure” as taught in column 2, line 65- column 3, line 5 in Barnett.)
Claim(s) 82 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Glucksman et al., US 20180303271 (hereafter Glucksman).
The machine of claim 56 further adapted to perform the step of, if an excess of ground coffee in the filter basket is detected, utilizing a user interface to notify the user to remove the excess of ground coffee from the filter basket prior to re-tamping of the coffee in the filter basket if an excess of ground coffee in the filter basket. (Grassia teaches user interface 157 in Fig. 12. Fig. 29 further teaches notifying user when the cycle is completed.
However, Grassia is silent about if an excess of ground coffee in the filter basket is detected, utilizing a user interface to notify the user to remove the excess of ground coffee from the filter basket prior to re-tamping of the coffee in the filter basket if an excess of ground coffee in the filter basket.
Glucksman teaches “if a user specifies a carafe volume of say 1500 milliliter then the logic will alert the user whether the right amount of ground coffee was used and encourage the user to add more or to remove some prior to starting the brew process” in paragraph [77].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the logic of Glucksman to alert user of excess coffee to the machine of Grassia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The coffee brewing appliance will deliver as little brewed coffee as a mall cup of about 4 oz., or up to a whole carafe of up to 60 oz. following the user command” as taught in paragraph [77] in Glucksman.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/27/2026 with respect to claim(s) 56, 58-66, 82 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argued on page 10 of the remarks that 112(f) interpretation of “metering device” is improper. However, even though metering device is a known term in the art, the term does not define any certain structure to overcome 112f interpretation. The argument is not persuasive. Additionally, paragraph [38] of the original disclosure describes “the metering device comprises a coffee bean grinder for grinding coffee beans into ground coffee”.
In response to applicant's argument on page 13 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., linear) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The applicant argued on page 13 that Grassia teaches a rotating auger fan and thus does not teach “moving the tamping surface along a tamping path aligned with the dock”. However, Fig. 14 and Fig. 19 in Grassia teaches that motor 251 rotates auger fan 235 along a path aligned with dock 201 inside and out of portafilter 200. It seems that the applicant argued that a rotating device cannot have a linear motion. However, by definition, auger is a device that comprises rotation as well as linear motion along the axis of rotation.
In response to applicant's argument on page 13 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a sensor directly measuring position of tamping surface on a tamping path) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The applicant argued that Grassia does not teach a sensor to gather data indicative of a displacement. Here “indicative” does not describe a structure directly measuring the position of tamping surface. The claimed “indicative” is interpreted as indirect measurement. Grassia teaches a tamper height detection mechanism to determine whether or not the portafilter is full and separately, when the surface has been polished in paragraph [91]. It is implied that the height detection mechanism gathers data that is indicative of the displacement of tamping surface to determine whether or not the portafilter is full.
The applicant argued on page 13 that Garcia is silent about computing tamp height. However, paragraph [91] in Garcia teaches a tamper torque sensor or a tamper height detection mechanism to determine whether or not the portafilter is full. It is implied here that the control unit measures a parameter from torque sensor or height detector. This measured data corresponds to tamp height of the tamped coffee because it determines if the portafilter is full.
The applicant amended claim 56 to recite “(d) calculating a difference between the calculated tamp height value and a predetermined range of target tamp height values and (e) calculating a metering parameter value associated with a variation amount of ground coffee required to be added to or removed from the filter basket based on the difference between the calculated tamp height value and the predetermined range of target tamp height values” and argued on pages 13-15 that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art as discussed above.
Conclusion
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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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 560-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights