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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The prior art has been maintained. See response to arguments below.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending in this Office Action. Claim 12 has been withdrawn due to being drawn to the non-elected invention.
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(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buttiker (US 2014/0242226 Al – cited in IDS filed 7 Feb 2022) in view of Argyris et al. (WO 2018/162609 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Buttiker discloses a control method for controlling the current dispensing cycle of a coffee machine (see abstract), the coffee machine comprising an electronic controller (pump control device, paragraph 29), a brewing pump (paragraph 29) and a brewing unit having a housing chamber (brewing chamber, paragraph 29) of an amount of coffee powder (ground coffee, paragraph 10);
the method comprising:
performing, in the current dispensing cycle, a dispensing step (supplies the brewing water to the brewing water inlet, paragraph 29) and, prior to the dispensing step, selecting a type of preliminary wetting step of wetting said amount of coffee powder in which there is no dispensing (brewing pause, paragraph 24),
calculating at least one pump-activation parameter (period of time, amount of brewing water, paragraph 16);
controlling, with the electronic controller, the dispensing speed of the entire dispensing step of the current dispensing cycle (volume flow rate, paragraph 19) by intermittently activating the brewing pump (paragraph 13).
Buttiker is silent to wherein the at least one pump-activation parameter is calculated exclusively as a function of stored dispensing data calculated in dispensing steps of dispensing cycles preceding the current dispensing cycle, and wherein the brewing pump uses a control algorithm that employs the calculated at least one pump activation parameter. Argyris is relied on to teach a beverage preparation machine comprising a thermal conditioning device such as a heater (see abstract), the controller has a self-learning mode for adjusting at least one parameter (page 6, Ln. 17-20) exclusively as a function of stored dispensing data (the at least one parameter is preferably adjusted as a function of a ramp value representative of a rate of change, page 12 last paragraph) calculated in dispensing steps of dispensing cycles preceding the current dispensing cycle. In this case, the controller loads a previously stored data that has a parameter determined during a previously start-up phase of the beverage preparation machine (page 13, lines 15-21). This allows the machine to calculate the parameters for the thermal conditioning device based on the current temperature as well as the rate of change determined in the previous start-up, thereby providing an optimal thermal conditioning for the current cycle (see page 13, Ln. 22-page 14, line 9).
Therefore, since both Buttiker and Argyris are directed to a beverage making apparatus that varies its brewing parameters to achieve an optimized brewing condition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a self-learning mode to the controller which allows the controller to use data from previous dispensing cycles and thereby optimize the pump-activation brewing parameters of the current dispensing cycle.
Regarding Claim 2, Buttiker further teaches wherein said control algorithm acquires a piece of data that is representative of the amount of coffee powder used for executing the current brewing cycle (quantity of the ground coffee, paragraph 34).
Regarding Claim 3, Buttiker further teaches wherein said control algorithm acquires a piece of data that is representative of the type of preliminary wetting step selected, if provided, for performing the current brewing cycle (duration, paragraph 34).
Regarding Claim 4, Buttiker further teaches wherein said control algorithm calculates at least one of the parameters of a periodic control function comprising a value of the period of said function and an activation time value in said period (see 110 of Fig. 3, and paragraph 54).
Regarding Claim 5, Buttiker further teaches wherein said period comprises a sole continuous activation time (T4 of 110, Fig. 3) and a sole continuous deactivation time (section b of 110, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Buttiker further teaches wherein during said continuous activation time, the brewing pump is operated at its maximum power output (pull pump capacity, paragraph 54).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination is silent to wherein said stored dispensing data comprise the duration of the dispensing step of said preceding dispensing cycles. However, Buttiker further teaches that it is advantageous to measure the duration of the periods of time to determine volume measurement for the purpose of accurately dispensing a quantity of coffee beverage (paragraph 16). Argyris was further relied on to teach the process of storing data from a previous dispensing cycle and using said data as parameters for the current dispensing cycle (see rejection of Claim 1). The data serves as parameters which aids in the calculation for the thermal conditioning device based on the present conditions. Therefore, since Buttiker relies on the parameters to tailor the brewing conditions of a current dispensing cycle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store dispensing data comprising the duration of the dispensing step of the preceding cycles for the purpose of maintaining a consistent dispensed quantity of coffee beverage.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to Claim 7, because since Buttiker seeks to determine the quantity of dispensed coffee beverage relatively accurately (paragraph 16), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store dispensing data comprising the amount of product dispensed from said preceding dispensing cycles.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to Claim 7, because since Buttiker configures the pump control to independently vary various parameters as a function of the quantity of ground coffee (paragraph 34), and Argyris relies on stored brewing data to optimize the current dispensing cycle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store dispensing data comprising the amount of coffee powder used for the purpose of determining the duration and amount of brewing water to supply to the brewing chamber, thereby producing a predictable and accurate amount of product dispensed.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination does not specifically recite wherein said stored dispensing data comprise said parameters of said control function calculated in said preceding dispensing cycles. However, since Argyris is directed to a self-calibrating beverage preparation machine that is determined on the basis of the parameters calculated at the previous start-up phase (“wherein the flow coefficient is determined on the basis of the last calculated ramp value.” page 7, lines 10-14), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store dispensing data comprising parameters calculated in the preceding dispensing cycles.
Regarding Claim 11, Buttiker further teaches wherein once the type of preliminary wetting step is selected (first brewing phase) and the amount of coffee powder for the current dispensing cycle are determined (paragraph 34), an activation time of the brewing pump in the current dispensing cycle is dependent to the amount of coffee powder used in the current dispensing cycle (paragraph 14).
Buttiker is silent to wherein the pump activation time is directly proportional to the amount of coffee powder, and inversely proportional to the average dispensing speed of preceding dispensing cycles weighed on the intermittent activating thereof, said preceding dispensing cycles relating to the same selected type of preliminary wetting step and to the same amount of coffee powder as the current dispensing cycle. However, since Buttiker determines the period of time of the brewing phases as a function of a set or adjustable type of quantity of the ground coffee (Claim 14), the particular relationship is seen to be an optimization within prior art conditions or determined through routine experimentation. "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, 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."). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). Since the pump control of Buttiker already contemplates the quantity of coffee powder being brewed, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine whether the beverage preparation machine should increase or decrease the supplied brewing water based on the quantity of the coffee powder, as well as its dispensing speed, based on the desired brewing strength of the dispensed coffee product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 2 Mar 2026 has been considered, but is found not persuasive over the prior art of record.
Applicant argues on the basis that the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, teach, disclose, or suggest each and every feature of Claim 1. That is, Applicant submits that the Argyris reference focused on adjusting the start-up profile of a thermal conditioning device during the current thermal conditioning start up phase and applies the adjustments within the same start-up phase. Applicant notes that the machine of Argyris would not make sense to rely on previous recorded values as function of the current brewing cycle when dispensing cycles do not operate in the same conditions. The arguments are not found persuasive because Argyris recites as follow:
At 101, the controller of the control unit 4 loads a previously stored ramp value representative of a rate of change in temperature of the thermal conditioning device. The previously stored ramp value is for example a default ramp value stored in a memory of the control unit during production of the machine. Preferably, the previously stored ramp value is a ramp value determined during a previous start-up phase of the beverage preparation machine. (emphasis added, see Page 13, lines 15-21)
In this case, Argyris explicitly recites using a ramp value that is either, a default value stored in a memory during production of the machine, or preferably, determined during a previous start-up phase. Both of these options are not a ramp value that was determined in the current start-up phase. Therefore, it is maintained that Argyris suggest the method of calculating a brewing parameter exclusively as a function of a stored dispensing data that was determined in a dispensing cycle preceding the current dispensing cycle. For these reasons, the prior art is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THANH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0346. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights