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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: The amendment to claim 16 filed 11/17/2025 is redundant with language already present in claim 16 as it is now stated twice that the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply to the brew chamber to form a beverage equal to or less than a threshold. Examiner recommends deleting the amendment and changing “the threshold” in line 6 to “a threshold”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The 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 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 is: “a liquid conditioner” in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The following limitations are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre -AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
The claim limitation “liquid conditioner arranged to heat or cool the liquid” uses “conditioner” as a generic placeholder for “means” for performing the claimed function; the term “conditioner” is modified by the functional language “arranged to heat or cool”; and the term “conditioner” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the claim limitation meets the three-prong test and will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), in other words equivalent to “means for heating or cooling.” The corresponding structure in the disclosure states that the liquid conditioner “may include a heater tank or inline heater including an electrical resistance heater, or a refrigeration system arranged to cool a liquid” (page 4, lines 2-5). Because the limitation invokes 112(f), the broadest reasonable interpretation of “liquid conditioner” is the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification that performs the claimed function “arranged to heat or cool the liquid,” which is an electric heater or refrigeration system, and equivalents thereof as recognized in the art.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation 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 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-18, and 20-22 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 1 recites the limitation "the flow rate less than a threshold flow rate" in line 10 and further limits the range to include “a first flow rate” and “a second flow rate different from the first flow rate.” This is considered to be a range within a range limitation which makes it unclear when infringement would occur.
Regarding claim 16, claim 1 has redefined “the flow rate less than the threshold flow rate” as first and second flow rates. It is unclear whether either of the first and second flow rates are required in claim 16 or if claim 16 is discussing new flow rates within “the flow rate less than the threshold flow rate” which may be new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony (U.S. Patent No. 10,028,615 B2) in view of Carr et al. (U.S Patent No. 10,045,656), hereinafter Carr, in further view of Doglioni Majer (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0273502 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Anthony teaches a beverage forming system (Anthony, fig. 1, coffee machine 100) comprising:
a liquid supply (Anthony, fig. 1, water reservoir 105) arranged to provide a liquid for forming a beverage (Anthony, page 8, col. 5, lines 18-20; the water reservoir 105 stores water 102 for making coffee);
a brew chamber (Anthony, fig. 1, brew chamber 135) arranged to hold a beverage material for mixing with the liquid to form a beverage (Anthony, page 8, col. 5, lines 37-42; the brew chamber 135 holds ground coffee; hot water is passed through the brew chamber 135 to brew the coffee into a container 140);
a liquid conditioner (Anthony, fig. 1, heater/boiler 125) arranged to heat or cool the liquid that is provided to the brew chamber (Anthony, page 8, col. 6, lines 52-61; the heater/boiler 125 is operated to heat the water used to brew the ground coffee in the brew chamber 135); and
a control circuit (Anthony, fig. 1 and page 8, col. 5, lines 47-65; the controller 145 can be an integrated circuit that controls the coffee machine 100 to operate) arranged to control the liquid supply and the liquid conditioner to operate automatically according to one or more brew parameters during a dispensing operation to deliver heated or cooled liquid to the brew chamber to form the beverage (Anthony, fig. 1 and page 8, col. 5, lines 47-65 and col. 6, lines 26-40; the controller 145 controls the coffee machine 100 to operate based on a user input of temperature control 155 that allows either hot or iced coffee to be selected; after the user initiates the brewing process, the water reservoir 105 sends water 102 into the heater/boiler 125 to be heated before being directed through the brew chamber 135). Anthony additionally teaches the control circuit includes a user interface arranged to receive the user's input indicating the dispensed beverage is to be combined with ice (Anthony, figs. 1-2 and page 6, col. 2, lines 49-55 and page 8, col. 5, lines 47-67 and col. 6, lines 1-3; the coffee machine 100 has a user interface for the brew size selection control 150 and a temperature control 155, allowing the user to choose between brewing a hot coffee or an iced coffee; the selection is sent to the controller 145 for performing the brewing process).
Regarding claim 16, Anthony teaches the system as incorporated in claim 1 above, wherein the control circuit includes a sensor (Anthony, fig. 1, flow meter 120) arranged to detect a characteristic of a beverage material in the brew chamber (Anthony, page 8, col. 5, lines 56-61; the flow meter 120 measures the flow rate of the water) and the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply to provide liquid to the brew chamber to form a beverage having a volume equal to or less than a threshold volume (Anthony, page 8, col. 5, lines 47-65 and col. 6, lines 26-40 and page 9, col. 7; the user can select an iced coffee to be brewed by the coffee machine 100 via the temperature control 155; after the user initiates the brewing process, the water reservoir 105 sends water 102 into the heater/boiler 125 to be heated before being directed through the brew chamber 135; Table 2 shows examples of parameters for brewing iced coffee with the coffee machine 100; a threshold volume may be the brew size of 14 ounces which is selected by the user prior to the brewing process through the brew size selection control 150, where 240 milliliters of water in total is added to result in the 14 ounce iced coffee drink; 240 milliliters is smaller in volume than 14 ounces) and to provide the liquid at a flow rate less than the threshold flow rate in response to the detected characteristic of the beverage material (Anthony, page 7, col. 3, lines 1-2 and page 8, col. 5, lines 47-65 and pages 6-7, cols. 2-3, lines 45-67 and 1-2; using the brew size selection control 150 and temperature control 155, the user can select a brew size for an iced coffee; the controller 145 determines a preset amount of water—which is measured by a flow meter 120 and referred to as the “Brew Water” in Table 2--to dispense over a preset time based on the selected Brew Size; the Brew Water values for iced coffee listed in Table 2 can be compared to those for hot coffee in Table 1 to compare the resulting flow rates of either drink; the 402 milliliter Brew Water parameter for making a 14 ounce hot coffee can be considered to be a threshold value that is greater than the 190 milliliter parameter for making a 14 ounce iced coffee; because the preset amount of time to dispense the Brew Water is based on the Brew Size, it is understood that the brew time for a hot coffee is the same as the brew time for an iced coffee when they have the same Brew Size; Anthony also suggests the duration of 15 seconds for the dispensing of the Brew Water, making the flow rates of brewing a 14 ounce hot coffee and a 14 ounce iced coffee 26.8 mL/s and 12.7 mL/s respectively; therefore, the flow rate for making a threshold/standard 14 ounce hot coffee is greater than the flow rate for making a 14 ounce iced coffee).
Regarding claim 18, Anthony teaches the system as incorporated in claim 1 above, wherein the control circuit includes a user interface arranged to receive the user's input indicating the dispensed beverage is to be combined with ice and to receive input from the user to indicate a final beverage volume (Anthony, page 8, col. 5, lines 47-65; the user can select an iced coffee using the temperature control 155; the user can select the size of the iced coffee using the brew size selection control 150; the controller 145 uses these inputs to brew the selected beverage), and wherein the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply to provide liquid to the brew chamber to dispense the beverage having a volume less than the final beverage volume (Anthony, page 9, col. 7; Table 2 shows that for a 14-ounce iced coffee, the “Total Water Delivered,” or dispensed, is 240 milliliters, which is less than the Brew Size of 14 ounces).
While Anthony teaches the ability to control liquid the amount of liquid sent to the brew chamber as well as the bloom duration based on whether hot or iced coffee has been selected (see Tables 1 and 2) Anthony does not clear set forth the control circuit is configured to provide liquid at a flow rate less than a threshold flow rate in response to a user’s input indicating the dispensed beverage is to be combined with ice. Specifically, Anthony does not teach the flow rate less than a threshold rate comprises a first flow rate, and the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply to provide liquid at the first flow rate during a first portion of a dispensing operation and to provide liquid at a second flow rate different from the first flow rate during a second portion of the dispensing operation that is after the first portion in response to a user's input indicating the beverage is to be combined with ice (claim 1), wherein the first flow rate is slower than the second flow rate.
Carr teaches (Col. 2, lines 35-50) teaches it is known in the art that when making an iced beverage instead of a standard hot beverage that it is known to adjust one or more of the dispensed volume, temperature, and flow rate to adjust threshold setting to be better suited for the production of the iced beverage.
Based on the teachings of Carr, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the control circuit of Anthony to allow for adjustment of any variable known to influence the quality of a brewed iced beverage, including both increasing and decreasing the flow rate relative to a threshold value, in an attempt to produce a superior product.
Doglioni Majer teaches a beverage forming system (Doglioni Majer, fig. 2, beverage preparation apparatus 1) wherein the flow rate less than a threshold rate comprises a first flow rate (Doglioni Majer, page 12, paragraph 0189; in example 3, the beverage preparation apparatus 1 has a first diluent pump 3 that pumps a diluent liquid at a flow rate of 2 milliliters per second), and the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply to provide liquid at the first flow rate during a first portion of a dispensing operation (Doglioni Majer, page 12, paragraph 0189 and paragraph 0191, lines 1-3; the controller C controls the first diluent pump 3 to pump for a predetermined amount of time that can be programmed) and to provide liquid at a second flow rate different from the first flow rate during a second portion of the dispensing operation that is after the first portion (Doglioni Majer, page 12, paragraph 0191, lines 1-4; after the first diluent pump 3 operates, the controller C turns on the second pump 3’, which pumps at a flow rate of 6 milliliters per second) in response to a user's input indicating the beverage is to be combined with ice (Doglioni Majer, page 7, paragraph 0097, lines 1-7; the beverage preparation apparatus 1 can form a beverage that is a cold coffee). The first flow rate is slower than the second flow rate (Doglioni Majer, page 12, paragraph 0189 and paragraph 0191, lines 1-4; in example 3, the beverage preparation apparatus 1 has a first diluent pump 3 that pumps a diluent liquid at a flow rate of 2 milliliters per second, followed by a second pump 3’ that pumps at a flow rate of 6 milliliters per second)
Based on the teachings Doglioni Majer it is known within the brewing art to utilize multiple flow rates when brewing and dispensing a single beverage. As Carr already teaches it is known to one of ordinary skill to adjust the flow rate when producing an iced coffee, based on the teachings of Doglioni Majer one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try multiple flow rates, including a first flow rate slower than a threshold flow rate and also slower than a second flow rate, for the express purpose of to have more control over the brewing process. As acknowledged by Doglioni Majer, this allows for a better extraction of the material in the brewing chamber (Doglioni Majer, page 4, paragraph 0045, lines 14-22).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Anthony, as applied to claims 1, in view of Moon (U.S. Pub. No. 20180220834 A1)
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Anthony teaches the system as incorporated in claim 1 above, but does not teach the user interface including a button touchable by a user to provide the user's input.
However, Moon teaches a beverage forming system (Moon, fig. 1, system 10) having a user interface (Moon, fig. 5, control panel 33) that includes a button touchable by a user to provide the user's input (Moon, fig. 5, control panel 33 contains various buttons to allow the user to select the type/temperature of coffee—including iced coffee—as well as the size of the drink in ounces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the modified device of Anthony to include the control panel (33) of Moon for the purpose of providing the user with an easy-to-use method of inputting the desired brew size and temperature controls.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Anthony teaches and the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply to provide liquid to the brew chamber to form a beverage having a volume equal to or less than a threshold volume (Anthony, page 8, col. 5, lines 47-65 and col. 6, lines 26-40 and page 9, col. 7; the user can select an iced coffee to be brewed by the coffee machine 100 via the temperature control 155; after the user initiates the brewing process, the water reservoir 105 sends water 102 into the heater/boiler 125 to be heated before being directed through the brew chamber 135; Table 2 shows examples of parameters for brewing iced coffee with the coffee machine 100; a threshold volume may be the brew size of 14 ounces which is selected by the user prior to the brewing process through the brew size selection control 150, where 240 milliliters of water in total is added to result in the 14 ounce iced coffee drink; 240 milliliters is smaller in volume than 14 ounces).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Anthony teaches the system as incorporated in claim 1 above, but does not teach the user interface including a plurality of buttons that are each touchable by a user to indicate a corresponding final beverage volume, at least one of the beverage volumes corresponding to one of the plurality of buttons being greater than the threshold volume.
However, Moon teaches a beverage forming system (Moon, fig. 1, system 10) having a user interface (Moon, fig. 5, control panel 33) that includes a plurality of buttons that are each touchable by a user to indicate a corresponding final beverage volume (Moon, fig. 5, control panel 33 contains a button to allow the user to select the type/temperature of coffee—including iced coffee—as well as a button for selecting the size of the drink in ounces), at least one of the beverage volumes corresponding to one of the plurality of buttons being greater than the threshold volume (Moon, fig. 5 and page 3, paragraph 0046, lines 6-9; the control panel 33 allows the user to select a brewing size of 16 ounces, which is greater than the threshold volume of 14 ounces established in claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the modified device of Anthony to include the control panel (33) of Moon for the purpose of providing the user with an easy-to-use method of inputting the desired brew size and temperature controls.
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Anthony teaches the system as incorporated in claim 1 above, but does not teach that the threshold volume is 8 ounces or less.
However, Moon teaches a beverage forming system (Moon, fig. 1, system 10) having a threshold volume that is 8 ounces or less (Moon, fig. 5 and page 3, paragraph 0046, lines 6-9; one possible option for the brewing size is 8 ounces; the 8-ounce brewing size can be considered to be a threshold volume because it is the beverage volume indicated by the user at the beginning of the brewing process, as supported by the Applicant on page 4, lines 22-25 of the Specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the modified device of Anthony to include the control panel (33) and 8-ounce brewing size option of Moon for the purpose of providing the user with an easy-to-use method of inputting the desired brew size and temperature controls, as well as a wider variety of sizing options for the resulting beverage.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Anthony, as applied to claim 1, in view of Besson (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0082989 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Anthony teaches and the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply to provide liquid to the brew chamber to form a beverage having a volume equal to or less than a threshold volume (Anthony, page 8, col. 5, lines 47-65 and col. 6, lines 26-40 and page 9, col. 7; the user can select an iced coffee to be brewed by the coffee machine 100 via the temperature control 155; after the user initiates the brewing process, the water reservoir 105 sends water 102 into the heater/boiler 125 to be heated before being directed through the brew chamber 135; Table 2 shows examples of parameters for brewing iced coffee with the coffee machine 100; a threshold volume may be the brew size of 14 ounces which is selected by the user prior to the brewing process through the brew size selection control 150, where 240 milliliters of water in total is added to result in the 14 ounce iced coffee drink; 240 milliliters is smaller in volume than 14 ounces).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Anthony teaches the system of claim 1 as incorporated above, and that a beverage having a volume larger than the threshold volume can be selected (Anthony, page 9, col. 7; in Table 2, a Brew Size of 38 ounces may be selected for brewing an iced coffee, which is larger than the threshold volume established in claim 1 above of 14 ounces). Anthony does not teach that the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply to provide liquid to the brew chamber to form a dispensed beverage having a volume equal to a default volume in the absence of user input to define a beverage volume.
However, Besson teaches a beverage forming system (Besson, fig. 1, beverage machine 1), wherein the control circuit (Besson, fig. 1, control unit 11) is arranged to control the liquid supply to provide liquid to the brew chamber to form a dispensed beverage having a volume equal to a default volume in the absence of user input to define a beverage volume (Besson, fig. 1 and page 2, paragraph 0027, lines 1-6 and paragraph 0028, lines 17-21 and page 4, paragraph 0047, lines 1-11; if the user does not select a volume for the beverage, a default value is chosen; the default value can be chosen by the beverage machine to be a volume that has been commonly selected in previous uses; the control unit 11 uses the water reservoir 6 to supply water to the brewing unit for forming the selected beverage).
The possible Brew Size/volume parameters of Anthony are capable of being larger than the threshold value of 14 ounces, meaning that when the inventions of Anthony and Besson are combined, the larger Brew Size value of Anthony can be considered as a possible default value according to the beverage machine (1) and control unit (11) of Besson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Anthony to include the automatic selection of a default value of volume/brewing size of Besson for the purpose of making the beverage brewing process more convenient by allowing the user to forego the step of selecting a volume, making the process of brewing a beverage faster and easier.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Anthony, as applied to claim 1, in view of Kuempel (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0201796 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Anthony teaches the system as incorporated in claim 1 above, but does not teach that the control circuit is arranged to change operation of the liquid supply in response to receipt of the user's input during a beverage dispensing operation indicating the beverage is to be combined with ice.
However, Kuempel teaches a beverage forming system (Kuempel, fig. 3, coffee brewing machine 100) wherein the control circuit is arranged to change operation of the liquid supply in response to receipt of the user's input during a beverage dispensing operation indicating the beverage is to be combined with ice (Kuempel, figs. 2-3 and page 1, paragraph 0020, lines 1-7 and page 2, paragraph 0022, lines 1-30, and page 7, paragraph 0057, lines 7-17; the brewing parameters, such as final brew volume, can be changed according to a user input during the brew cycle; a cold coffee beverage can be brewed; the processor 160 controls the brew cycle according to the brewing parameters; the water reservoir 120 supplies water to the rest of the brewing machine 100 to form a beverage; it is understood that changing a brewing parameter such as final brew volume during the brew cycle will also cause the operation of the water reservoir 120 to change accordingly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the modified device of Anthony with the teaching of changing the operation of the brewing machine (100) of Kuempel mid-brewing cycle according to the selection of an iced beverage for the purpose of providing the user with the flexibility to alter the brewing recipe during the brewing process, thus preventing the user from having to brew the beverage again if an initial setting was undesired.
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Anthony teaches the system as incorporated in claim 7 above, but does not teach that the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply to provide a volume of liquid to the brew chamber to form a dispensed beverage having a volume different from volume determined at a start of the dispensing operation.
However, Kuempel further teaches that the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply to provide a volume of liquid to the brew chamber to form a dispensed beverage having a volume different from volume determined at a start of the dispensing operation (Kuempel, figs. 2-3 and page 2, paragraph 0022, lines 1-30, and page 7, paragraph 0057, lines 7-17; the brewing parameters, such as final brew volume, can be changed according to a user input during the brew cycle; the processor 160 controls the brew cycle according to the brewing parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the modified device of Anthony with the teaching of changing the operation of the brewing machine (100) of Kuempel mid-brewing cycle according to the selection of new brew volume/brew size for the purpose of providing the user with the flexibility to alter the brewing recipe during the brewing process, thus preventing the user from having to brew the beverage again if an initial setting was undesired.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Anthony, as applied to claim 1, in view of Truninger (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0272382 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Anthony teaches the system as incorporated in claim 1 above, but does not teach that the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply or the liquid conditioner to provide liquid at a first temperature during a first portion of a dispensing operation and to provide liquid at a second temperature different from the first temperature during a second portion of the dispensing operation that is after the first portion in response to a user's input indicating the beverage is to be combined with ice.
However, Truninger teaches a beverage forming system (Truninger, fig. 1, coffee machine 10) wherein the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply or the liquid conditioner to provide liquid at a first temperature during a first portion of a dispensing operation and to provide liquid at a second temperature different from the first temperature during a second portion of the dispensing operation that is after the first portion in response to a user's input indicating the beverage is to be combined with ice (Truninger, figs. 1-2 and page 1, paragraphs 0017-0021 and page 3, paragraph 0063, lines 1-7; a cold coffee beverage can be made by first providing hot water to flow through the brewing unit 13, then by providing a cold water stream to cool the coffee beverage down before dispensing it; the water is provided by the cold water inlet 15 and can flow through the boiler 11 to achieve a hot water stream for brewing the coffee, or the water can bypass the boiler 11 and flow through the cooling water discharge pipe 31 for the cold water stream; the central controller 16 controls the adding of hot and cold water).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Anthony with the teaching of adding hot and cold temperature water consecutively during the brewing process for the benefit of a final beverage that is brewed effectively while not being so hot that the ice completely melts, as acknowledged by Truninger (Truninger, page 3, paragraph 0060, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Anthony teaches the system as incorporated in claim 9 above, but does not teach that the second temperature is lower than the first temperature.
However, Truninger further teaches that the second temperature is lower than the first temperature (page 1, paragraphs 0017-0021; a cold coffee beverage can be made by first providing hot water to flow through the brewing unit 13, then by providing a cold water stream to cool the coffee beverage down before dispensing it; the hot water is provided before the cold water, therefore it is understood that the liquid provided during the second portion of the dispensing operation is lower in temperature than the liquid provided during the first portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Anthony with the teaching of adding hot and cold temperature water consecutively during the brewing process for the benefit of a final beverage that is brewed effectively while not being so hot that the ice completely melts, as acknowledged by Truninger (Truninger, page 3, paragraph 0060, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Anthony teaches the system as incorporated in claim 9 above, but does not teach that the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid conditioner to provide liquid at a first temperature during a first portion of a dispensing operation and to provide liquid at a second temperature different from the first temperature during a second portion of the dispensing operation.
However, Truninger further teaches that the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid conditioner to provide liquid at a first temperature during a first portion of a dispensing operation and to provide liquid at a second temperature different from the first temperature during a second portion of the dispensing operation (Truninger, figs. 1-2 and page 1, paragraphs 0017-0021 and page 3, paragraph 0063, lines 1-7; a cold coffee beverage can be made by first providing hot water to flow through the brewing unit 13, then by providing a cold water stream to cool the coffee beverage down before dispensing it; the water is provided by the cold water inlet 15 and can flow through the boiler 11 to achieve a hot water stream for brewing the coffee, or the water can bypass the boiler 11 and flow through the cooling water discharge pipe 31 for the cold water stream; the central controller 16 controls the adding of hot and cold water; the boiler 11 is considered to be a liquid conditioner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Anthony with the teaching of adding hot and cold temperature water consecutively during the brewing process for the benefit of a final beverage that is brewed effectively while not being so hot that the ice completely melts, as acknowledged by Truninger (Truninger, page 3, paragraph 0060, lines 1-8).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Anthony, as applied to claim 1, in view of Boffelli (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0296065 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Anthony teaches the system as incorporated in claim 1 above, but does not teach that the liquid supply includes a pump that is controllable to provide water at different flow rates to the brew chamber.
However, Boffelli teaches a beverage forming system (Boffelli, fig. 1, device 1) having a liquid supply (Boffelli, page 4, paragraph 0059, lines 1-5; cold water can be supplied to the device 1 from a tank) that includes a pump (Boffelli, fig. 1, pump 5) that is controllable to provide water at different flow rates to the brew chamber (Boffelli page 4, paragraph 0059, lines 1-5; the pump 5 can dispense cold water through electrovalves 6, 7, and 11 and into the brewing chamber 10 at different flow rates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Anthony with the pump (5) of Boffelli for the benefit of the device (1) being able to adjust the flow rate of the water according to its temperature, as acknowledged by Boffelli (Boffelli, page 3, paragraph 0037, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Anthony, as incorporated in claim 12 above, does not teach that the liquid supply includes a cold water reservoir fluidly coupled to an input of the pump.
However, Boffelli further teaches that the liquid supply includes a cold water reservoir fluidly coupled to an input of the pump (Boffelli, fig. 1 and page 4, paragraph 0059, lines 1-5; cold water can be supplied to the inlet 5a of pump 5 from a tank).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Anthony with the pump (5) of Boffelli for the benefit of the device (1) being able to adjust the flow rate of the water according to its temperature, as acknowledged by Boffelli (Boffelli, page 3, paragraph 0037, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Anthony, as incorporated in claim 13 above, does not teach that the liquid conditioner includes a heater tank having an inlet coupled to an outlet of the pump and arranged to receive liquid provided by the pump, the heater tank including a heating element arranged to heat liquid in the heater tank.
However, Boffelli further teaches that the liquid conditioner includes a heater tank (Boffelli, fig. 1, boiler 3) having an inlet coupled to an outlet of the pump and arranged to receive liquid provided by the pump (Boffelli, fig. 1, the outlet 5b of the pump 5 is connected to the inlet 4a of the heat exchanger 4 within the boiler 3), the heater tank including a heating element arranged to heat liquid in the heater tank (Boffelli, fig. 1, the boiler 3 includes a heating element 3a that heats water and a heat exchanger 4 that contacts the hot water within the boiler 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Anthony with the teaching of a pump (5) being connected to the boiler (3) of Boffelli for the benefit of the device (1) being able to adjust the flow rate of the water according to its temperature, as acknowledged by Boffelli (Boffelli, page 3, paragraph 0037, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Anthony, as incorporated in claim 14 above, does not teach that an outlet of the heater tank is fluidly coupled to an inlet of the brew chamber.
However, Boffelli further teaches that an outlet of the heater tank is fluidly coupled to an inlet of the brew chamber (Boffelli, fig. 1 and page 4, paragraph 0062, lines 1-5; the outlet 4b of the heat exchanger 4 within the boiler 3 is hydraulically connected to the inlet 2a of the brewing chamber 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Anthony with the teaching of the boiler (3) and heat exchanger (4) being connected to the brewing chamber (10) of Boffelli for the benefit of conserving the heated water by providing it directly to the brewing chamber (10) and allowing for a brew with a good aroma due to the high temperature, as acknowledged by Boffelli (Boffelli, page 4, paragraph 0052, lines 1-7).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Anthony, as applied to claim 16, in view of Peterson (U.S. Patent No. 9,833,102 B2).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Anthony teaches the system as incorporated in claim 16 above, but does not teach that the characteristic of the beverage material is represented by machine readable information on a capsule containing the beverage material.
However, Peterson teaches a beverage forming system (Peterson, fig. 46, beverage forming apparatus 100) wherein the characteristic of the beverage material is represented by machine readable information on a capsule containing the beverage material (Peterson, page 23, col. 20, lines 1-14; the cartridges used in the beverage forming apparatus 100 can have some machine readable tag that indicates the type of beverage that the cartridge forms; the characteristic of the beverage’s flow rate can be understood depending on the type of beverage being made, for example a hot coffee drink or an iced coffee drink).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the machine readable cartridge information of Peterson into the modified device of Anthony for the purpose of providing a more convenient beverage brewing process, since the controller (130) of the beverage forming apparatus (100) can use the cartridge information for adjusting the brew cycle accordingly, as acknowledged by Peterson (Peterson, page 23, col. 20, lines 9-14).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Anthony, as applied to claim 9, in view of Truninger and further in view of Doglioni Majer.
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Anthony, as incorporated in claim 9 above, does not teach that the flow rate less than a threshold flow rate comprises a first flow rate, and wherein the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply to provide liquid at a first flow rate during the first portion of the dispensing operation and to provide liquid at a second flow rate different from the first flow rate during the second portion of the dispensing operation that is after the first portion in response to a user's input indicating the beverage is to be combined with ice.
However, Doglioni Majer teaches a beverage forming system (Doglioni Majer, fig. 2, beverage preparation apparatus 1) wherein the flow rate less than a threshold rate comprises a first flow rate (Doglioni Majer, page 12, paragraph 0189; in example 3, the beverage preparation apparatus 1 has a first diluent pump 3 that pumps a diluent liquid at a flow rate of 2 milliliters per second), and wherein the control circuit is arranged to control the liquid supply to provide liquid at the first flow rate during a first portion of the dispensing operation (Doglioni Majer, page 12, paragraph 0189 and paragraph 0191, lines 1-3; the controller C controls the first diluent pump 3 to pump for a predetermined amount of time that can be programmed) and to provide liquid at a second flow rate different from the first flow rate during a second portion of the dispensing operation that is after the first portion (Doglioni Majer, page 12, paragraph 0191, lines 1-4; after the first diluent pump 3 operates, the controller C turns on the second pump 3’, which pumps at a flow rate of 6 milliliters per second) in response to a user's input indicating the beverage is to be combined with ice (Doglioni Majer, page 7, paragraph 0097, lines 1-7; the beverage preparation apparatus 1 can form a beverage that is a cold coffee).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Anthony with the teaching of two flow rates for dispensing a liquid from two different diluent sources (4, 4’) of Doglioni Majer in order to have more control over the temperature of the water used for brewing. As acknowledged by Doglioni Majer, this allows for a better extraction of the material in the brewing chamber (Doglioni Majer, page 4, paragraph 0045, lines 14-22).
Regarding claim 22, the modified device Anthony, as incorporated in claim 21 above, does not teach that the first temperature is higher than the second temperature, and the first flow rate is slower than the second flow rate.
Truninger further teaches that the first temperature is higher than the second temperature (page 1, paragraphs 0017-0021; a cold coffee beverage can be made by first providing hot water to flow through the brewing unit 13, then by providing a cold water stream to cool the coffee beverage down before dispensing it; the hot water is provided before the cold water, therefore it is understood that the liquid provided during the second portion of the dispensing operation is lower in temperature than the liquid provided during the first portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Anthony with the teaching of adding hot and cold temperature water consecutively during the brewing process for the benefit of a final beverage that is brewed effectively while not being so hot that the ice completely melts, as acknowledged by Truninger (Truninger, page 3, paragraph 0060, lines 1-8).
Doglioni Majer further teaches that the first flow rate is slower than the second flow rate (Doglioni Majer, page 12, paragraph 0189 and paragraph 0191, lines 1-4; in example 3, the beverage preparation apparatus 1 has a first diluent pump 3 that pumps a diluent liquid at a flow rate of 2 milliliters per second, followed by a second pump 3’ that pumps at a flow rate of 6 milliliters per second).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modified device of Anthony in view of Truninger with the teaching of two flow rates for dispensing a liquid from two different diluent sources (4, 4’) of Doglioni Majer in order to have more control over the temperature of the water used for brewing. As acknowledged by Doglioni Majer, this allows for a better extraction of the material in the brewing chamber (Doglioni Majer, page 4, paragraph 0045, lines 14-22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant appears to have amended claims 4, 5, 6, and 16 to obviate a lack of antecedent basis issue that was created when language was removed from claim 1 in the amendment filed 6/12/2025. Examiner is guessing as to the intent of the amendment as applicant did not indicate in the response where the support for the amendment could be found or why the amendment had been made.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments directed to Doglioni Majer, while the examiner agrees the example Doglioni Majer discloses is not necessarily for what could be considered a cold beverage, examiner has utilized Carr to indicate that for cold beverages it is known to adjust the flow rate. Because it is known to adjust the flow rate when producing a cold beverage, and it is known to utilize multiple flow rates when producing a beverage as disclosed in Doglioni Majer, it would be obvious to try a person of ordinary skill as there would be a reasonable expectation of success.
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 EDWARD F LANDRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-5567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached on 571-272-7839. 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.
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761