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 amendments to the claims have been entered.
Claims 7-8 have been amended. Claims 1-6 and 9-14 are original. Claims 15-20 have been withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered in this revised response below.
Applicant’s argument, filed 11/13/2025 on pg. 6, regarding the rejection of claim 1 on the ground of non-statutory double patenting has been considered but is not persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been upheld.
Applicant’s argument, filed 11/13/2025 on pgs. 6-7, section I, regarding the rejection of claims 1-3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues against the propriety of the combination of Carbonini and Song as pertaining to a conduit liquid level corresponding to a supply tank level. Applicant specifically argues the equivalence of the heater tank of Song and boiler of Carbonini (pg. 7, p. 1). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The boiler of Carbonini may also reasonably be interpreted as fulfilling the role of the liquid supply tank given that the boiler is also configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage (“boiler 68, known per se, arranged to contain a liquid, for instance water generally under pressure to be used for preparing infusions” [0019]). Thus, Carbonini teaches the corresponding arrangement (i.e., the liquid level in the boiler and fill tube are equivalent) of the elements of Song (i.e., supply tank 11 and connectivity tank 22). Carbonini also teaches an adjustable arrangement of the sensor ([0025]), providing motivation for modifying a sensor position. The rejection of claims 1-3 and 11 has been upheld and can be found as originally presented in the Office Action dated 07/14/2025 below.
Applicant further argues (pg. 7, p. 2) that if one were to modify Song with Carbonini that connection between the fill tube of Carbonini at both of its ends to the liquid supply tank of Song would be required. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Song teaches a conduit, a sensor detecting the presence and absence of liquid in said conduit, and fluid connection to both liquid supply and heater. Carbonini is not relied on to teach these elements. It is not clear how the claim language or combination would require connections of Carbonini when Song teaches these elements. The rejection of claims 1-3 and 11 has been upheld and can be found as originally presented in the Office Action dated 07/14/2025 below.
Applicant further argues (pg. 7, p. 3) that if one were to modify Song with Carbonini that Song would be rendered unsuitable for its intended purpose of maintaining a consistent temperature. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Song teaches that water from water storage tank 11 is pumped to the connecting layer 22 by pump 5 ([0031]) and is silent regarding other means by which water enters connecting layer 22. Song is thus construed as teaching that the amount of water in connecting layer 22 is directly related to or controlled by the amount pumped from storage tank 11. Examiner agrees that Song teaches that the water level, or amount of water, of connectivity layer 22 affects the outlet water temperature ([0032]). However, as the amount pumped from supply tank 11, which corresponds to a drop or change in the liquid level of supply tank 11, determines or controls the amount of water in connectivity layer 22, one would still be able to control the amount of water in connectivity layer 22. Thus, the modification of the sensor position to correspond to a liquid level in the supply tank 11 rather than the conduit/connectivity layer 22 would still allow for control of the amount of water in connectivity layer 22 and would maintain the intended purpose of consistent water temperature control of Song. The rejection of claims 1-3 and 11 has been upheld and can be found as originally presented in the Office Action dated 07/14/2025 below.
Applicant’s argument, filed 11/13/2025 on pgs. 8-10, sections (II-VII and IX) regarding the rejection of dependent claims 4-10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been considered but is not persuasive. The respective independent claims from which claims 4-10 and 13 depend have not been found to be patentable for the reasons given above and below. The rejection of dependent claims 4-10 and 13 has been upheld and can be found as originally presented in the Office Action dated 07/14/2025 below.
Applicant’s argument, filed 11/13/2025 on pgs. 9-10, section VIII, regarding the rejection of claims 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the teachings of Mulvaney do not motivate the inclusion of multiple sensors. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mulvaney discloses a fluid level sensor for determining the fluid level in a fill tube [0059]. Mulvaney also discloses that during pumping the level in the reservoir 80 differs from that of fill tube 88 ([0059]), which is construed as also applying to elements 280 and 288 of the embodiment in Fig. 5 which are cited to below. Mulvaney is construed as lacking a sensor along a second conduit which may have a different fill level. Tincher teaches an optical sensor 14 along a supply line 16 which connects a product source 18 to an output 20. The supply line 16 of Tincher is fluidically connected like that of fill tube 88 of Mulvaney. Thus, the rejection of claims 12 and 14 has been upheld and can be found as originally presented in the Office Action dated 07/14/2025 below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/033,438, hereinafter Geng ‘438, in view of Song (CN 110200502 A).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application 17/730,275
Reference application 18/033,438
1. A beverage machine comprising: a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage;
a heater configured to heat the liquid from the liquid supply tank;
a conduit fluidly coupled between the liquid supply tank
and the heater, the conduit being configured such that, for at least some fill levels of the liquid supply tank, prior to initiation of a beverage cycle, a liquid level in the conduit corresponds to a liquid level in the liquid supply tank;
and an optical sensor configured to detect presence and absence of liquid at a level in the conduit located at a vertical height that is between a bottom of the liquid supply tank and a maximum fill level of the liquid supply tank.
19. A beverage machine comprising: a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage,
the liquid supply tank having a disconnected state and a connected state;
a conduit that is external to and fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank
when the liquid supply tank is in the connected state;
and a sensor configured to detect presence and absence of liquid at a level in the conduit in order to detect disconnection of the liquid supply tank and to detect that a liquid level in the liquid supply tank is below a threshold level.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/033,438, hereinafter Geng ‘438, in view of Song (CN 110200502 A). Claim 1 of Geng ‘438 lacks a heater configured to heat the liquid from the liquid supply tank; and the heater, the conduit being configured such that, for at least some fill levels of the liquid supply tank, prior to initiation of a beverage cycle, a liquid level in the conduit corresponds to a liquid level in the liquid supply tank. Song discloses a heater (Fig. 1, heating layer 21 of hot water tank 2) configured to heat (“water reaching the upper end of the heating layer 21 is instantly boiled”, [0034]) the liquid from the liquid supply tank;… and the heater (Fig. 1, “bottoms of the heating layer 21 and the connecting layer 22 are connected by a U-shaped tube 23”, [0031]), the conduit being configured such that, for at least some fill levels of the liquid supply tank, prior to initiation of a beverage cycle (Period during the “initialization process” [0039] before a “heating process” [0040] begins), a liquid level (“predetermined height” that “water level” reaches at end of “initialization process”, [0039]) in the conduit… a liquid level (Level of “water in the water tank 11”, [0031] at end of “initialization process”, [0039]) in the liquid supply tank. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beverage machine and conduit recited in claim 1 of Geng ‘438 to comprise a heater and be configured to contain liquid corresponding to a level in a liquid supply tank.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 110200502 A), further in view of Carbonini (EP 1722204 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches a beverage machine (Fig. 1, “hot water drinking device”, [0031]) comprising: a liquid supply tank (Figs. 1-2, water tank 11) configured to hold (“water storage”, [0031]) a liquid (“water, [0032]) for forming a beverage (“hot water”, [0031]); a heater (Fig. 1, heating layer 21 of hot water tank 2) configured to heat (“water reaching the upper end of the heating layer 21 is instantly boiled”, [0034]) the liquid from the liquid supply tank; a conduit (Fig. 1, connecting layer 22 of hot water tank 2) fluidly coupled between the liquid supply tank (Fig. 1, “water in the water storage tank 11 is pumped into the connecting layer 22 by a water pump 5”, [0031]) and the heater (Fig. 1, “bottoms of the heating layer 21 and the connecting layer 22 are connected by a U-shaped tube 23”, [0031]), the conduit being configured such that, for at least some fill levels of the liquid supply tank, prior to initiation of a beverage cycle (Period during the “initialization process” [0039] before a “heating process” [0040] begins), a liquid level (“predetermined height” that “water level” reaches at end of “initialization process”, [0039]) in the conduit… a liquid level (Level of “water in the water tank 11”, [0031] at end of “initialization process”, [0039]) in the liquid supply tank; and an…sensor (Fig. 6, water level sensor 6) configured to detect presence and absence of liquid (“When the water level gradually rises to a certain height, the water level sensor 6 can sense the current water level”, [0039]) at a level (At “a certain height”, [0039]) in the conduit located at a vertical height (Height that is “a certain height”, [0039])… a bottom (Fig. 1 shows horizontal floor of tank 11) of the liquid supply tank and a maximum fill level (Figs. 1-2 show horizontal ceiling of upper wall of water supply tank 11 that coincides with top of heating tube 3 and bottom of sensor 6) of the liquid supply tank.
Song teaches a liquid level in the conduit and a liquid level in the liquid supply tank but does not teach that a liquid level in the conduits corresponds to a liquid level in the liquid supply tank; a sensor but not an optical sensor; and a vertical height, a bottom of the liquid supply tank, and a maximum fill level of the liquid supply tank but not a vertical height that is between a bottom of the liquid supply tank and a maximum fill level of the liquid supply tank.
Carbonini teaches corresponds to (Fig. 1, “level tube 61, of known type, is arranged to make visible from the outside the liquid level present in the boiler 68”, [0019])… optical (Fig. 1, “optical sensor 21, for instance a photoelectric sensor”, [0022])… that is between (Fig. 1, “emitter 211 and the receiver 213 [of sensor 21] are associated to a support 221… to allow that the optical device 12 be freely placed in whathever position along the tube 61”, [0025]; Sensor 21 may be arranged so as to be between a bottom and a maximum fill level.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liquid level, sensor, and vertical sensor height of Song to correspond to a tank water height, be optical, and located between different levels respectively. Song and Carbonini are analogous arts because they both relate to detecting liquid levels in beverage machines. Song teaches a vertical connector through which tank water flows, a capacitive sensor for measuring a liquid height, and a sensor height above a water tank. Carbonini teaches a tube into which boiler water flows, an optical sensor for measuring a liquid height, and a freely selected sensor height. One would have been motivated to introduce a corresponding liquid level, optical sensor, and vertical sensor height between levels. By doing so, one would be able to prevent electronic damage while detecting a water height by establishing sensors outside a water tank; solve the ineffectiveness of capacitive-type devices, as identified by Carbonini ([0004]-[0005]); and improve system flexibility by placing a sensor along any vertical position, as identified by Carbonini ([0025]).
Regarding claim 2, Song and Carbonini teach the beverage machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the optical sensor (Song; Fig. 6, water level sensor 6) includes a body (Carbonini; Fig. 2, support 221) made of a resilient material (Carbonini; “support 221, for instance, can be made of a plastic material”, [0025]) and including first and second portions (Carbonini; Fig. 2 shows left and right arms in shading matching support 221. Left arm is construed as a first portion while the right arm is construed as a second portion) and an opening located between (Carbonini; Fig. 2 show space between left and right arms where tube 61 extends through) the first and second portions, the opening configured to receive and frictionally engage (Carbonini; “adapted to exert a determined friction pressure on the tube 61”, [0025]) with the conduit (Carbonini; Fig. 2 shows arm of support 221 extending partially around tube 61), the first portion configured to support a light emitter (Carbonini; Fig. 2, emitter 211) to emit light toward the opening and through the conduit engaged at the opening (Carbonini; Fig. 2 shows how “light signal generated by the emitter 211 crosses the walls of the tube 61”, [0023]), and the second portion configured to support a light detector (Carbonini; Fig. 2, receiver 213) to detect light transmitted (Carbonini; Fig. 2 shows how “light signal is intercepted by the receiver 213”, [0023]) by the light emitter toward the opening.
Regarding claim 3, Song and Carbonini teach the beverage machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the conduit (Song; Fig. 1, connecting layer 22 of hot water tank 2) is configured to deliver liquid (“water in the water storage tank 11 is pumped into the connecting layer 22 by a water pump 5”, [0031]; “Because the connecting layer 22 and the heating layer 21 are connected by the U-shaped tube 23 at the bottom, the water in the connecting layer 22 can enter the heating layer 21 from the bottom”, [0032]; Water from tank 11 flows through pump 5 to connecting layer 22 then flows through tube 23 into layer 21.) from the liquid supply tank (Song; Figs. 1-2, water tank 11) to the heater (Song; Fig. 1, heating layer 21 of hot water tank 2) and the optical sensor (Song; Fig. 6, water level sensor 6) is coupled to the conduit (Carbonini; “optical sensor (21) associated to the duct [61]”, Abstract) to detect liquid in the conduit (Carbonini; Figs. 1-2, “optical sensor 21 is configured so that the light signals emitted from the emitter 211 are incident… on the liquid possibly present in same tube 61”, [0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Song and Carbonini teach the beverage machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the optical sensor (Song; Fig. 6, water level sensor 6) is configured to detect liquid that is not moving (Carbonini; “optical sensor (21) associated to the duct in a determined position representative of a determined level of the liquid in the boiler (68)”, Abstract; If liquid in boiler is not moving, then optical sensor 21 detects similarly not moving liquid in duct 61) in the conduit (Song; Fig. 1, connecting layer 22 of hot water tank 2).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 110200502 A), further in view of Carbonini (EP 1722204 A1) and Mulvaney (US 20150129039 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Song and Carbonini teach the beverage machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Song and Carbonini do not teach further comprising a liquid supply line configured to deliver liquid from the liquid supply tank to the heater, wherein the conduit is fluidly coupled to the liquid supply line and is separate and distinct from the liquid supply line.
Mulvaney teaches further comprising a liquid supply line (Fig. 5, fill tube 288) configured to deliver liquid (“preferably fluidly connects the pump 284 to the boiler 292”, [0093]) from the liquid supply tank (see mapping to Song) to the heater (see mapping to Song), wherein the conduit (see mapping to Song) is fluidly coupled to the liquid supply line (Fig. 5 shows fluid connection of fill tube 288 and riser tube 286) and is separate and distinct from the liquid supply line (Fig. 5 shows fill tube 288 and riser tube 286 as being separate tubes.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the machine of Modified Song to have a separate liquid supply line. Song, Carbonini, and Mulvaney are analogous arts because they all relate to detecting liquid levels in beverage machines. Song teaches a supply tank and heater connected by a conduit with a sensor disposed in the conduit. Carbonini teaches a boiler connected to a duct with a sensor disposed in the duct. Mulvaney teaches a supply tank and heater connected by a tube and a separate tube, in which a sensor is disposed, connected to a supply tank. One would have been motivated to introduce a separate liquid supply line. By doing so, one would be able to detect a current water level in a supply tank while pumping water to a heater (i.e., so that the pumped water does not block the sensing capabilities).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 110200502 A), further in view of Carbonini (EP 1722204 A1) and Yu (CN 106510460 A).
Regarding claim 5, Song and Carbonini teach the beverage machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a controller (Song; Not pictured, “control system circuit”, [0019]) coupled to (Song; “rectangular conductive cotton pads 61 are evenly distributed on the water level sensor 6 “, [0036]; “conductive cotton pads 61 are connected to the control system circuit”, [0036]) the optical sensor (Song; Fig. 6, water level sensor 6) and arranged to receive a signal (Song; Digital capacitive signals used for digital “comparison and calculation”, [0036]) from the optical sensor… at the level (Song; At “a certain height”, [0039]) in the conduit (Song; Fig. 1, connecting layer 22 of hot water tank 2).
Song and Carbonini do not teach wherein the controller is configured to prohibit at least some beverage machine functions when the optical sensor detects absence of liquid.
Yu teaches wherein the controller (see mapping to Song) is configured to prohibit at least some beverage machine functions when the optical sensor (see mapping to Song) detects absence of liquid (“water level detection device is internally provided, which can automatically cut off the power when there is a lack of water”, [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Modified Song to end beverage processes without water. Song, Carbonini, and Yu are analogous arts because they all relate to detecting liquid levels in beverage machines. Song teaches a sensor for detecting a water level. Carbonini teaches an optical sensor for detecting a water level. Yu teaches a sensor for detecting a water level that turns off power when a lack of water is detected. One would have been motivated to end beverage processes without water. By doing so, one would be able to prevent “dry boiling” or damage to a beverage machine, as identified by Yu ([0016]).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 110200502 A), further in view of Carbonini (EP 1722204 A1), Yu (CN 106510460 A), and Peden et al. (US 20090031901 A1), hereinafter Peden.
Regarding claim 6, Song, Carbonini, and Yu teach the beverage machine of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), further comprising a pump (Song; Fig. 1, water pump 5) fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank (Song; Figs. 1-2, water tank 11) and configured to move liquid from the liquid supply tank (“water in the water storage tank 11 is pumped into the connecting layer 22 by a water pump 5”, [0031]) to the heater (Song; Fig. 1, heating layer 21 of hot water tank 2), wherein the controller (Song; Not pictured, “control system circuit”, [0019])… when the optical sensor (Song; Fig. 6, water level sensor 6) detects absence of liquid (“When the water level gradually rises to a certain height, the water level sensor 6 can sense the current water level”, [0039]) at the level (Song; At “a certain height”, [0039]) in the conduit (Song; Fig. 1, connecting layer 22 of hot water tank 2).
Song, Carbonini, and Yu do not teach is arranged to prohibit activation of the pump.
Peden teaches is arranged to prohibit activation of the pump when (“wherein the pump process is stopped”, [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Modified Song to end beverage processes without water by stopping a pump. Song, Carbonini, Yu, and Peden are analogous arts because they all relate to detecting liquid levels in beverage machines. Song teaches a sensor for detecting a water level and a pump. Carbonini teaches an optical sensor for detecting a water level. Yu teaches a sensor for detecting a water level that turns off power when a lack of water is detected. Peden teaches a sensor for measuring a fill level of a container and stopping pumping when a level is under a low level. One would have been motivated to end beverage processes without water by stopping a pump. By doing so, one would be able to eliminate wasted energy on operating a pump without delivering liquid.
Regarding claim 8, Song, Carbonini, Yu, and Peden teach the beverage machine of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the optical sensor (Song; Fig. 6, water level sensor 6) is downstream (Song; Fig. 1 shows sensor 6 in layer 22 which is downstream of water delivered through pump 5 from tank 11) of the pump (Song; Fig. 1, water pump 5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 110200502 A), further in view of Carbonini (EP 1722204 A1), Yu (CN 106510460 A), Peden et al. (US 20090031901 A1), hereinafter Peden, and Hatamian (US 20180306831 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Song, Carbonini, Peden, and Yu teach the beverage machine of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the optical sensor (Song; Fig. 6, water level sensor 6)… of the pump (Song; Fig. 1, water pump 5).
Modified Song does not teach is upstream.
Hatamian teaches is upstream (Figs. 6, 11; “optical sensors 610 may be placed before and/or after an associated pump”, [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Modified Song to position a sensor before a pump. Song, Carbonini, Yu, Peden, and Hatamian are analogous arts because Hatamian is reasonably pertinent to the problem of detecting and controlling pumped fluid levels. Song teaches a sensor for detecting a water level and a pump. Carbonini teaches an optical sensor for detecting a water level. Yu teaches a sensor for detecting a water level that turns off power when a lack of water is detected. Peden teaches a sensor for measuring a fill level of a container and stopping pumping when a level is under a low level. Hatamian teaches optical sensor(s) before or after a fluid pump. One would have been motivated to position a sensor before a pump. By doing so, one would obtain a more accurate pumping system, by eliminating the retention of additional fluid before a pump, as identified by Hatamian ([0108]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 110200502 A), further in view of Carbonini (EP 1722204 A1), Yu (CN 106510460 A), and Kameyama (US 20120123325 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Song, Carbonini, and Yu teach the beverage machine of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above).
Song, Carbonini, and Yu do not teach further comprising a second sensor upstream of the pump to detect presence and absence of liquid in the conduit.
Kameyama teaches further comprising a second sensor (Fig. 11 shows configuration of first optical sensor 100-1 on “upstream side” [0183] of infusion solution pump 13. Kameyama also teaches multiple optical sensors 100-1, 100-2 disposed up- and downstream of a pump 13.) upstream of the pump (see mapping to Song) to detect presence and absence of liquid (“first optical sensor 100-1 shown in FIG. 11 detects the infusion solution”, [0188]; “second optical sensor 100-2 detects the infusion solution”, [0189]; Fig. 12 shows “YES” as “detection of the infusion solution” [0188]-[0189] in steps S202, S204 and “NO” option construed as detection of a lack of infusion solution.) in the conduit (see mapping to Song).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Modified Song to include a second optical sensor upstream of a pump. Song, Carbonini, Yu, and Kameyama are analogous arts because they all relate to detecting liquid levels. Song teaches a sensor for detecting a water level and a pump. Carbonini teaches an optical sensor for detecting a water level. Yu teaches a sensor for detecting a water level that turns off power when a lack of water is detected. Kameyama teaches first and second optical sensors up- and downstream of a solution pump. One would have been motivated to second optical sensor upstream of a pump. By doing so, one would be able to eliminate bubble generation in a solution by controlling a flow rate (“flow volume per unit time”, [0188]) based off of a measured solution volume, as identified by Kameyama ([0188]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 110200502 A), further in view of Carbonini (EP 1722204 A1), Yu (CN 106510460 A), Kameyama (US 20120123325 A1), and Chen et al. (US 20210235918 A1), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 10, Song, Carbonini, Yu, and Kameyama teach the beverage machine of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the second sensor (Kameyama; Fig. 11, first optical sensor 100-1).
Song, Carbonini, Yu, and Kameyama do not teach is a conductive probe sensor.
Chen teaches is a conductive probe sensor (“sensing a water level in the heating chamber 40, using a conductive probe sensor”, [0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Modified Song to include a conductive probe sensor. Song, Carbonini, Yu, Kameyama, and Chen are analogous arts because they all relate to detecting liquid levels. Song teaches a sensor for detecting a water level and a pump. Carbonini teaches an optical sensor for detecting a water level. Yu teaches a sensor for detecting a water level that turns off power when a lack of water is detected. Kameyama teaches first and second optical sensors up- and downstream of a solution pump. Chen teaches a conductive probe sensor for sensing a water level in a chamber. One would have been motivated to include a conductive probe sensor. By doing so, one would achieve the predictable result of measuring a water level.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulvaney (US 20150129039 A1), further in view of Tincher (US 20190060857 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Mulvaney teaches a beverage machine (Fig. 5, “kitchen appliance”, [0092]) comprising:
a liquid supply tank (Fig. 5, fresh water reservoir 280) configured to hold a liquid (“liquid (e.g., water)”, [0092]) for forming a beverage (“for preparing a beverage”, [0002]);
a heater (Fig. 5, boiler 292) configured to heat the liquid (“brew/heat the entirety of the fluid in the boiler 292”, [0094]) from the liquid supply tank (“outlet 281 of the fresh water reservoir 280 is fluidly connected to a boiler 292 in a manner to transmit fluid to the boiler”, [0092]);
a first conduit (Fig. 5, riser tube 286) fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank (Fig. 5 shows fluid connection between reservoir 280 and tube 286), and a second conduit (Fig. 5, fill tube 288) fluidly coupled to and upstream of the heater (Fig. 5 shows configuration wherein “fill tube 288 preferably fluidly connects the pump 284 to the boiler 292”, [0093]), the second conduit being downstream of the first conduit (Fig. 5 depicts arrows indicating flow direction, so some of water travelling from reservoir 280 would fill tube 286 before travelling down through fill tube 288);
a pump (Fig. 5, pump 284) fluidly coupled between the first and second conduits (Fig. 5 shows fluid connection between reservoir 280, outlet 281, tube 286, pump 284, and tube 288);
a first sensor (Figs. 1A-1B, “fluid level sensor”, [0061]) configured to detect liquid in the first conduit (“capacitance fluid level sensor (not illustrated in FIG. 5) is configured to determine the fluid level in riser tube 286”, [0092]).
Mulvaney does not teach and an optical sensor configured to detect liquid in the second conduit.
Tincher teaches and an optical sensor (Fig. 1, optical sensors 14) configured to detect liquid (“optical sensors 14 may be configured to determine the presence or absence of product in the supply lines 16”, [0034]; Products may be “liquid chemical products”, [0002]) in the second conduit (see mapping to Mulvaney).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beverage machine of Mulvaney to include an optical sensor. Mulvaney and Tincher are analogous arts because they both relate to detecting liquid levels in tubing. Mulvaney teaches first and second conduits and a capacitive sensor for detecting a fluid level, and a sensor attached to a riser/indicator tube. Tincher teaches optical sensors for detecting presence or absence of liquids in tubes moved across reservoirs. One would have been motivated to introduce an optical sensor to another conduit. By doing so, one would be able to detect liquid presence or absence in a supplying line, as identified by Tincher ([0034]).
Regarding claim 14, Mulvaney and Tincher teach the beverage machine of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the first conduit (Mulvaney; Fig. 5, riser tube 286) is configured to deliver liquid (Fig. 1 shows fluid connection from tube 286 through pump 284 to tube 288) from the liquid supply tank (Mulvaney; Fig. 5, fresh water reservoir 280) to the second conduit (Mulvaney; Fig. 5, fill tube 288).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulvaney (US 20150129039 A1), further in view of Tincher (US 20190060857 A1) and Carbonini (EP 1722204 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Mulvaney and Tincher teach the beverage machine of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the optical sensor (Tincher; Fig. 1, optical sensors 14).
Mulvaney and Tincher do not teach includes a body made of a resilient material and including first and second portions and an opening located between the first and second portions, the opening configured to receive and frictionally engage with the second conduit, the first portion configured to support a light emitter to emit light toward the opening and through the second conduit engaged at the opening, and the second portion configured to support a light detector to detect light transmitted by the light emitter toward the opening.
Carbonini teaches includes a body (Carbonini; Fig. 2, support 221) made of a resilient material (Carbonini; “support 221, for instance, can be made of a plastic material”, [0025]) and including first and second portions (Carbonini; Fig. 2 shows left and right arms in shading matching support 221. Left arm is construed as a first portion while the right arm is construed as a second portion) and an opening located between (Carbonini; Fig. 2 show space between left and right arms where tube 61 extends through) the first and second portions, the opening configured to receive and frictionally engage (Carbonini; “adapted to exert a determined friction pressure on the tube 61”, [0025]) with the second conduit (see mapping to Tincher), the first portion configured to support a light emitter (Carbonini; Fig. 2, emitter 211) to emit light toward the opening and through the second conduit engaged at the opening (Carbonini; Fig. 2 shows how “light signal generated by the emitter 211 crosses the walls of the tube 61”, [0023]), and the second portion configured to support a light detector (Carbonini; Fig. 2, receiver 213) to detect light transmitted (Carbonini; Fig. 2 shows how “light signal is intercepted by the receiver 213”, [0023]) by the light emitter toward the opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beverage machine of Modified Mulvaney to include optical sensor supports. Mulvaney, Tincher, and Carbonini are analogous arts because they all relate to detecting liquid levels in tubing. Mulvaney teaches first and second conduits and a capacitive sensor for detecting a fluid level, and a sensor attached to a riser/indicator tube. Tincher teaches an optical sensor holder (Figs. 5A-5B). Carbonini teaches a support, LED emitter, and receiver in an optical sensor. One would have been motivated to introduce an optical sensor supports. By doing so, one would be able to freely position an optical sensor along a tube, as identified by Carbonini ([0025]).
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 ALLISON HELFERTY whose telephone number is (571)272-1465. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to 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 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761