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
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 11/11/2025 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 1-10 and 12-13 has /have been amended, claim 15 has /have been cancelled, claims 16-17 has /have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-14 and 16-17 are pending in the application with claims 14 previously withdrawn. An action on the merits for claims 1-13 and 16-17 are as follow.
The previous 112 (b) Claim Rejections, objections to the specification are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's amendment to the claims and the specification with no new matter added.
Claim Limitation
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
A. Claim limitation “an extraction unit for extracting a beverage ingredient capsule” (Note: “an extraction unit for extracting a beverage ingredient capsule” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “extracting” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 13 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 18 line 3, Fig 2, an extraction unit 10 for extracting beverage ingredient capsule.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
B. Claim limitation “a control unit for controlling the extraction unit” (Note: “a control unit for controlling the extraction unit” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “controlling” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 13 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 18 line 15, a control unit 40, schematically illustrated in Figs. 2-8, for controlling extraction unit 10 to extract capsule 3.
C. Claim limitation “a capsule recognition module for recognizing a type of a capsule” Note: “a capsule recognition module for recognizing a type of a capsule” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning)has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “recognition” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 13 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 19 line 21, Fig 2, a capsule recognition module 8 to recognise a type of a capsule 3 ready to be inserted into the extraction unit 10.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the beverage of liquid” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the beverage ingredient capsule capsule” in line 12 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the limitation “the beverage ingredient capsule capsule” means. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the type” in line 23 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “the type” and the type of the beverage ingredient capsule mentioned in line 20 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the reference values” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “each reference colour” in line 4 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “each reference colour” and a reference colour mentioned in line 4 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a type of the beverage ingredient capsule” in line 4 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “a type of the beverage ingredient capsule” and a type of the beverage ingredient capsule mentioned in line 9 of claim 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a reference colour vector” in line 5 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “a reference colour vector” and reference colour vectors mentioned in claim 6 line 3 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the colour sample” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a beverage ingredient capsule” in line 3 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “a beverage ingredient capsule” and a beverage ingredient capsule mentioned in line 2 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “said beverage of liquid” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the type” in line 22 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “the type” and the type of the beverage ingredient capsule mentioned in line 19 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a type of the beverage ingredient capsule” in line 6 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “a type of the beverage ingredient capsule” and a type of the beverage ingredient capsule mentioned in claim 1 line 9 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the sample type” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The rest of the claims are also been rejected because each claim depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-13 and 16-17are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Halliday et al. (US 2004/0191370 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Halliday et al. disclose a machine for preparing and dispensing a beverage (beverage preparation machine 201, [0143], Fig 35), the machine comprising: an extraction unit (a housing 210, [0143], Fig 35) for extracting a beverage ingredient capsule (beverage cartridge 1, [0143]) to form the beverage of liquid to be mixed with an ingredient contained in the beverage ingredient capsule (see Abstract);
a control unit (a control processor, [0143]) for controlling the extraction unit to extract the beverage ingredient capsule (control processor is operatively connected to, and controls operation of, the water heater 225, water pump 230, air compressor 235 and user interface 240, [0156]);
an outlet (a dispense station 270, [0145]) for dispensing the beverage formed by extracting the beverage ingredient capsule to a user-receptacle to collect the beverage (the beverage is discharged into a receptacle such as a cup, [0132]),
a capsule recognition module (cartridge recognition means 252, [0143], Fig 38) for recognizing a type of the beverage ingredient capsule inserted in the machine (to allow the machine 201 to recognise the type of beverage cartridge 1 that has been inserted and to adjust one or more operational parameters accordingly, [0173]), the capsule recognition module comprising a sensor (an optical barcode reader, [0173]) for sensing a property of at least part of the beverage ingredient capsule and determining a sample value representative of the property the at least part of the beverage ingredient capsule capsule (the coding method… provides excellent backward compatibility of the beverage preparation machines for new beverage types, [0160]);
wherein the capsule recognition module is configured to compare the sample value to a plurality of reference values (a first version of cartridge 1, [0073], a second version of cartridge 1, [0105], a third version of cartridge 1, [0112], a fourth version of cartridge 1, [0124], memory of the control processor includes one or more variables for one or more operational parameters for the beverage preparation machine, [0157]), wherein each reference value of the property of reference values corresponds to the type of the beverage ingredient capsule (variables for the operational parameters are stored in the memory. The cartridge 1 comprises a code provided on or in the cartridge 1 representing the operational parameters required for optimal dispensation of the beverage in that cartridge 1, [0158]), by, for each reference value of the plurality of reference values, computing a score representative of a probability of a match between the sample value and one of the plurality of reference values (the memory of the control processor stores variables for adjusting the individual operational parameters of the operating cycle, [0160]);
the capsule recognition module is configured to:
if a determination of the type of the beverage ingredient capsule can be made with sufficient certainty (the coding method… provides excellent backward compatibility of the beverage preparation machines for new beverage types, [0160]), then the capsule recognition module determines that the beverage ingredient capsule is of the type corresponding to the one of the plurality of reference values (operational behaviour of the machine 201 is determined by software embedded in the control processor, [0177]); and
if no determination of the type of the beverage ingredient capsule can be made with sufficient certainty (The software can recognise whether the read of the barcode contained errors. The barcode 320 may be rescanned a number of times before an error message is presented to the consumer, [0173]), then the capsule recognition module selects a subset of at least two reference values of the plurality of reference values corresponding to a corresponding number of most probable types of the beverage ingredient capsule to resolve the uncertainty (a first version of cartridge 1, [0073], a second version of cartridge 1, [0105], a third version of cartridge 1, [0112], a fourth version of cartridge 1, [0124]. Clearly, “the capsule recognition module” is capable of “selects a subset of at least two reference values of the plurality of reference values corresponding to a corresponding number of most probable types of the beverage ingredient capsule to resolve the uncertainty” as claimed).
Claim 2, wherein the capsule recognition module is configured to select, if no determination of the type of the beverage ingredient capsule can be made with sufficient certainty, three reference values out of the plurality of reference values, the three reference values being the three reference values from the plurality of reference values that resulted in the three scores indicating the highest probability of match with the sample value (a first version of cartridge 1… is particularly designed for use in dispensing filtered products, [0073], a second version of cartridge 1… is particularly designed for use in dispensing espresso-style products, [0105], a third version of cartridge 1… is particularly designed for use in dispensing soluble products, [0112], a fourth version of cartridge 1… is particularly designed for use in dispensing liquid products, [0124]).
Claim 3, further comprising a user interface (a user interface 240, [0143]) for displaying information to a user of the machine (a plurality of status indicators 243-246, [0147]) and receiving inputs from the user of the machine (a start/stop button 241, [0147]), wherein the machine is configured to display on the user interface (details see Fig 36), if no determination of the type of the beverage ingredient capsule can be made with sufficient certainty, information about at least two types of the beverage ingredient capsule corresponding to the at least two reference values (a first version of cartridge 1… is particularly designed for use in dispensing filtered products, [0073], a second version of cartridge 1… is particularly designed for use in dispensing espresso-style products, [0105], a LED 244 to indicate if an error has occurred in the machine 201 operation, [0148]).
Claim 11, further comprising a capsule recognition position (cartridge head 250 in turn generally comprises a cartridge holder 251 for holding, in use, the beverage cartridge 1, [0143], Fig 39).
Claim 12, further comprising a capsule detector (cartridge recognition means 252 comprises an optical barcode reader, [0173], Fig 40) for detecting the presence of the beverage ingredient capsule located on or approaching a capsule feeder of the machine and triggering capsule recognition by the capsule recognition module (the electrical signals produced are decoded by signal processing software and the results forwarded to the control processor, [0173]).
Claim 16, wherein if a single reference value of the plurality of reference values results in the score indicating the probability of match higher than a predefined threshold (the memory of the control processor stores variables for adjusting the individual operational parameters of the operating cycle, [0160]), then the determination of the type of the beverage ingredient capsule is made with sufficient certainty comprises (the coding method… provides excellent backward compatibility of the beverage preparation machines for new beverage types, [0160]).
Claim 17, wherein if (i) no reference value of the plurality of reference values results in the score indicating the probability of match higher than a predefined threshold; (ii) more than one reference value of the plurality of reference values results in the score indicating the probability of match higher than the predefined threshold; and/or the reference value that resulted in the score indicating the highest probability of match corresponds to a type of the beverage ingredient capsule that is known to be distinguishable only with difficulty from one or more other types of the beverage ingredient capsules (The software can recognise whether the read of the barcode contained errors. The barcode 320 may be rescanned a number of times before an error message is presented to the consumer, [0173]), then no determination of the capsule type is made with sufficient certainty (a LED 244 to indicate if an error has occurred in the machine 201 operation, [0148]).
Regarding Independent Claim 13, Halliday et al. disclose a combination of a machine for preparing and dispensing a beverage (beverage preparation machine 201, [0143], Fig 35) and a beverage ingredient capsule (beverage cartridge 1, [0143]), the machine comprising:
an extraction unit (a housing 210, [0143], Fig 35) for extracting a beverage ingredient capsule (beverage cartridge 1, [0143]) to form said beverage of liquid to be mixed with an ingredient contained in the beverage ingredient capsule (see Abstract);
a control unit (a control processor, [0143]) for controlling the extraction unit to extract the beverage ingredient capsule (control processor is operatively connected to, and controls operation of, the water heater 225, water pump 230, air compressor 235 and user interface 240, [0156]);
an outlet (a dispense station 270, [0145]) for dispensing said beverage formed by extracting the beverage ingredient capsule to a user-receptacle to collect said beverage (the beverage is discharged into a receptacle such as a cup, [0132]),
a capsule recognition module (cartridge recognition means 252, [0143], Fig 38) for recognizing a type of the beverage ingredient capsule inserted in said machine (to allow the machine 201 to recognise the type of beverage cartridge 1 that has been inserted and to adjust one or more operational parameters accordingly, [0173]), the capsule recognition module comprising a sensor (an optical barcode reader, [0173]) for sensing a property of at least part of the beverage ingredient capsule and determining a sample value representative of said property of the beverage ingredient capsule (the coding method… provides excellent backward compatibility of the beverage preparation machines for new beverage types, [0160]);
wherein the capsule recognition module is configured to compare the sample value to a plurality of reference values (a first version of cartridge 1, [0073], a second version of cartridge 1, [0105], a third version of cartridge 1, [0112], a fourth version of cartridge 1, [0124], memory of the control processor includes one or more variables for one or more operational parameters for the beverage preparation machine, [0157]), wherein each reference value of the plurality of reference values corresponds to the type of the beverage ingredient capsule (variables for the operational parameters are stored in the memory. The cartridge 1 comprises a code provided on or in the cartridge 1 representing the operational parameters required for optimal dispensation of the beverage in that cartridge 1, [0158]), by, for each reference value of the plurality of reference values, computing a score representative of a probability of a match between the sample value and one of the plurality of reference values (the memory of the control processor stores variables for adjusting the individual operational parameters of the operating cycle, [0160]);
the capsule recognition module is configured to:
if a determination of the type of the beverage ingredient capsule can be made with sufficient certainty (the coding method… provides excellent backward compatibility of the beverage preparation machines for new beverage types, [0160]), then the capsule recognition module determines that the beverage ingredient capsule is of the type corresponding to the one of the plurality of reference values (operational behaviour of the machine 201 is determined by software embedded in the control processor, [0177]); and
if no determination of the type of the beverage ingredient capsule can be made with sufficient certainty (The software can recognise whether the read of the barcode contained errors. The barcode 320 may be rescanned a number of times before an error message is presented to the consumer, [0173]), then the capsule recognition module selects a subset of at least two reference values of the plurality of reference values corresponding to a corresponding number of most probable types of the beverage ingredient capsule to resolve the uncertainty (a first version of cartridge 1, [0073], a second version of cartridge 1, [0105], a third version of cartridge 1, [0112], a fourth version of cartridge 1, [0124]. Clearly, “the capsule recognition module” is capable of “selects a subset of at least two reference values of the plurality of reference values corresponding to a corresponding number of most probable types of the beverage ingredient capsule to resolve the uncertainty” as claimed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halliday et al. (US 2004/0191370 A1) in view of Crarer et al. (US 9,439,532 B2).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Halliday et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 4-5.
Crarer et al. teach a machine for preparing and dispensing a beverage (see Title), and Claim 4, wherein the user interface (input and output unit 150 can include a user-interface member, Col 8 line 10, Fig 2) is configured to allow the user of the machine to select one of the at least two types of the beverage ingredient capsule (to receive an input from a user, such as… the type of cartridge the user desires to position in the basket unit 500, Col 9 line 13-16, Fig 4C).
Claim 5, configured to control the extraction unit (“control the extraction unit” taught by Halliday et al. already) to extract the beverage ingredient capsule using extraction parameters specifically adapted to the type of the beverage ingredient capsule selected by the user (a beverage preparation machine 100 that is configured to dispense a beverage into a cup 101 or other vessel, Col 7 line 19-20, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Halliday et al. with Crarer et al.’s further teaching of Claims 4-5; because Crarer et al. teach, in Col 8 line 10-14, of providing a user-interface member to provide instruction to the main housing for operational convenience during processing.
Claims 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halliday et al. (US 2004/0191370 A1) in view of WILDHABER (DE 102014116081 A1).
Regarding Claims 6-10, Halliday et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 6-10.
WILDHABER teaches a machine for preparing and dispensing a beverage (beverage preparation device 1, [0038], Fig 1), and Claim 6, wherein: the capsule recognition module is a colour recognition module (barcode 320 is formed from a plurality of bars of contrasting colour, [0173], taught by Halliday et al.), the sensor is a colour sensor (a first optical color sensor 5, [0039], Fig 1), the sample value is a sample colour vector characterizing a sample colour, the reference values are reference colour vectors each characterizing a reference colour, each reference colour corresponding to a type of capsule (the portion unit types differ in that different color sensor signals result from the first color sensor of the beverage preparation device when the different types of portion units are picked up in the detection range of the sensor or analyzed by means of the sensor, [0031]).
Claim 7, wherein the colour recognition module is configured to compare the sample colour to each reference colour of the plurality of reference colours by:
computing a colour distance between the sample colour vector of the sample colour and a reference colour vector of the reference colour (the first color signal is a multidimensional signal, in particular an RGB signal or another signal characterizing a point in a color space, [0007]),
computing a chromaticity distance between a sample chromaticity vector of the sample colour and a reference chromaticity vector of the reference colour (generate a mixed colour signal in order to increase the evaluation reliability and /or to increase identification security, [0010]), and
computing a score with the colour distance and the chromaticity distance to determine a probability of a match between the colour sample and the reference colour (a lid of a capsule… has an identification function, since the samples of different portion units differ in terms of their colour impression or in terms of the multi- imensional colour signals which can be detected by the sample using the optical colour sensor, [0014]).
Claim 8, wherein the colour recognition module is configured to compute the sample chromaticity vector from the sample colour vector (Due to the preferred use of an RGB sensor as the first color sensor, a simple 8-bit or 32-bit Due to the preferred use of an RGB sensor as the first color sensor, a simple 8-bit or 32-bit microcontroller is sufficient for evaluation, [0020]).
Claim 9, wherein the sample colour vector and the reference colour vector are three-dimensional RGB vectors (in particular an RGB signal or another signal characterizing a point in a color space, [0007]; the first color sensor 5, which is, for example, an RGB sensor, [0040]).
Claim 10, wherein the colour recognition module is configured to compute the score by computing a luminosity level (an HSV signal (hue, saturation, brightness), [0007]) of the sample colour and weighting the colour distance and the chromaticity distance by respective balance factors determined on the basis of the luminosity level (wherein after the portion unit type has been identified on the basis of the color signal, in particular digital color information generated on the basis of the color signal, a portion unit type-specific program for operating the beverage preparation device is selected and executed by a controller, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Halliday et al. with Crarer et al.’s further teaching of Claims 6-10; because WILDHABER teaches, in Para. [0007], of providing an excellent identification means are designed and configured to detect the color signal of the portion unit relative to the color sensor for a beverage preparation device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “The Office Action rejects Claims 1-3 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. §102 as allegedly anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0191370 to Halliday et al. ("Halliday"). Amended independent Claim 1 recites, in part, wherein the capsule recognition module is configured to compare the sample value to a plurality of reference values, wherein each reference value corresponds to a type of capsule, by, for each reference value of the plurality of reference values, computing a score representative of a probability of a match between the sample value and the reference value. Halliday fails to teach or suggest at least the above recited claim element” and “The system of Halliday is a direct digital lookup, not a probabilistic comparison. The bits of the code directly map to specific machine parameters (e.g., the first two bits encode one of four possible temperatures). The system is not comparing a sample value to reference values to generate a score of how well they match. It is simply reading a binary string and executing the instructions encoded within it. Accordingly, Halliday fails to teach the core claimed limitation of computing a score representative of a probability of a match as required by the present claims. As a direct consequence of Halliday 's different comparison method, Halliday fails to teach the novel function for handling ambiguity recited in amended Claim 1. In this regard, Claim 1 further recites, in part, if no determination of the type of the beverage ingredient capsule can be made with sufficient certainty, then the capsule recognition module selects a subset of at least two reference values corresponding to a corresponding number of most probable capsule types to resolve the uncertainty”.
The examiner’s response: Halliday et al. (US 2004/0191370 A1) disclose exactly a machine for preparing and dispensing a beverage / a combination of a machine for preparing and dispensing a beverage and a beverage ingredient capsule as claimed, fully discloses all the recited limitations of independent Claim 1 and Claim 13 as set forth in this office action shown above. It is noted that "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see MPEP 2123 (I). During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)”. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention” (MPEP 2173.01(I)). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights