DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 11-13, 15-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 11/19/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin et al., WO 2010121299 (hereafter O’Loughlin) , and further in view of Worrall et al., US 20160034907 (hereafter Worrall), and Allen, US 10067004 (hereafter Allen).
Regarding claim 1,
A machine for preparing beverages comprising: (Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
637
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in O’Loughlin teaches a machine for beverage
a front wall having a beverage dispenser and a steam dispenser, (Fig. 1)
a first antenna supported by the front wall, (Page 12, paragraph 8 teaches “ the temperature sensor 318 may be provided with a transmitter for wirelessly communicating with a receiver. In one embodiment the receiver may be adapted to communicate with a receiver controlled by controller 210”. It is understood that the receiver is an antenna.
Fig. 1 further teaches user interface and display supported by the front wall. Here user interface and display are part of controller. Thus, it is implied that the receiver and controller are also supported by front wall.)
a rest base for containers positioned in front of said front wall below said beverage dispenser and said steam dispenser, and (Fig. 1)
a temperature detection probe immersible in a comestible liquid contained in a container positioned on said rest base, (Fig. 6 teaches temperature sensor 318 immersed in liquid in a jug 602. Fig. 1 teaches tray 108 to hold cup or similar containers.)
PNG
media_image2.png
502
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 in O’Loughlin
wherein said temperature detection probe comprises: a temperature sensor; (Abstract teaches “The steam wand also includes a temperature sensor for sensing the temperature of the liquid”.)
a second antenna interacting with said first antenna for wireless transmission of a detected temperature of the liquid in the container, (Page 12, paragraph 8 teaches “ the temperature sensor 318 may be provided with a transmitter for wirelessly communicating with a receiver. In one embodiment the receiver may be adapted to communicate with a receiver controlled by controller 210”. It is understood that the transmitter is an antenna.)
a longitudinal body comprising a support supporting said temperature detection probe engageable with said front wall, (Fig. 1)
…..wherein said longitudinal body comprises a lower end and an upper end, (Fig. 1)
a lower portion comprising said lower end, and an upper portion comprising said upper end, (Fig. 1)
said temperature sensor being positioned at said lower portion (Fig. 4)
wherein said temperature sensor is in a longitudinally retracted position from said lower end so as to distance the temperature sensor from a bottom of the container positioned on said rest base. (Fig. 4)
PNG
media_image3.png
565
475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in O’Loughlin
O’Loughlin is silent about and said second antenna being positioned at said upper portion, wherein the support comprises a spherical magnetic coupling, and wherein the longitudinal body is disengageably attached to the front wall through the spherical magnetic coupling.
Worrall teaches and said second antenna being positioned at said upper portion (Worrall teaches product tag 101 positioned at an upper portion of temperature probe 220 in Fig. 2. Paragraph [20] teaches tag 101 comprises network interface 118.)
PNG
media_image4.png
511
867
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Worrall
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to position the transmitter at an upper end of the probe as taught in Worrall to the probe in O’Loughlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The temperatures and other associated data may be wirelessly transmitted to centralized locations for aggregation and storage. Mobile devices may directly communicate with the product tags to receive the temperature data” as taught in abstract in Worrall.
Primary combination of references is silent about wherein the longitudinal body is disengageably attached to the front wall through the spherical magnetic coupling.
Allen teaches wherein the longitudinal body is disengageably attached to the front wall through the spherical magnetic coupling, (Column 6, lines 57-62 teaches “the bottom surface 130 of base 102 including a magnetic portion 131. The magnetic portion 131 enables the temperature monitoring system 100 to magnetically, and removably, attach to a metal surface or to probe supports”. Fig. 16 teaches a magnetic portion 431 that has spherical shape.)
PNG
media_image5.png
401
444
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 16 in Allen
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the spherical magnetic coupling as taught in Allen to the end of the probe in O’Loughlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The magnetic portion 131 enables the temperature monitoring system 100 to magnetically, and removably, attach to a metal surface or to probe supports, as described herein. Accordingly, the temperature monitoring system 100 can be placed on a horizontal or flat surface (FIG. 4) or may be removably attached to an inclined or vertical surface (FIG. 5) and be magnetically held thereon” as taught in column 6, lines 57-65 in Allen.
Regarding claim 2,
The machine for preparing beverages according to claim 1, wherein said longitudinal body of said temperature detection probe incorporates the temperature sensor, a microprocessor and a passive transponder including said second antenna. (Worrall in Fig. 2.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to position the temperature sensor, microprocessor, and transmitter on the body of probe as taught in Worrall to the probe in O’Loughlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The temperatures and other associated data may be wirelessly transmitted to centralized locations for aggregation and storage. Mobile devices may directly communicate with the product tags to receive the temperature data” as taught in abstract in Worrall.
Regarding claim 3,
The machine for preparing beverages according to claim 2, wherein said temperature sensor, said microprocessor and said passive transponder including said second antenna are supported by a printed interconnection circuit.
(Worrall teaches in paragraph [20] “the product tag 101 includes a processor 104 connected via a bus 120 to a memory 106, an identifier 107, a power source 108, a thermometer 109, a storage 110, a network interface 118, and an output device 124.” Paragraph [62] teaches that tag 101 is “an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a “circuit,””. It is implied that the circuit is a printed interconnection circuit.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to support temperature sensor, microprocessor, and transmitter on a circuit as taught in Worrall in the probe in O’Loughlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the present disclosure may be embodied as a system, method or computer program product. Accordingly, aspects of the present disclosure may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a “circuit,” “module” or “system.”” as taught in paragraph [62] in Worrall.
Regarding claim 11,
The machine for preparing beverages according to claim 1, wherein said support positions said second antenna outside said container when said temperature detection probe is in immersed in the comestible liquid contained in the container positioned on said rest base. ( O’Loughlin is silent about this.
Fig. 2 in Worrall teaches clip 203.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the mechanical clip 203 as taught in Worrall in the probe in O’Loughlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The vessel product tag 202 includes a mechanical clip 203 for securing the vessel product tag 202 to the serving (or cooking) vessel 210” as taught in paragraph [27] in Worrall.
Claim(s) 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin, Worrall, and Allen as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lindsay et al., US 20040100380 (hereafter Lindsay).
Regarding claim 4,
The machine for preparing beverages according to claim 3, wherein said printed interconnection circuit, said temperature sensor, said microprocessor and said passive transponder (Worrall teaches in paragraph [20] “the product tag 101 includes a processor 104 connected via a bus 120 to a memory 106, an identifier 107, a power source 108, a thermometer 109, a storage 110, a network interface 118, and an output device 124.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to position the temperature sensor, microprocessor, and transmitter on the body of probe as taught in Worrall to the probe in O’Loughlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The temperatures and other associated data may be wirelessly transmitted to centralized locations for aggregation and storage. Mobile devices may directly communicate with the product tags to receive the temperature data” as taught in abstract in Worrall.)
Primary combination of references is silent about are sealed inside said longitudinal body.
Lindsay teaches are sealed inside said longitudinal body. (Paragraph [37] teaches “conductive or passive smart tags 14 consist of a semiconductor, a coiled, etched, or stamped antennae, a capacitor, and a substrate on which the components are mounted or embedded. A protective covering is typically used to encapsulate and seal the substrate.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to seal the temperature sensor, microprocessor, and transmitter on the body of probe as taught in Lindsay to the probe in O’Loughlin to prevent liquid from entering into the probe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “encapsulate and seal the substrate” as taught in paragraph [37] in Lindsay.
Regarding claim 6,
The machine for preparing beverages according to claim 3, wherein said printed interconnection circuit is made of a flexible material that is plastically deformable.
(Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Lindsay teaches “Another commercial source of suitable smart tags is Alien Technology Corporation of Morgan Hill, Calif., under the technology name FSA (Fluidic Self-Assembly). With the FSA process, tiny semi-conductor devices are assembled into rolls of flexible plastic. The resulting "smart" substrate can be attached or embedded in a variety of surfaces” in paragraph [37].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the interconnection circuit on flexible plastic as taught in Lindsay to the probe in O’Loughlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The resulting "smart" substrate can be attached or embedded in a variety of surfaces” as taught in Lindsay in paragraph [37].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin, Worrall, and Allen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown et al., US 20170138797 (hereafter Brown).
The machine for preparing beverages according to claim 1, wherein said longitudinal body of said temperature detection probe is made of a flexible material that is plastically deformable.
(Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Brown teaches “The temperature probe includes a temperature sensor and a control housing positioned at opposite ends of a flexible arm” in abstract.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the body of the probe flexible as taught in Brown to the probe in O’Loughlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “flexible arm 58 is made of silicone rubber. Silicone rubber is capable of withstanding very high temperatures while remaining flexible” as taught in paragraph [42] in Brown.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin, Worrall, Allen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dumont, US 20070131762 (hereafter Dumont).
The machine for preparing beverages according to claim 1, wherein… when said temperature detection probe is in immersed in the comestible liquid contained in the container positioned on said rest base. (Fig. 6 in O’Loughlin)
Primary combination of references is silent about said second antenna faces said first antenna .
Dumont teaches said second antenna faces said first antenna (Fig. 6 in Dumont teaches transmitter with an antenna 40 facing receiver 42 with antenna.)
PNG
media_image6.png
329
693
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 in Dumont
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to position the second antenna to face first antenna as taught in Dumont in the probe in O’Loughlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The distance between the antennas of the label and the base is very short, several millimeters, such that information exchanged by the coupling means associated with one carton does not interfere with the information exchanged by a coupling means associated with another carton. The exchanges thus remain selective” as taught in paragraph [51] in Dumont.
Claim(s) 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin, Allen, and Worrall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Humphrey et al., US 20050087255 (hereafter Humphrey).
Regarding claim 13,
The machine for preparing beverages according to claim 1, wherein said first antenna is in an interposed position between said beverage dispenser and said steam dispenser.
(Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Humphrey teaches a beverage dispenser machine with multiple dispensers in Fig. 9. Fig. 9 and paragraph [20] further teaches a reader antenna 2038 between dispensers 2034.)
PNG
media_image7.png
295
709
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 in Humphrey
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to position the first antenna between dispensers as taught in Humphrey in the machine in O’Loughlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In one embodiment, the reader is a single reader. The reader may be located beneath the valves, e.g., in a vertical plane in the proximity of the dispenser. The reader is operatively coupled to the tag for communicating with the tag and for communicating with the CPU *which will actuator” as taught in paragraph [20] in Humphrey.
Regarding claim 16,
The machine for preparing beverages according to claim 1, wherein said first antenna is positioned higher than a top of the container, when said container is provided on said rest base for cups, beneath said beverage dispenser.
(Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Humphrey teaches a beverage dispenser machine with multiple dispensers in Fig. 9. Fig. 9 and paragraph [20] further teaches a reader antenna 2038 between dispensers 2034 and extending above dispenser opening. It is understood that antenna 2038 is placed higher when a container is placed on the rest base.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to position the first antenna higher than the container as taught in Humphrey in the machine in O’Loughlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In one embodiment, the reader is a single reader. The reader may be located beneath the valves, e.g., in a vertical plane in the proximity of the dispenser. The reader is operatively coupled to the tag for communicating with the tag and for communicating with the CPU *which will actuator” as taught in paragraph [20] in Humphrey.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin, Allen, and Worrall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Face Moore, DE 20201700310 (hereafter Face Moore).
The machine for preparing beverages according to claim1,wherein said lower end of said longitudinal body is configured as a spoon, and wherein the temperature sensor is in a longitudinally retracted position from said lower end, outside of a bowl of the spoon.
(Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Face Moore teaches a spoon shaped temperature probe wherein the temperature sensor 12 is positioned outside of the spoon bowl in Fig. 3.)
PNG
media_image8.png
475
681
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Face Moore
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to position the first antenna between dispensers as taught in Humphrey in the probe in O’Loughlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to make a detachable handle where a spoon or fork head is interchangeable as taught in Fig. 3 in Face Moore.
Claim(s) 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin, and further in view of Worrall, Allen, and Lindsay.
Regarding claim 17,
A machine for preparing beverages comprising: a front wall having a beverage dispenser and a steam dispenser, a first antenna supported by the front wall, a rest base for containers positioned in front of said front wall below said beverage dispenser and said steam dispenser, and a temperature detection probe immersible in a comestible liquid contained in a container positioned on said rest base, wherein said temperature detection probe comprises: a second antenna interacting with said first antenna for wireless transmission of a detected temperature of the liquid in the container, a longitudinal body comprising a support supporting said temperature detection probe engageable with said front wall, wherein the support comprises a spherical magnetic coupling, and wherein the longitudinal body is disengageably attached to the front wall through the spherical magnetic coupling, (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
wherein said longitudinal body of said temperature detection probe incorporates a temperature sensor, a microprocessor and a passive transponder including said second antenna, (Similar scope to claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
wherein said temperature sensor, said microprocessor and said passive transponder including said second antenna are supported by a printed interconnection circuit, (Similar scope to claim 3 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
and wherein said printed interconnection circuit, said temperature sensor, said microprocessor and said passive transponder are sealed inside said longitudinal body. (Similar scope to claim 4 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 19,
(Similar scope to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin, Worrall, Allen, and Lindsay, as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Brown.
(Similar scope to claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/18/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 11-13, 15-19 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant amended claims 1, and 17 and argued that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761