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 or after April 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 17-18 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-11 are amended. Claims 17-18 are new. Claims 12-16 are withdrawn by previous election. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed April 6, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
Applicant’s Amendments overcome the previously set forth claim objections of Claims 1 and 2 in view of minor informalities: The examiner agrees that the amendments overcome the previously set forth rejection, and it is therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s Amendments overcome the previously set forth rejection of Claims 1-4 under 112a: The examiner agrees that the amendments overcome the previously set forth rejection, and it is therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s Amendments overcome the previously set forth rejection of Claims 1-11 under 112b: The examiner agrees that the amendments overcome the previously set forth rejection, and it is therefore withdrawn.
The prior art of Mori does not teach the limitations of the independent Claim 1 as amended, and in particular that the electric motor is “based at least in part on an input signal indicative of a displacement position of the at least one mobile part between the open position and the destination position.”: The examiner respectfully disagrees. While it is true that the prior art of Mori does not require “end position sensors,” this feature is not required by claim 1 as currently amended. The prior art does provide a signal indicative of the displacement position between the open and closed position. In particular, as discussed in the section regarding claim 1 below. The input signal indicative of a displacement position of Mori is the resultant of “the means for measuring at least one electrical parameter representative of a consumption of power by the motor” which indicates the displacement position of the one mobile part between the open and closed positions to the “control unit” [0033] by which the status as “the assemblies are moved to the open and/or closed position can be monitored by monitoring the power consumption of the motor” [0039]). The monitoring of the position of the mobile part by the controller is an active one and occurs throughout the entire movement of the mobile part and is not exclusive to the open and closed positions.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, as amended, features the limitation “a displacement position” which muddies the scope of the claim as the displacement position is not clearly defined. For the sake of examination, the “displacement position” will be understood as any position between the open and closed positions.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The 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. Such claim limitations are as follows:
“Actuation monitoring means” which collects “data of at least one movement parameter in Claim 2 which is further defined by the applicant’s specifications as “can include a first mobile part including a plurality of observation references, for example in the form of openings or windows, and a second stationary part that includes a sender of electromagnetic radiation, for example an infrared beam… [Page 12].” In light of the specifications, the actuation monitoring means will be interpreted as any structure which collects data on movement parameters in a manner that produces equivalent results to the structure described.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1, as amended, introduces the limitation of “an input signal” which is not mentioned or described in the applicant’s specifications.
The specifications do provide support for “actuation monitoring means adapted so as to provide regulation of the electric motor based upon movement parameters along the movement path” (Pg. 4) and “the actuation thereof by an electric motor associated with the actuation disposition, can be regulated in each movement path at least according to a limitation of power that can be imposed, for example by electronic manner, to the power supplied to, and, therefore, power effectively consumed by the electric motor, as a function of at least one of: relative position along the movement path and velocity of progression thereon.” (Pg 4) However, there is not support this feature qualifies as an input signal, rather that the electric motor is controlled as a function of relative position.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 17 and 18 feature the limitation “electrical power is… not limited in the region of the movement path in the proximity of the destination position.” The intended scope of this statement on the claim is not clear and is muddied by the use of the word “limitation” in the claim language. Regarding the stated claim limitations, is the intent that the control of the electrical power is not exclusive to the region of the movement path in the proximity of the destination position? Or is the intent that power is not controlled in the region of the movement path of proximity of the destination position? For the purpose of examination, the former interpretation is taken as the latter presents a negative limitation which lacks support in the applicant’s disclosure and presents an issue of new matter. Furthermore, it is not clear how the latter interpretation would function in the context of the wider invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori (US 2013/0152797 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
488
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
366
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
456
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Mori teaches an apparatus comprising a beverage preparation device (“motorized beverage machine” Abstract) presenting at least one mobile part (“movable assembly” Abstract) configured to be driven by an actuation disposition (“transmission means” [0073] Figure 1 Element 4) that includes an electric motor (“motor” [0073] Figure 1 Element 3) and that can be regulated by a motor controller (“ [a] control unit, sensors, and a user interface [0068]” Figure 1 Element 10) in a closing movement path (“closure” path [0061]) between open position (“open position” [0061]) , where the beverage preparation device is open (in an “open position” [0061]) to collect an individual portion of edible substance (“ingredient capsule” [0061]), and closed position (“closed position” [0061]), and in a reverse movement path (“opening” path [0061]), wherein: the motor controller is configured to regulate a supply of electric energy to the electric motor according to at least one of the following control configurations: only a fraction of nominal power, PN, of the electric motor is supplied to the electric motor at least in a first part of the movement path, including between an initial position and a region of the movement path in the proximity of a destination position (the prior art further teaches that the control means regulates the supply of electric energy through “power consumption of the motor” [0057] while the assembly moves between the open and closed positions (the first, closure movement path) ) total energy consumption by the electric motor in each movement path is less than a fourth of a reference maximum energy consumption by the electric motor at nominal power, PN and that the power has a set maximum (of “50W” (Abstract) and operates at a fraction of this value in a “range of 7 to 25W which reads on the limitation of the claim); and wherein the motor controller is configured to regulate the supply of electric energy to the electric motor (“power consumption of the motor” [0057]) according to at least one of control configurations (a) and (b) based at least in part on an input signal indicative of a displacement position of the at least one mobile part between the open position and the destination position (The input signal indicative of a displacement position Mori is the resultant input of “the means for measuring at least one electrical parameter representative of a consumption of power by the motor” which indicates the displacement position of the one mobile part between the open and closed positions to the “control unit”[0033] by which the status as “the assemblies are moved to the open and/or closed position can be monitored by monitoring the power consumption of the motor” [0039])
Regarding Claim 2: Mori further teaches that the motor controller (“ [ a] control unit, sensors, and a user interface [0068]” Figure 1 Element 10) is further configured to regulate the supply of electrical energy to the electric motor (the prior art further teaches that the control means regulates the supply of electric energy through “power consumption of the motor” [0057] ) according to at least one of the following control configurations:- a first regulation rule that includes a first maximum value of electrical power (P1) (“the motor can be arranged to consume a maximum power in the range of 7 to 25W) that can be supplied in a first path of movement path that excludes the region of the movement path in the proximity of the destination position (The prior art further teaches that the first movement path can be configured such that the invention stops before full closure is achieved in the event of an “obstacle” [0023] in which case the movement path would exclude the region adjacent to the destination or closed position), and wherein the motor controller is configured to regulate the supply of electrical energy to the electric motor according to a relative position in the movement path (the prior art further teaches that the control unit regulates the supply of electric energy through “power consumption of the motor” [0057] while the assembly moves between the open and closed positions (the first, closure movement path) and a displacement velocity (“speed” [0041] of movement) associated with a driving cam (“cam” [0079] Figure 3 Element 22) driven by the electric motor (“motor” [0075] Figure 1 Element 3), and determined by the motor controller and/or based upon data of at least one movement parameter apprehended by actuation monitoring means (the prior art further teaches that the control unit may include “means for measuring at least one electrical parameter representative of a consumption of power by the motor” and the movement parameter of its “evolution” [0037] which the examiner interprets to read on the limitation of the claim).
Regarding Claim 3: Mori further teaches the motor controller (“[a] control unit, sensors, and a user interface [0068]” Figure 1 Element 10) is further configured to regulate the supply of electrical energy to the electric motor (the prior art further teaches that the control unit regulates the supply of electric energy through “power consumption of the motor” [0057] ) according to at least one of the following control configurations:- a first regulation rule whereby the electrical power can be limited along at least most part of the movement path, including at least in the region of the movement path in the proximity of the destination position ), but not limited in the region adjacent to the closed position, as a function of the displacement position (The prior art further teaches that the electrical power is regulated all along the first movement path can be configured such that the invention stops before full closure is achieved in the event of an “obstacle” [0023] in which case the movement path would exclude the region adjacent to the closed position. Likewise, where no obstacle is present, the power can be regulated in the region adjacent the destination closed position to achieve full closure)… and wherein the motor controller is configured to regulate at least one of: current intensity (control unit further regulates the “current” [0092]) and voltage ( (control unit further regulates the “voltage” [0041]) of the electrical current supplied to the electric motor, according to at least one of: the first and the second regulation rule, as a function of a relative position of the mobile part relative to the movement path (as the control unit supplies power as a function of a relative position of the mobile path as “the [movement between] the open and/or closed position can be monitored by monitoring the power consumption of the motor” [0039])
Regarding Claim 7: Mori further teaches the actuation disposition (“transmission means” [0073] Figure 1 Element 4 )includes an electric motor (“motor” [0073] Figure 1 Element 3) operatively connected by means of direct movement transmission to a single gear set(“Gear Assembly” [0079] Figure 2 Element 20) that presents a movement exit oriented in an orthogonal direction relative to a driving axis of electric motor (“motor” [0073] Figure 1 Element 3), whereby the gear set is adapted for direct transmission of the rotation movement of driving cam (“cam” [0079] Figure 3 Element 22) that drives at least one mobile part (“movable assembly” Abstract) of the beverage preparation device, whereby all components of the movement transmission of the actuation disposition are provided encapsulated and not exposed to dust or corrosive agents, including the single gear set (“Gear Assembly” [0079] Figure 2 Element 20) that is provided inside of a respective gear box (Figure 3 “Gear Box”), and the driving cam that is provided inside of a respective driving sleeve (“Driving Sleeve” Figure 3), and the driving cam is adapted to provide direct movement transmission between a transmission exit of the single gear set and an actuation part (“worm drive” [0079] Figure 3 Element 21)of the beverage preparation device, whereby the driving cam extends along a whole width of the actuation disposition and along at least most part of a transversal extension of the beverage preparation device (Figure 3 shows that the driving cam extends in the directions claimed).
Regarding Claim 8: Mori further teaches that the motor controller (“[a] control unit, sensors, and a user interface [0068]” Figure 1 Element 10) is configured to regulate at least one of: actuation of the actuation disposition (the prior art further teaches that the control means regulate the actuation of the “transmission means” [0073] Figure 1 Element 4) …as well as display of operative conditions to the user (“control means [including a] control unit, sensors, and a user interface [0068]” Figure 1 Element 10), based upon… a correct entry and exit of the individual portion determinative of, whether an eventual jamming of the individual portion at the entry of the beverage preparation device would occur (The prior art further teaches that the electrical power regulates to the actuation disposition and the motor all along the first movement path and can be configured such that the invention stops before full closure is achieved in the event of an “obstacle” [0023] which would indicate jamming, in which case the movement path would exclude the region adjacent to the closed position. Likewise, where no obstacle is present, the power can be regulated in the region adjacent the closed position to achieve full closure)
Regarding Claim 10: Mori further teaches that the motor controller (“ [a] control unit, sensors, and a user interface [0068]” Figure 1 Element 10) is configured to regulate the operation of said actuation disposition (the prior art further teaches that the control means regulate the actuation of the “transmission means” [0073] Figure 1 Element 4) based upon a relative position of the individual portion (“ingredient capsule” [0061]) in relation to the beverage preparation device (when collected by the beverage preparation device in the closed position [0061]), and based upon the a relative position of the actuation disposition (“transmission means” [0073] Figure 1 Element 4) with relation to the movement path (“closure” path [0061]), including based upon the positions of start and end of movement path thereof, and the motor controller is configured to infer the relative position of the individual portion and eventual jamming thereof at an entry of the beverage preparation device based upon a determination of a predetermined rate of reduction of the displacement speed or a stop of the driving cam (The prior art further teaches that the electrical power regulates to the actuation disposition and the motor all along the first movement path and can be configured such that the invention stops( by means of the driving cam) before full closure is achieved in the event of an “obstacle” [0023] which would indicate jamming, in which case the movement path would exclude the region adjacent to the closed position. Likewise, where no obstacle is present, the power can be regulated in the region adjacent the closed position to achieve full closure)
Regarding Claim 17: Mori further teaches that the motor controller (“ [a] control unit, sensors, and a user interface [0068]” Figure 1 Element 10) is configured to limit the electrical power supplied to the electric motor ( control unit regulates the supply of electric energy through “power consumption of the motor” [0057] while the assembly moves between the open and closed positions) to a previously defined maximum limit value (the prior art teaches a maximum limit of “50W” (Abstract) and operates at a fraction of this value in a “range of 7 to 25W which reads on the limitation of the claim); along at least most part of the movement path as a function of the relative position in the movement path of the mobile part, wherein the motor controller determines the relative position in the movement path of the mobile part based upon data (the control unit supplies power as a function of a relative position of the mobile path as “the [movement between] the open and/or closed position can be monitored by monitoring the power consumption of the motor”[0039]) apprehended by an actuation monitoring means (the prior art further teaches that the control unit may include “means for measuring at least one electrical parameter representative of a consumption of power by the motor” and the movement parameter of its “evolution” [0037] which the examiner interprets to read on the limitation of the claim) operatively associated with a driving cam (“cam” [0079] Figure 3 Element 22) driven by the electric motor (“motor” [0073] Figure 1 Element 3), and wherein the electrical power is not limited in the region adjacent to the closed position (The prior art further teaches that the electrical power is regulated all along the first movement path can be configured such that the invention stops before full closure is achieved in the event of an “obstacle” [0023] in which case the movement path would exclude the region adjacent to the closed position. Likewise, where no obstacle is present, the power can be regulated in the region adjacent the destination closed position to achieve full closure and the regulation is not exclusive to this region but exists throughout the entire operation).
Regarding Claim 18: Mori further teaches that the motor controller (“ [a] control unit, sensors, and a user interface [0068]” Figure 1 Element 10) is configured to actively limit the supply of electric energy to the electric motor (“motor” [0073] Figure 1 Element 3) based upon a relative position of the mobile part along the movement path as determined by an actuation monitoring means (the prior art further teaches that the control unit may include “means for measuring at least one electrical parameter representative of a consumption of power by the motor” and the movement parameter of its “evolution” [0037]. As such the position of the mobile part is actively motored by monitoring of the power usage. which the examiner interprets to read on the limitation of the claim), wherein the electrical power is limited along at least part of the movement path including a region in proximity of the closed position, but not limited in the region of the movement path in the proximity of the destination position (The prior art further teaches that the electrical power is regulated all along the first movement path can be configured such that the invention stops before full closure is achieved in the event of an “obstacle” [0023] in which case the movement path would exclude the region adjacent to the closed position. Likewise, where no obstacle is present, the power can be regulated in the region adjacent the destination closed position to achieve full closure and the regulation is not exclusive to this region but exists throughout the entire operation).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2013/0152797 A1):
Regarding Claim 4: Mori further teaches that the control motor controller (“control” unit [0068] Figure 1 Element 10) is configured, according to a first rule, to limit the electrical power supplied to the electric motor to a first maximum power value (Pi) (“the motor can be arranged [by the control unit] to consume a maximum power in the range of 7 to 25W) that corresponds to less than 20% of the nominal power value, PN (“50W” (Abstract)) of the electric motor (the prior art teaches that the controller may limit the power to 7W out of the nominal 50W which is less than 20% of the nominal power value and reads on the limitation of the claim) and that the motor controller is configured, according to a second rule to carry out the interruption of the supply of electrical power to the electric motor (“The reaching of an obstacle at the end position can be nearly instantaneously identified by monitoring the power consumption of the motor the powering of which can be stopped without the risk of the motor forcing the assemblies detrimentally beyond the end position by discharging its mechanical and electric inertia” [0023])
Mori does not teach that interrupting the supply of electrical power to the electric motor in case that there is detected a reduction by at least 30%, in the displacement speed
However, given that that the control means can interrupt the supply of electrical power to the electric motor as detailed above. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the invention of Mori such the supply of electrical power to the electric motor is interrupted when there is a detected a reduction by at least 30% in the displacement speed as it has been held that routine optimization of a results effective variable requires only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 II B
Regarding Claim 5: Mori teaches that motor controller (“control” unit [0068]” Figure 1 Element 10) are configured to control the supply of electrical power so that the consumption of electrical energy by the electric motor (the prior art further teaches that the control means regulates the supply of electric energy through “power consumption of the motor” [0057] )and that each movement path of the beverage preparation device each movement path requires less than 4 seconds (“overall closure can be achieved within 2 or 2.5 seconds” [0095]), and in that the actuation disposition (“transmission means” [0073] Figure 1 Element 4) comprises a gear set (“Gear Assembly” [0079] Figure 2 Element 20) functionally associated with the electric motor (“motor” [0073] Figure 1 Element 3) and adapted so that the maximum torque required by the electric motor in each movement path is comprised between 10 and 60 mNm (“maximum Torque in the range of 25mNm to 40 mNm” [0024]) whereby the gear set is adapted so that can provide a transmission ratio comprised between 1:100 and 1:500 (“the gear assembly provide[s] a gear [transmission] ratio of at least 1:100 [and up to 1.500]” [0098])
Mori does not teach that the total energy consumption is less than 10% f the reference maximum energy consumption at the nominal power or that the consumption of electrical energy by the electric motor in each movement path is less than 20 mWh
However, Mori teaches that the total energy consumption of the electric motor throughout the movement path is variable as described in the section regarding Claim 1.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the invention of Mori such that the total energy consumption is less than 10% of the reference maximum energy consumption at the nominal power and that the consumption of electrical energy by the electric motor in each movement path is less than 20 mWh as it has been held that routine optimization of a results effective variable requires only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 II B
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2013/0152797 A1) in view of Richter (US 5,957,035):
Regarding Claim 6: Mori teaches that the actuation disposition (“transmission means” [0073] Figure 1 Element 4) includes a velocity and torque conversion device (“Gear Assembly” [0079] Figure 2 Element 20), and a drive transmission disposition (“worm drive Figure 2 Element 21) of final rotation movement to a mobile part (the worm gear “operates a large gear, which is fixed to an axel” and initiated the final movement of the mobile part [0078]) and that the movement occurs in a forwards and reverse direction (towards Open and towards Closed)
Mori does not teach that the actuation disposition is adapted so that the closing movement path between open and closed positions of the beverage preparation device only requires a rotation angle of at most 110 degrees in the clockwork direction
However, Richer teaches a coffee maker with an actuation disposition and a rotation angle of less than 110 degrees (“about 45 degrees” Abstract)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the invention of Mori in the opening and reverse directions with the rotation angle of less than 110 degrees as taught by Richter as it has been shown that routine optimization requires only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05 II
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2013/0152797 A1) in view of White (US 2014/0102306 A1):
Regarding Claim 9: Mori teaches that apparatus has a motor controller (“control unit, sensors, and a user interface [0068]” Figure 1 Element 10) regulates a flow pressurization device (“pump” [0069] Figure 1 Element 7)
Mori does not teach that the flow pressurization device is operated such that its operation can be interrupted and/or terminated in a case of detection of a removal of the drinking recipient from said placement disposition (The prior art teaches that the invention “stops coffee from dispensing when the carafe is removed” Abstract wherein the base of the invention is the placement disposition), and can be suspended in case of detection of manipulation of the drinking recipient on a respective placement disposition
However, White does teach a beverage making apparatus (“coffee maker” Abstract) with a control means (“control panel” [0021]) and a flow pressurization device (“motor driven valve” Abstract) in which the flow pressurization device is operated such that its operation can be interrupted and/or terminated in case of detection of a removal of the drinking recipient from said placement disposition (The prior art teaches that the invention “stops coffee from dispensing when the carafe is removed” Abstract wherein the base of the invention is the placement disposition), and can be suspended in case of detection of manipulation of the drinking recipient on a respective placement disposition (The prior art further teaches that operation can be resumed upon the placement of an alternate “cup or mug” which accounts for suspended operation upon manipulation of the drinking recipient and reads on the limitation of the claim).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the invention of Mori with the regulation rule of White in order to “provide interruption in coffee dispensing when the carafe is not present” and prevent “mess” [0002].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the scale of Claim 11 and in particular that the position of the beverage preparation device is “based upon the actuation of position sensors.”
Mori (US 2013/0152797 A1) discloses that the motor controller (“ [a] control unit, sensors, and a user interface [0068]” Figure 1 Element 10) is configured to infer the following events based upon the following respective means: an eventual jamming of the individual portion on the beverage preparation device based upon a variation of the displacement velocity of a driving cam (The prior art further teaches that the electrical power regulates to the actuation disposition and the motor all along the first movement path and can be configured such that the invention stops before full closure is achieved in the event of an “obstacle” [0023] which would indicate jamming, in which case the speed of the driving cam would slow and exclude the region adjacent to the closed position. Likewise, where no obstacle is present, the power can be regulated in the region adjacent the closed position to achieve full closure). A presence of individual portion (“ingredient capsule” [0061]) based upon an actuation of portion detection means (the prior art further teaches that the control unit regulates the actuation of the “transmission means” [0073] Figure 1 Element and that the unit comprises a “power consumption measuring method for detecting via the measured power consumption…a presence of such a capsule” Claim 15) 4), including first and a second portion sensors (“sensors” of the control unit [0068]) associated with the beverage preparation device. However, Mori does not teach that that the position of the beverage preparation device is “based upon the actuation of position sensors” as required by Claim 11 as amended. Furthermore, it would not be obvious to modify the invention of Mori to include position sensors as Mori teaches away from including this feature.
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 SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights