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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/27/2022 was filed. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 6/27/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“status detection system” of claim 7,
“stabilizing system” in claim 8. The status detection system is only defined in the specification “to detect whether the valve is open or closed” and indicates it is a non-contact binary sensor. Stabilizing system in the specification states that it “may for example comprise a shut-off valve or a mechanical lock”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro (WO 2014/108813 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ferraro teaches a coffee machine, comprising (Page 3 lines 8-10, makes hot beverages such as coffee): a water reservoir (Water tank 3); a water heater (Water heater 7); a water pump (Pump 5); a coffee vessel adapted to receive freshly ground coffee (filter holder 25); a water delivery system having a water delivery head for delivering heated water to the coffee vessel (disc member 45); and a closing and/or tamping system for closing the coffee vessel (Fig. 3 closed position) or compacting the ground coffee in the coffee vessel by providing relative movement between the water delivery head and the coffee vessel (Page 12 lines 6-9, Fig. 2 describes the coffee powder charged and compacted in the receptacle formed by filter 27); wherein: the closing and/or tamping system comprises a hydraulic actuator (Fig. 2 & 3 Hydraulic actuator 51), a water outlet from the water pump is coupled to the hydraulic actuator by a first fluid coupling (Pump 5, second duct 13, hot water delivery see annotated Fig. 1 for first fluid coupling), and the water outlet (see annotated Fig. 1 below) from the water pump is coupled to the water delivery head by a second fluid coupling which includes a passive in-line valve (Pump 5, disc member 45, ducts 11 and 15, check valve 17), wherein the passive in-line valve is adapted to open when a pressure reaches a desired closing or tamping pressure (Pg. 12 lines 15-30 Check valve 17).
PNG
media_image1.png
647
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ferraro teaches the coffee machine as claimed in of claim 1, wherein the first fluid coupling is located between the water reservoir and the hydraulic actuator without passing the water heater (Pump 5 hydraulic actuator 51, hot water delivery, see annotated Fig. 1 above for first fluid coupling).
Regarding claim 3, Ferraro teaches the coffee machine of claim 1, wherein the second fluid coupling is located between the water reservoir and the water delivery head, and passing the water heater (Water tank 3, disc member 45, duct 11, water heater 7).
Regarding claim 12, Ferraro teaches the coffee machine of claim 1, comprising a main housing having an exterior mounting port (filter holder 25 can be attached and removed from the device) wherein the coffee vessel is fitted to the exterior mounting port, and is removable from the exterior mounting port by a user (coffee vessel attached outside of housing 1A).
Regarding claim 16, Ferraro teaches the coffee machine as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hydraulic actuator is adapted to close a ground coffee outlet (opening in filter holder 25) during the delivery of the heated water to the coffee vessel through the water delivery head (Fig. 2 & 3 disc member 45, when filter holder 25 attached to the device the disc member closes the opening in filter holder 25).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro (WO 2014/108813 A1), and further in view of Carr (WO 2005/120312 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Ferraro teaches the coffee machine of claim 1.
Except wherein, Ferraro does not teach the coffee machine wherein the second fluid coupling is located between the hydraulic actuator and the water delivery head.
Carr teaches the coffee machine wherein the second fluid coupling (transfer pipe 60) is located between the hydraulic actuator (well 30 and thermal actuator 20) and the water delivery head (cylinder 50).
Ferraro and Carr are analogous since both inventions teach drink machines. Because Carr teaches equivalent constructions when it comes to fluidly coupling both an actuator and a water delivery head in a coffee machine it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to substitute the specific construction of the second coupling as identified in Figures 3-4C for the construction utilized in Ferraro to achieve the predictable result of both operating the actuator and providing water for use in brewing coffee.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro (WO 2014/108813 A1), and further in view of Blanc (FR 2960406 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ferraro teaches the coffee machine as claimed in of claim 1.
Except wherein, Ferraro does not teach the coffee machine wherein the first and second fluid couplings connect to each other at a branch point downstream of the water heater.
Blanc teaches the coffee machine wherein the first and second fluid couplings connect to each other at a branch point downstream of the water heater (Fig. 3, boiler 500 branch 702).
Ferraro and Blanc are analogous because both inventions teach beverage making machines. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the configuration of the first and second fluid couplings connect to each other at a branch point downstream of the water heater because this an equivalent construction when it comes to fluid couplings identified in Figs 3-6 of Blanc’s invention with the applicant’s invention and therefore has the predictable result of being a conduit for the water in this machine.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro (WO 2014/108813 A1), and further in view of Righetti (US 2008/0276807 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ferraro teaches the coffee machine of claim 1.
Except wherein, Ferraro does not teach a coffee machine further comprising a controller, wherein the controller is adapted to switch off the water heater during actuation of the hydraulic actuator, and switch on the water heater during water delivery to the water delivery head.
Righetti teaches coffee machine further comprising a controller, wherein the controller (control unit 33) is adapted to switch off the water heater during actuation of the hydraulic actuator, and switch on the water heater during water delivery to the water delivery head (Paragraph 0066, actuator is controlled by control unit).
Ferraro does not disclose any controller. However, a controller is a common feature in the beverage machine arts, as disclosed in Righetti (controller 33), and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a controller like that taught by Righetti into Ferraro to automatically control its operation. Ferraro does not explicitly disclose that controller is adapted to switch off the water heater during actuation of the hydraulic actuator, and switch on the water heater during water delivery to the water delivery head. However, Ferraro clearly teaches a sequence of hydraulic actuation followed by delivering cold water to the heater and thereon to the brewing chamber ("Once a sufficient pressure has been achieved inside the brewing chamber, said pressure corresponding to a pressure in the cold water delivery duct 13, the valve system 19 starts delivering water through duct 11 to the water heater 7 and from there, through the hot-water delivery duct 15 to the brewing piston 33"). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have Ferraro operate with a controller to have the water heater active only during water delivery for infusion since this is how an instant water heater would operate (“The infusion unit also includes a hot water delivery circuit for delivering hot water in the interior of the brewing chamber”) and because there would be no reason to have the heater on in advance of delivering such water.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro (WO 2014/108813 A1) , and further in view of Everett (CA 2492602 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Ferraro teaches the coffee machine of claim 6.
Except wherein Ferraro do not teach the coffee machine comprising the passive in-line valve has a status detection system, and wherein the controller receives valve status information from the status detection system.
Everett teaches a flow control system in a beverage machine comprising the passive in-line valve has a status detection system (Page 4 lines 2-4 sensor, control valve and shut off valve are integrated), and wherein the controller receives valve status information from the status detection system (Fig. 1 control system 14 coupled with sensor 16 downstream of valve 12; Page 10 lines 16-21, controller works with algorithm to complete these functions). Everett indicates being able to actively monitor flow via a status detection system helps to control for variations in the system to thereby make a more consistent beverage (Pg. 2, lines 16-22)
Ferraro and Everett are analogous since both inventions teach beverage machines. Therefore, it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a status detection system that worked with controller to allow for active monitoring and controlling for system variations in an attempt to provide a more consistent beverage.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro (WO 2014/108813 A1), and further in view of Everett (CA 2492602 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Ferraro teaches the coffee machine of claim 1.
Except wherein further a coffee machine comprising a stabilizing system adapted to retain a closing or tamping pressure during delivery of water to the water delivery head.
Everett teaches a coffee machine comprising a stabilizing system adapted to retain a closing or tamping pressure during delivery of water to the water delivery head (claim 8) and the stabilizing system comprises a shut-off valve or a mechanical lock (claim 9).
Everett teaches (Pg. 11, lines 1-7) it is known in beverage machines to utilize a stabilizing system comprising a shut-off valve (22) to ensure no flow during operations when flow out of the system is not desired.
Ferraro and Everett are analogous as both are in the field of beverage making. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing to modify the coffee machine of Ferraro to incorporate a stabilizing system having a shut-off valve as set forth in Everett to ensure flow did not escape from the system when unintended. This would necessarily cover any and all functions where a pressure, such as closing and tamping pressure, was required to be maintained.
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro (WO 2014/108813 A1), and further in view of Righetti (US 2008/0276807 A1).
Ferraro teaches the coffee machine of claim 1, wherein the hydraulic actuator of the closing and/or tamping system (hydraulic actuator 51), thereby to provide closing of the coffee vessel and/or or tamping of coffee grounds contained in the coffee vessel (Page 11 lines 29-34, brewing chamber closed by brewing piston 33), wherein the hydraulic actuator (hydraulic actuator 51), wherein the coffee vessel comprises a filter or filter basket (Filter 27) and a support (Filter holder 25) wherein the hydraulic actuator is for displacing the filter or filter basket relative to the support (hydraulic actuator 51).
Except wherein, Ferraro does not teach the coffee machine is adapted for displacing the coffee vessel or part thereof relative to the fixed water delivery head or the water delivery head is positionally fixed, the hydraulic actuator is adapted for displacing the coffee vessel or part thereof up and down, or the actuator displacing the filter basket and the support together.
Righetti teaches the beverage machine wherein the water delivery head is positionally fixed (spout 19A) adapted for displacing the coffee vessel or part thereof relative to the fixed water delivery head (spout 19A, boiler 15), that adapted for displacing the coffee vessel or part thereof up and down (duct 17 above actuator 27A) and actuator for displacing the filter basket and the support together (duct 17 actuator 27A).
Ferraro and Righetti are analogous since both inventions teach coffee brewing machines. Ferraro teaches the coffee maker of claim 1 that includes a hydraulic actuator that lowers to onto a location fixed coffee vessel to compact the coffee instead of the hydraulic actuator raising the coffee vessel to compact the coffee. However, because these two methods of compacting coffee are art recognized equivalents as taught by Righetti where it is immaterial as to the relative movements of the coffee vessel to compact the coffee one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to move the coffee vessel up and down by the actuator to close off the coffee vessel.
Claim 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro (WO 2014/108813 A1), and further in view of Goeltenboth (US 9,125,519 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Ferraro teaches the coffee machine of claim 1.
Except wherein, Ferraro does not teach a coffee machine further comprising a bean reservoir and a coffee grinder having a ground coffee outlet.
Goeltenboth teaches a coffee machine further comprising a bean reservoir (Bean container 20) and a coffee grinder (grinder 21) having a ground coffee outlet (chute 23). Goeltenboth teaches having a bean reservoir, grinder, and outlet attached to the coffee machine does not significantly increase operating effort and makes the additional step of periodic cleaning of a collection container for coffee grounds unnecessary (Col. 2, lines 40-46)
Ferraro and Goeltenboth are analogous since both inventions teach coffee brewing machines. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the grinder and bean reservoir to Ferraro’s invention since this combination would automatically eject and collect the used coffee grounds without increasing operating effort. This addition to Ferraro’s invention would make the periodic emptying and cleaning of the bean reservoir unnecessary.
Regarding claim 15, Ferraro and Goeltenboth teach the coffee machine of claim 14.
Except wherein Ferraro does not teach a coffee machine comprising a controller, which is adapted to control at least one of: heating of water; grinding of coffee beans; dosing of the ground coffee to the coffee vessel; displacement of the coffee vessel relative to the water delivery head; and the delivery of the heated water.
Goeltenboth teaches a coffee machine comprising a controller (controller 24), which is adapted to control at least one of: heating of water (Col. 6 lines 17-18, boiler 28); grinding of coffee beans (Col. 6 lines 17-20, coffee mill 19); dosing of the ground coffee to the coffee vessel; displacement of the coffee vessel relative to the water delivery head (Col.6 lines 17-19, distribution filter element 33); and the delivery of the heated water (Col. 6 lines 17-28, distribution filter element 33 and portafilter 11).
Ferraro and Goeltenboth are analogous since both inventions teach coffee brewing machines. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a controller control various parts of the coffee brewing machine since would remove the requirement to independently control each separate function of the coffee making process thereby increasing efficiency and reducing overall effort
.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro (WO 2014/108813 A1) and Everett (CA 2492602 A1), and further in view of Daburger (US 2012/0240783 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ferraro and Everett teach the coffee machine as claimed in claim 8. Except wherein, Ferraro and Everett do not teach the coffee machine wherein the stabilizing system comprises an overpressure valve adapted to limit the amount of force exerted during at least one of closing, tamping, and brewing.
Daburger teaches the coffee machine wherein the stabilizing system comprises an overpressure valve adapted to limit the amount of force exerted during at least one of closing, tamping, and brewing (Overpressure valve 27).
Ferraro, Everett, and Daburger are analogous since all three inventions teach apparatuses that make beverages. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ferraro’s invention by adding an overpressure valve since overpressure or negative pressure in the conduit system can be relieved more quickly and completely than using a mechanical opening and closing valve.
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro (WO 2014/108813 A1), and in view of Righetti (US 2008/0276807 A1) and further in view of Goeltenboth (US 9,125,519 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Ferraro teaches the coffee machine as claimed in claim 13 comprises an inlet filter (pipe fitting 37) with the water delivery head (disc member 45).
Goeltenboth teaches a coffee machine wherein the delivery head the filter comprises an outlet filter, and wherein tamping is performed between the inlet filter and the outlet filter (Outlet 14).
Ferraro and Goeltenboth are analogous since both inventions teach coffee machines. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ferraro’s invention by having the outlet filter be part of the delivery head since this would allow the coffee machine to tamper between the inlet and outlet.
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards the 112(a) rejection towards the limitation of “a controller” is persuasive and the 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant's arguments that Ferraro does not teach "the passive in-line valve," applicant equates the "passive in-line valve" to Ferraro's system 19 rather than the valve 17 as previously presented, and applicant argues that valve system 19 cannot be equated to the "passive in-line valve" because the valve system 19 of Ferraro is a "complex multi-component agent." Applicant also suggests that "Ferraro's check valve 17 merely blocks or allows the flow of water towards the brewing process… it does not itself perform switching between a tamping/closing function and water delivery function for brewing by automatically opening when 'a pressure reaches a desired closing or tamping pressure.'" However applicant's claims do not necessitate a "switching between a tamping/closing function" being actuated by the "passive in-line valve." The claims only requires that "the passive in-line valve is adapted to open when a pressure reaches a desired closing or tamping pressure," where closing in Ferraro is understood to be when the hydraulic actuator 51 is in a closed position, where coffee powder charged in the filter 27 is compacted in the brewing chamber formed by the filter 27 (Pg. 12 lines 15-30 Ferraro) and the water pressure in the hot-water delivery duct 15 and in the hose 39 overcomes the force of the spring closing the check valve 17, hot water starts flowing in the brewing chamber, producing the coffee beverage (Pg. 12 lines 15-30 Ferraro). Therefore it is understood that when a desired closing pressure is reaches, the valve 17 opens, allowing the start of brewing. The "passive in-line valve" as claimed does not claim a switching operation rather a response of being open when either one of a closing or a tamping pressure is reached, which Ferraro is understood to teach.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/27/2026
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights