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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 15th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12, and 15-17 remain pending in the application. Claims 13-14 have been cancelled.
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.
The following limitations are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre -AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 13, and 14, states “hydraulic drive arrangement” The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed function is a hydraulic actuator (Page 6 Line 5), hydraulic circuit (Page 7 Line 24) or any other drive arrangements (Page 17 Line 26-27). Therefore, the interpretation of the of “hydraulic drive arrangement” is a hydraulic actuator, hydraulic circuit, or any other drive arrangements and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 13, and 14, states “electric drive arrangement” The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed function is an electric actuator (Page 13 Line 18-19) or electric motor (Page 17 Line 28). Therefore, the interpretation of the of “electric drive arrangement” is an electric actuator or electric motor and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim 1-13, and 15-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeltenboth (US Patent No. 9125519) in view of Shih (US Patent No. 5823096) and further in view of Masciandaro (US Patent No. 9186019) and Anderl (EP Patent No. 0605750).
Regarding Claim 1, Goeltenboth teaches A coffee machine (Col 1 Line 7-8, Coffee Machine), comprising: a main housing comprising an exterior mounting port (Claim 1, Main Housing. Figure 1, Holder 12); a coffee vessel for removable fitting to the exterior mounting port of the main housing (Figure 1, Portafilter 11 fits in Holder 12), a water heater (Figure 1, Hot Water Maker 28); a water delivery system having a water delivery head for delivering heated water to the coffee vessel (Figure 1, Hot Water Maker 28 delivers water to Distribution Filter Element 33 and then onto Portafilter 11.); and a tamping system (Figure 1-2, Showcases a Tamping System).
Goeltenboth fails to teach a tamping system where the coffee vessel moves to initiate tamping. the water delivery head is positionally fixed with respect to the main housing, and the tamping system comprises an electric or hydraulic drive arrangement for displacing the coffee vessel or part thereof relative to the water delivery head, thereby to provide tamping of coffee grounds contained in the coffee vessel, wherein the coffee vessel is displaced between a first position to receive coffee grounds and a second position for the coffee grounds to be tamped by the water delivery head to brew coffee with the tamped coffee grounds, wherein the electric or hydraulic drive arrangement is adapted to displace the coffee vessel or part thereof between a first position and a second position, wherein a first position during delivery of ground coffee is below the ground coffee outlet and a second position with a top of the coffee vessel above the ground coffee outlet during delivery of heated water to the coffee vessel and to prevent steam, produced while brewing the coffee, from flowing through the ground coffee outlet towards ground coffee in the grinder, wherein the coffee vessel or the electric or hydraulic drive arrangement closes the ground coffee outlet during delivery of the heated water to the coffee vessel.
Shih teaches a coffee making apparatus (Col 1 Line 8-16, Coffee Making Apparatus) where the water delivery head is positionally fixed with respect to the main housing (Figure 1, 3, and Col 3 Line 17-34, Squeeze Member 15 acts as a water delivery head and is fixed in position within housing, where spring 112 provides cushioning effect), and the tamping system comprises an electric or hydraulic drive arrangement for displacing the coffee vessel or part thereof relative to the water delivery head, thereby to provide tamping of coffee grounds contained in the coffee vessel (Figure 2-3, Tamping system is operated by a driving motor 191, where Plunger 16 holding coffee is displaced up toward the Squeeze Member 15 to tamp the coffee). wherein the coffee vessel is displaced between a first position to receive coffee grounds (Figure 1 and 8, Showcases driving motor displacing Plunger 16 in first position where ground coffee is delivered from Feeding device 22) and a second position for the coffee grounds to be tamped by the water delivery head to brew coffee with the tamped coffee grounds (Figure 1-3, and Col 3 Line 17-34, Squeeze Member 15 acts as a water delivery head and Plunger 16 holding coffee is displaced up toward the Squeeze Member 15 to tamp the coffee), wherein the electric or hydraulic drive arrangement is adapted to displace the coffee vessel or part thereof between a first position (Figure 1 and 8, Showcases driving motor displacing Plunger 16 in first position where ground coffee is delivered from Feeding device 22), and a second position (Figure 3 and 7, Showcases Plunger 16 in second position during water delivery).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Goeltenboth’s method where the water delivery moves down in the tamping process with Shih’s method where the coffee vessel moves upward during the tamping process (MPEP 2141.06).
Goeltenboth in view of Shih fails to teach a coffee vessel wherein a first position during delivery of ground coffee is below the ground coffee outlet and a second position with a top of the coffee vessel above the ground coffee outlet during delivery of heated water to the coffee vessel and to prevent steam, produced while brewing the coffee, from flowing through the ground coffee outlet towards ground coffee in the grinder.
Masciandaro teaches a coffee making machine (Abstract, Coffee Making Machine) where a first position during delivery of ground coffee below the ground coffee outlet (Figure 2D, Showcases infusion chamber in first position where ground coffee is delivered from hopper 36 above the infusion chamber), and a second position with a top of the coffee vessel above the ground coffee outlet during delivery of heated water to the coffee vessel (Figure 2E, Showcases infusion chamber in second position where it’s above the outlet of hopper 36 during water delivery).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Shih’s first and second position with Masciandaro’s first and second position where the coffee vessel is below the ground coffee outlet in first position and above under second position (MPEP 2141.06).
Goeltenboth in view of Shih and Masciandaro fails to teach that the coffee vessel or the electric or hydraulic drive arrangement closes the ground coffee outlet during delivery of the heated water to the coffee vessel.
Anderl teaches a coffee maker (Paragraph 1, Coffee Machine) where the coffee vessel or the electric or hydraulic drive arrangement physically closes the ground coffee outlet during delivery of the heated water to the coffee vessel (Figure 1, The discharge Chute 11a, 11b can be closed with a slide 13a, 13b, whereby the slide 13a, 13b, by a controller 14 during brewing process).
The combination of Goeltenboth, Shih, and Masciandaro with Anderl teaches that the electric arrangement physically closes the ground coffee outlet when the coffee vessel is in the second positions. Masciandaro teaches the first and second positions where the second position is when water is delivered for brewing, and Anderl teaches that the ground coffee outlet is physical closed during the brewing process.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goeltenboth in view of Shih and Masciandaro to incorporate the mechanism of closing the coffee ground outlet as stated in Anderl. This system allows for the closing and opening of the coffee ground outlet to be done automatically (Paragraph 18, Automatic process).
Regarding Claim 2, Goeltenboth in view of Masciandaro, and Anderl fails to teach a coffee vessel where the electric or hydraulic drive arrangement is for displacing the coffee vessel or part thereof up and down.
Shih teaches a coffee making apparatus (Col 1 Line 8-16, Coffee Making Apparatus) where the electric or hydraulic drive arrangement is for displacing the coffee vessel or part thereof up and down (Figure 2-3, Tamping system is operated by a driving motor 191, where Plunger 16 holding coffee is displaced up toward the Squeeze Member 15).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Goeltenboth’s method where the water delivery moves down in the tamping process with Shih’s method where the coffee vessel moves upward during the tamping process (MPEP 2141.06).
Regarding Claim 3, Goeltenboth in view of Shih, Masciandaro, and Anderl teaches that the coffee vessel comprises a filter or filter basket (Goeltenboth: Figure 4a, Portafilter 11, contains Brewing Filter 17).
Regarding Claim 4, Goeltenboth in view of Shih, Masciandaro, and Anderl teaches that the coffee vessel further comprises a support in which the filter or the filter basket is housed (Goeltenboth: Figure 1, Chamber 15 houses Brewing Filter 17).
Regarding Claim 5, Goeltenboth in view of Masciandaro, and Anderl fails to teach a coffee vessel where the filter or the filter basket is displaced relative to the support, or the filter or the filter basket and the support are displaced together.
Shih teaches a coffee making apparatus (Col 1 Line 8-16, Coffee Making Apparatus) where the filter or the filter basket is displaced relative to the support, or the filter or the filter basket and the support are displaced together (Figure 1 and 3, Infusing Container 160 and Sifter Member 165 are both Displaced up).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Goeltenboth’s method where the water delivery moves down in the tamping process with Shih’s method where the coffee vessel moves upward during the tamping process (MPEP 2141.06).
Regarding Claim 6, Goeltenboth in view of Shih, Masciandaro, and Anderl teaches that the water delivery head comprises a water distribution disc, and optionally a filter (Goeltenboth: Figure 3, Distribution Filter 34 acts as a water distribution disc and is housed in Distribution Filter Element 33a).
Regarding Claim 7, Goeltenboth in view of Shih, Masciandaro, and Anderl teaches that the electric or hydraulic drive arrangement of the tamping system is an electric drive arrangement (Goeltenboth: Col 2 Line 46-53, Tamping System uses an electrically or hydraulically operating drive).
Regarding Claim 8, Goeltenboth in view of Shih, Masciandaro, and Anderl teaches that the tamping by the electric drive arrangement is position controlled (Goeltenboth: Col 2 Line 46-53, Tamping System uses an electrically operating drive to control the positions of components).
Regarding Claim 9, Goeltenboth in view of Shih, Masciandaro, and Anderl teaches that the water delivery system comprises a water pump (Goeltenboth: Col 3 Line 18-26 and Figure 1, Water delivery system uses Water Pump 31), and wherein the electric or hydraulic drive arrangement is a hydraulic drive arrangement which uses pressure delivered by the water pump (Goeltenboth: Col 3 Line 18-26 and Figure 1, Water from Boiler, which is hydraulically connected to Distribution Filter Element, is pushed out at required pressure by a pump).
Regarding Claim 10, Goeltenboth in view of Shih, Masciandaro, and Anderl teaches that the tamping by the hydraulic drive arrangement is pressure controlled (Goeltenboth: Col 6 Line 17-20, Controller 24 controls heating device in the Boiler 28, the Pump 31, the hydraulic Drive Unit 32 of the Distribution Filter Element 33, therefore, tamping is pressure is controlled).
Regarding Claim 11, Goeltenboth in view of Shih, Masciandaro, and Anderl teaches that the tamping system further comprises a passive valve for selecting between a tamping mode of the water pump and a water delivery mode of the water pump (Goeltenboth: Col 7 Line 50-60 and Figure 7, Distribution Filter Element 33e is moved downward for tamping and then Plunger 41 is moved upward from Distribution Filter Element 33e using Lever 45 for water delivery).
Regarding Claim 12, Goeltenboth in view of Shih, Masciandaro, and Anderl teaches that the coffee maker includes a coffee bean reservoir and a grinder having a ground coffee outlet (Goeltenboth: Figure 1, Coffee Bean Container 20, Grinder 21, and Chute 23).
Regarding Claim 15, Goeltenboth in view of Shih, Masciandaro, and Anderl teaches that the coffee maker include a controller, which is adapted to control at least one of the following: heating of water; grinding of coffee beans; dosing of the ground coffee to the coffee vessel; the displacement of the coffee vessel or part thereof relative to the water delivery head; and the delivery of the heated water (Goeltenboth: Col 6 Line 2-6 and 17-18, The Operating Unit 25 is used to start and stop the brewing process and for inputting parameters Like water quantity, cup size, beverage type which include heating the water).
Regarding Claim 16, Goeltenboth in view of Shih teaches that the tamping system further comprises a valve implemented as a mechanical lock which is actuated either by a separate handle, or by an action of attaching or detaching the coffee vessel (Goeltenboth: Col 5 Line 4-12, Lock 18 that locks Portafilter 11 into Holder 12 when its attached.).
Regarding Claim 17, Goeltenboth in view of Shih, Masciandaro, and Anderl teaches that the controller controls the water heater and a water pump of the water delivery system to perform coffee brewing process (Goeltenboth: Col 6 Line 2-6 and 17-18, The Operating Unit 25 is used to start and stop the brewing process and for inputting parameters Like water quantity, cup size, beverage type which include heating the water).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15th, 2026 have been fully considered. The applicant, on Page 5-8, argues that Goeltenboth in view of Shih, Masciandaro, and Anderl does not teach that coffee ground outlet is physical closed when the coffee vessel is in the second position but that prior arts states that the closure is done by either the coffee vessel or the electric or hydraulic drive arrangement, which reads as two alternative method of closure where one does not require the movement of the coffee vessel.
However, the combination of Goeltenboth, Shih, and Masciandaro with Anderl teaches that the electric arrangement physically closes the ground coffee outlet when the coffee vessel is in the second positions. Masciandaro teaches the first and second positions where the second position is when water is delivered for brewing, and Anderl teaches that the ground coffee outlet is physical closed during the brewing process. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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) 270-5569. 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.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights