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 10 October, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, and 16 have overcome the originally set forth objections. (Delete if nothing is overcome). In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 10 October, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, and 16 have overcome the originally set forth objections: The examiner agrees. The previously set forth objections are overcome by the applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claim 1 overcome the originally set forth rejection in view of Star with the addition of the limitation “wherein the rotation of the compression ring (140) engages the plurality of diametrically opposed ribs (142) with the plurality of ears (310) and presses the portafilter (300) upward into sealing engagement with the group head assembly”: With regard to the amendment, the examiner agrees that Star does not read wholly read on the limitations of Claim 1 as amended. As a result, a revised rejection of Star in view of Landais is provided which addresses the limitations as amended.
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 1-4, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Star et al (US Pub No. 2011/0223302 A1) in view of Landais (US 5,463,933):
Regarding Claim 1: Star et al teaches an automatic portafilter clamping device for clamping a portafilter to a coffee machine comprising: a support ring (“receiver housing [0040] Figure 4 Element 32 serves as the support ring for the invention) connected to a group head assembly (See Figure 2) of the coffee machine (“beverage maker” Abstract); wherein the support ring comprises a groove (Figure 6 shows that the support ring of the prior art further comprises a groove) and a plurality of inner cuts (Figure 4 Elements 34 and 34’); a compression ring (The prior art discloses a “Showerhead” [0040] Figure 4 Element 40 which serves as the compression ring of the disclosed invention); wherein the compression ring comprises a plurality of diametrically opposed ribs disposed of in the inner periphery of the compression ring (Figure 4 shows that the compression ring comprises a plurality of diametrically opposed ribs disposed in the inner periphery of the of the compression ring): wherein the compression ring could be rotated to bring the compression ring in either a locked position or an unlocked position (“Broadly, the locking mechanism would include an unsealed/open/free position and a sealed/closed/ secure position” [0057] which reads on the limitations of the claim)
Wherein in the locked position, the plurality of diametrically opposed ribs of the compression ring at least substantially overlies on the plurality of inner cuts of the support ring such that the plurality of diametrically opposed ribs of the compression ring are sandwiching disposed between a plurality of ears (Figure 3 Elements 29 and 29’) of the portafilter and the plurality of inner cuts of the support ring (The prior art teaches that in the sealed/closed/ secure position” [0057], the diametrically opposed ribs of the compression ring (shown in Figure 4) such that at least substantially overlies on the plurality of inner cuts of the support ring (Figure 4 Elements 34 and 34’)such that the plurality of diametrically opposed ribs of the compression ring are sandwiching disposed between a plurality of ears of the portafilter and the plurality of inner cuts of the support ring (See Figure 4))
Wherein in the unlocked position, the plurality of diametrically opposed ribs of the compression ring are positioned apart from the plurality of inner cuts of the support ring (As described above, the invention of the prior art teaches that “with the locking mechanism disengaged [the] carrier member withdraws from the seal surface under gravitational force [0044]” As such, the opposed ribs of the compression ring do not overlie on the plurality of inner cuts in the unlocked position)
a rotation assembly (“Drive cam rotatably fixed in place via bearings or other structure so as to rotate” [0047] Figure 3 Element 52) configured to rotate the compression ring in the groove of the support ring (this limitation is interpreted as intended use and does not further limit the claim)
Star does not teach that the compression ring is configured to rotate relative to the support ring and that the rotation of the compression ring engages the plurality of diametrically opposed ribs with the plurality of ears and presses the portafilter upward into sealing engagement with the group head assembly; and a rotation assembly configured to rotate the compression ring in the groove of the support ring.
However, Landais does teach a “device for locking a filter carrier on an infusion head of a coffee maker” (Abstract) wherein the compression ring (“Upper Portion of the filter Carrier” Col 2 Line 2 Figure 1 Element 8) is configured to rotate (“movement of rotation” Col 2 Lines 4-5) relative to the support ring (Figure 1 Element 1) and that the rotation of the compression ring (“Upper Portion of the filter Carrier” Col 2 Line 2 Figure 1 Element 8) engages the plurality of diametrically opposed ribs (“abutment” Figure 1 Element 12 and “projection” Figure 1 Element 10) with the plurality of ears (“two diametrically opposed lugs” Col 2 Line 6) and presses the portafilter (“Filter Carrier” Col 2 Line 1 Figure 1 Element 3) upward into sealing engagement with the group head assembly (Figure 1 Element C) ;and a rotation assembly (Figure 1 Element 7) configured to rotate the compression ring (“Upper Portion of the filter Carrier” Col 2 Line 2 Figure 1 Element 8) in the groove (Figure 1 Element 11) of the support ring (Figure 1 Element 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Star with the rotational sealing mechanism of Landais in order to “permit the user to position the filter correctly” (Col 1 Line 29-30).
Regarding Claim 2: Star as modified by Landais further teaches that the coffee machine is an espresso machine (“The illustrated beverage maker is an expresso-type coffee maker” [0034] which reads on the limitations of the claims)
Regarding Claim 3: Star as modified by Landais further teaches that the support ring is detachably connected to the group head assembly through fasteners (the prior art teaches that “the receiver housing may be secured directly to the showerhead via fasteners [0040]”)
Regarding Claim 4: Star further teaches that the groove of the support ring is defined as radial space between an inner wall and an outer wall of the support ring (Figure 6 further shows that the groove of the support ring is defined as a radial space between an inner wall and outer wall of the support ring)
Regarding Claim 7: Star as modified by Landais further teaches that the rotation assembly is a manually driven handle (In the prior art, the rotation assembly is actuated when the “user actuates [a] lever” [0048] Figure 3 Element 50 which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as a handle).
Regarding Claim 8: Star as modified by Landais further teaches that the rotation assembly (“Drive cam rotatably fixed in place via bearings or other structure so as to rotate” [0047] Figure 3 Element 52) comprises a power transmission assembly (“actuated locking mechanism” [0010]) to transmit rotational power from the rotation assembly to the compression ring; wherein the power transmission assembly is a manual actuator (“lever actuated locking mechanism” [0010]).
Regarding Claim 13: Star as modified by Landais further teaches that the automatic portafilter clamping device further comprises a manual input interface to manually control the operation of the electronic control circuit of the automatic portafilter clamping device (The prior art teaches that the invention comprises a manual input interface shown in Figure 2 Element 16 “controls” operated by user [0034]).
Regarding Claim 14: Star as modified by Landais further teaches that the number of the plurality of diametrically opposed ribs (See Figure 3) of the compression ring, the number of the plurality of ears (Figure 3 Elements 29 and 29’) of the portafilter and the number of the plurality of inner cuts (Figure 4 Elements 34 and 34’) of the support ring are equal and is exactly two in number.
Claim 5-6, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Star et al (US Pub No. 2011/0223302 A1) and Landais (US 5,463,933) in further view of Merati (WO 2019/003147 A1):
Regarding Claim 5: Star as modified by Landais does not teach that the compression ring (140) comprises a ramp element
However, Merati does teach that a the automatic portafilter clamping device, wherein a plurality of diametrically opposed ribs of the compression ring comprises a ramp element (Figure 12 Element 24 shows a ramp element that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as an incline)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Star as modified by Landais with the limitations of Merati in order to better to facilitate lift up of the portafilter.
Regarding Claim 6: Star as modified by Landais does not teach that the rotation assembly comprises an electric motor.
However, Merati does teach that the rotation assembly comprises an electric motor (Page 10 Lines 22-25 “electric motor” Figure 12 Element 32a)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Star as modified by Landais with the limitations of Merati in order to mitigate the “malfunctions… due to mechanical rebounds or to collateral rigidity” (Page 3 Lines 1-7)
Regarding Claim 11: Star as modified by Landais does not teach that the electric motor comprises a motor control circuit that senses if the portafilter is clamped properly and then accordingly stops the electric motor.
However, Merati does teach that the electric motor comprises a motor control circuit that senses if the portafilter is clamped properly and then accordingly stops the electric motor ( The prior art teaches that the coffee maker includes “control electronics” Pg 4 Line 20-21 in which “the different electrical current absorptions of the electric actuator of the closing body caused by the production deviations, along with…sensors” Pg 4 Lines 10-16 result in the detection of the clamp of the portafilter and stopping the electric motor)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Star as modified by Landais with the limitations of Merati in order to sense if the portafilter is clamped properly and accordingly stop the electric motor.
Regarding Claim 12: Star as modified by Landais does not teach that the automatic portafilter clamping device comprises an electronic control circuit.
However, Merati does teach that the automatic portafilter clamping device comprises an electronic control circuit. (The prior art teaches that the coffee maker includes “control electronics” Pg 4 Line 20-21 in which “the different electrical current absorptions of the electric actuator of the closing body caused by the production deviations, along with…sensors” Pg 4 Lines 10-16 result in the detection of the clamp of the portafilter and stopping the electric motor)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Star as modified by Landais with the limitations of Merati in order to better control the device and sense if the portafilter is clamped properly and accordingly stop the electric motor.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Star et al (US Pub No. 2011/0223302 A1) and Landais (US 5,463,933) in further view of Kim (US Pub No. 2018/0168388 A1):
Regarding Claim 9: Star et al as modified by Landais does not teach that the automatic portafilter clamping device for a coffee maker comprises an optical sensor
However, Kim does teach that a coffee maker contains an “optical sensor” [0021-0022]
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify he invention of Star as modified by Landais with the limitation of Kim in order to improve the “detection” capacity of the invention [0021] an increase the efficiency of operation [0009]
Claims 10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Star et al (US Pub No. 2011/0223302 A1) in view of Chalk et al (US Pub No. 2015/0230652 A1):
Regarding Claim 10: Star et al as modified by Landais does not teach that the automatic portafilter clamping device comprises a push button
However, Chalk et al does teach that an automatic portafilter clamping device comprises a push button (“push button” Page 6 Claim 16 Lines 2-3)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Star as modified by Landais with the push-button of Chalk in order to cause the “latch” of the automatic portafilter device to “move between extracted and extended positions” [0057] as well as increase ease of use of the relevant mechanism.
Regarding Claim 15: Star et al as modified by Landais does not teach that the support ring is detachably connected to a bayonet ring
However, Chalk does teach a portafilter device in which the support ring is detachably (“interchangeably” [0034]) connected to a bayonet ring (“interlocking bayonet features” [0034])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Star as modified by Landais with the detachable bayonet feature of Chalk in order to “allow the use of interchangeable [components]” [0034].
Regarding Claim 16: Star et al as modified by Landais and Chalk further teaches that the bayonet ring (“interlocking bayonet features” [0034]) is retro-fittingly (“interchangeably” [0034]) installed in the coffee machine.
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