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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 29 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rose does not disclose a regulating unit that forms a control loop for regulating a grinding degree of the grinder (pp. 10–11). This argument is unpersuasive, since Rose’s grind fineness setting detector 206 (described in ¶¶ 44 and 87), automatic adjustment wheel 102 (described in ¶ 43), and the server-based setting grind fineness setting (described in ¶ 90) clearly define a control loop.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in those arguments.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fineness adjustment device used in conjunction with the force generation device of claims 2 and 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6, 10, 14, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “a force generation device” (l. 3), but this limitation already has antecedent basis from claim 2 from which it depends, and should therefore employ the definite article.
Claim 6 recites that “the control loop further includes a fineness adjustment (7),” which, given the context of the amendment to the claim, clearly should be amended to recite “the control loop further includes a fineness adjustment device (7).”
Everything in claim 10 is already provided for in claim 1, except for the fineness adjustment device, which is separately provided in dependent claim 2 from which claim 10 depends. While duplicating some of the language from claim 1 is acceptable since the representation with the fineness adjustment device adds can be understood to provide clarity, the claim should reflect the antecedent basis provided for the terms from claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “a force generation device” (l. 17), but antecedent basis for this limitation is already provided for on line 5 of the claim, and therefore, the definite article should be used.
Claim 14 recites “the one server” (l. 19), which is a confusing presentation. It should simply recite “the server.”
Claim 16 recites “a server,” but antecedent basis for this limitation is already provided in claim 15, and therefore, the definite article should be used.
Claim 17 is objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2, 10, and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the fineness adjustment (7) . . . device” (l. 3). This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites “the sensor device” (l. 10), but this limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 10, 16, and 17 are rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–7, 9–12, and 14–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rose et al. (US Pub. 2018/0055288) in view of Hensel et al. (US Pub. 2021/0235934).
The applied reference Hensel has a common applicant and two common inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Comment: Certain claims provide for a fineness adjustment device (7) and/or a force generation device (7a). It’s the Office’s understanding that the force generation device comprises (under § 112(f)) the disclosed compression springs (or equivalent structure), while a fineness adjustment device (under § 112(f) is a structure that moves to adjust the grinding discs (when alone) or to adjust the springs (when used in conjunction with the force generation device). Therefore, Rose would disclose a fineness adjustment device, while Hensel discloses both a force generation device and a fineness adjustment device.
Claim 1: Rose discloses a grind size adjustment assembly comprising at least one coffee machine (90) having at least one grinder (100) for grinding coffee beans, wherein the at least one grinder comprises a first grinding element (201), a second grinding element (201; ¶ 42, “two complementary cones”) and a drive unit (208), the grinding unit being configured to rotatably drive at least one of the two grinding discs (see ¶ 45), as well as a control unit (209, 513), wherein the grind size adjustment assembly further comprises at least one server (501; see ¶ 66 and fig. 8) and the at least one grinder comprises at least one sensor device (206),
wherein the control unit has a regulating unit (part of control unit 209) and, together with the sensor device of the grinder, forms a control loop configured for regulating a grind size of the grinder (the grind fineness setting detector 206 would feed its sensor information to the regulating unit part of control unit 209, which would work with the automatic adjustment wheel 102 discussed in ¶ 43 to establish such a control unit), and
wherein the at least one server is designed in such a way that the at least one server transmits to the control unit predetermined data for the grinder (evident from ¶ 90 discussing the cloud service setting the value of the grind fineness setting).
Rose does not disclose its first and second grinding elements being discs, and instead discloses them as cones. Rose also does not disclose a force generation device.
However, Hensel discloses a similar apparatus with first and second grinding discs (2, 8), as well as a force generation device (15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the grinding cones of Rose with the grinding discs of Hensel, since it is well-known that disc grinders are more favored for grinding espresso coffee (while conical grinders can be favored for other coffee such as drip coffee). It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the force generation device of Hensel to the grinder of Rose given its advantages as described in Hensel, e.g. how it can compensate for grinding tool wear (¶ 89 of Hensel).
Claim 2: Rose modified by Hensel discloses that the sensor device forms or comprises at least one indication of a fineness adjustment and/or a force generation device of the grinder of the coffee machine (Rose: see the grind fineness detector 206 discussed in ¶ 44, and grind fineness adjustment wheel discussed in ¶¶ 43 and 44; this carries naturally to the combination with Hensel (see in particular the comment above)).
Claim 3: Rose discloses that the at least one server (15) is a service provider (cloud service 501; also evident from at least 503 and 508).
Claim 4: Rose discloses that the at least one server (15) is a higher-level control device (evident from its supervisory role) and is connected to the coffee machine via the control unit in a wired or/and wireless manner (wirelessly, see “Wi-fi Chip” in fig. 8 connected to the cloud service 501).
Comment: The Office understands “higher-level” along the lines of the five layer automation pyramid, and finds the limitation definite.
Claim 5: Rose discloses that the control unit is configured as an interface that transmits data from the sensor device to the at least one server (¶ 87, “getting the current values from each of the sensors in the sensing base and the grinder”) and receives data from the server (¶ 90, “reading the value of the grind fineness setting, and in some embodiments, setting the value of the grind fineness setting”).
Claim 6: Rose modified by Hensel discloses that the control loop further includes a fineness adjustment of the grinder (Rose: 206 in conjunction with the function described in ¶ 90; Hensel: 17; see also the comment above), and
wherein the at least one server is designed in such a way that the at least one server transmits to the control unit predetermined data for the fineness adjustment and the force generation device of the grinder (Rose: ¶ 90).
Claim 7: Rose discloses that the control unit is connected to the at least one server via a telemetry link (see “Wi-fi Chip” in fig. 8), wherein the grind size adjustment assembly forms a telemetric grind size adjustment assembly (evident from ¶ 90 discussing the cloud service setting the value of the grind fineness setting).
Claim 9: Rose discloses that the at least one server carries out monitoring of the grinder by means of the data received from the control unit (evident from ¶ 87; see also ¶ 144).
Claim 10: Rose discloses that the at least one server has a regulating unit and forms a control loop with the control unit, the sensor device and the fineness adjustment and/or the force generation device of the grinder for regulating a grind size of the grinder (as per ¶ 90, the server can set the value of the grind fineness setting, and given the way the control unit and sensor device deliver the current grind setting (as per ¶ 87), the regulating unit of the server would adjust the fineness adjustment feature of Rose via such a control loop to regulate the grind size of the grinder).
Claim 11: Rose does not explicitly disclose that the at least one coffee machine comprises at least two coffee machines, and that the at least one server is connected to the at least two coffee machines by means of the telemetry link and controls their respective grinders and evaluates their data.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how a server is meant to serve multiple interaction points, and would have found it obvious to have the server servicing other machines (especially the same type of machine) just as Rose’s server interacts with its coffee machine (and controls its grinder and data).
Claim 12: Rose discloses that the at least one server is arranged in a cloud (cloud service 501).
Claim 14: Rose discloses a method for adjusting the grind size of a grind size adjustment assembly (100) having a coffee machine (90) with a grinder (100) and a control unit (209, 513), comprising the method steps of
inputting a reference variable (target value) for a grind size of grinding tools (201) of the grinder of the coffee machine before operation or during operation of the grinder (see ¶ 43);
detecting forces and/or positions of the grinder by means of a sensor device (206), generating a corresponding indication signal of the force generation device (¶ 44, “The detector 206 can then communicate the setting to a controller,” where a signal is necessary and inherent); and
comparing the indication signal thus obtained with the reference variable (target value) or with a reference variable obtained from a server (see ¶ 90 discussing how a server 501 can set the value of the grind fineness setting), and setting the grinder of the coffee machine for adjusting the grind size of the grind size adjustment assembly (again, as per ¶ 90),
wherein the control unit has a regulating unit (part of 209) and, together with the sensor device and the grinder, forms a control loop configured for regulating the grind size of the grinder (the grind fineness setting detector 206 would feed its sensor information to the regulating unit part of control unit 209, which would work with the automatic adjustment wheel 102 discussed in ¶ 43 to establish such a control unit), and
wherein the one server is designed in such a way that the server transmits to the control unit predetermined data for the force generation device of the grinder (evident from ¶ 90 discussing the cloud service setting the value of the grind fineness setting).
Rose does not disclose a force generation device.
However, Hensel discloses a force generation device (15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the force generation device of Hensel to the grinder of Rose given its advantages as described in Hensel, e.g. how it can compensate for grinding tool wear (¶ 89 of Hensel).
Claim 15: Rose discloses a method for telemetrically adjusting a grind of a grind size adjustment assembly (90, 100) comprising a coffee machine (90) with at least one grinder (100) and a control unit (209, 513) comprising the method steps of
inputting a reference variable (target value) for a grind size of the grinder (100) before operation or during operation of the grinder into a regulating unit (part of 209) of the control unit or of the server (501) communicating with the control unit (209, 513) (¶ 90 at least makes clear that a reference variable for a grind size of the grinder would be input into a server; the disclosure as a whole makes clear that this would be before operation), wherein the regulating unit adjusts grinding tools (201) of the grinder via an actuating signal (see ¶ 43 discussing a devices that moves a grind fineness adjustment wheel 102);
detecting forces or/and positions of the grinder by means of a sensor device (206), generating a corresponding measuring signal and forwarding the measuring signal to the regulating unit (see ¶ 87 discussing sending sensor values to the cloud service 501); and
comparing the measuring signal thus obtained with the reference variable (target value) and forming a corresponding control signal for controlling the grind size of the grinder (discordance between the measured signal and the reference value would necessarily result in a control signal that would control the grind fineness adjustment wheel 102 as per ¶ 43),
wherein the regulating unit, together with the sensor device and the grinder, forms a control loop configured for regulating the grind size of the grinder (the grind fineness setting detector 206 would feed its sensor information to the regulating unit part of control unit 209, which would work with the automatic adjustment wheel 102 discussed in ¶ 43 to establish such a control unit), and
wherein the server is designed in such a way that the server transmits to the control unit predetermined data for the force generation device of the grinder (evident from ¶ 90 discussing the cloud service setting the value of the grind fineness setting).
Rose does not disclose a force generation device.
However, Hensel discloses a force generation device (15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the force generation device of Hensel to the grinder of Rose given its advantages as described in Hensel, e.g. how it can compensate for grinding tool wear (¶ 89 of Hensel).
Claim 16: Rose discloses that the measuring signal is transmitted by the control unit via a telemetry link (see fig. 8, “Wi-fi Chip”) to a server in a cloud (501), and wherein the server transmits the control signal via the telemetry link to the control unit (the disclosure is clear that this is how the signal would be transmitted; see the line between the “Wi-fi Chip” and cloud service 501 in fig. 8).
Claim 17: Rose discloses that the control unit transmits additionally detected parameters (e.g. via 401, 404, 406) to the server (evident from at least 506 and 507, as well as ¶ 87), wherein the server performs different evaluations from the values thus obtained (via 506 and 507), detected measuring signals and actuating signals (e.g. the freshness algorithm 506 works with the sensors (see e.g. ¶¶ 101–108 and table 1 below ¶ 110) to produce actuating signal of alerts to a user (see ¶ 113)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Li et al. (WO 2015/0143677 A1) discloses a grinder with a force generation device that is adjustable, but the grinder is designed for soybeans rather than coffee, and it does not disclose a sensor associated with said adjustability.
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 John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761