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 .
Examiner’s Note: The instant application was inherited from a previous Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2022 and 11/13/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 03/24/2026. Claims 91-110 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 91-92, 95, 99-103 have been amended; claims 1-90 cancelled; claims 104-110 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Specifically, Applicant(s)’ amendments to the Claims filed on 03/24/2026 have changed the scope of the claim; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. Accordingly, the newly cited prior art Durnan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0394841 A1, newly cited) has been added to this office action to teach the limitations “said control unit is configured to control said microwave oscillator and said bean-steerer in order to regulate the spatial position of said wave, according to data received from said sensing unit” and the newly added limitations “wherein said control unit is configured to generate at least one HU order comprising at least one target point, and wherein said data comprises at least one of: (i) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, (ii) the amount of energy absorbed by the beans, (iii) the amount of energy returned to the heat source, (iv) bean color, (v) bean size or (vi) bean shape” as recited in claim 91. Furthermore, the previously cited prior art Gharpurey et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0175262 A1, previously cited) is longer applied in any rejections in this office action. See detailed rejections in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
However, Examiner would like to note that in response to Applicant(s)’ arguments regarding the prior art of record Jacobsen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0295906 A1, previously cited), Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding independent claim 91, Applicant alleged that “Jacobsen does not disclose (i) a control unit that generates at least one heating-unit order comprising at least one target point, and (ii) regulating the spatial position of the microwave wave according to sensing data that includes VOC emissions and/or electromagnetic feedback such as the amount of energy absorbed by the beans and/or the amount of energy returned to the heat source, and/or visual roast-state cues such as bean color, bean size, and bean shape, as required by the amended claim.”, and Applicant further alleged about the combination of Jacobsen in view of Gharpurey – see details on pages 10-13 of the Remarks dated 03/24/2026, Examiner would like to note that Applicant(s)’ amendments to the Claims filed on 03/24/2026 have changed the scope of the claim; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. Accordingly, the newly cited prior art Durnan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0394841 A1, newly cited) has been added to this office action to teach the limitations “said control unit is configured to control said microwave oscillator and said bean-steerer in order to regulate the spatial position of said wave, according to data received from said sensing unit” and the newly added limitations “wherein said control unit is configured to generate at least one HU order comprising at least one target point, and wherein said data comprises at least one of: (i) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, (ii) the amount of energy absorbed by the beans, (iii) the amount of energy returned to the heat source, (iv) bean color, (v) bean size or (vi) bean shape” as recited in claim 91. Furthermore, the previously cited prior art Gharpurey et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0175262 A1, previously cited) is longer applied in any rejections in this office action. Accordingly, Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 03/24/2026 regarding the independent claim 91 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. See detailed rejections in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Regarding dependent claims 92 & 96-103, Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims 92, 96-103 – see details on pages 13-15 of the Remarks dated 03/24/2026, are the same as those provided for the independent claim 91, specifically, Applicant alleged about the previously cited prior art Gharpurey, and Applicant also alleged that the prior art of record Jacobsen does not teach the newly added limitations “wherein said control unit is configured to generate at least one HU order comprising at least one target point, and wherein said data comprises at least one of: (i) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, (ii) the amount of energy absorbed by the beans, (iii) the amount of energy returned to the heat source, (iv) bean color, (v) bean size or (vi) bean shape” as recited in claim 91. Examiner would like to note that Applicant(s)’ amendments to the Claims filed on 03/24/2026 have changed the scope of the claim; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. Accordingly, the newly cited prior art Durnan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0394841 A1, newly cited) has been added to this office action to teach the limitations “said control unit is configured to control said microwave oscillator and said bean-steerer in order to regulate the spatial position of said wave, according to data received from said sensing unit” and the newly added limitations “wherein said control unit is configured to generate at least one HU order comprising at least one target point, and wherein said data comprises at least one of: (i) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, (ii) the amount of energy absorbed by the beans, (iii) the amount of energy returned to the heat source, (iv) bean color, (v) bean size or (vi) bean shape” as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, the previously cited prior art Gharpurey et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0175262 A1, previously cited) is longer applied in any rejections in this office action. Accordingly, Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 03/24/2026 regarding dependent claims 92 & 96-103 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. See detailed rejections in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Regarding dependent claims 94-95, Applicant alleged that the prior art Jacobsen does not teach the limitations “wherein said beam-steerer is characterized as a deflector” as recited in claim 94, and “wherein said deflector is characterized by at least one of the following: a. said deflector is motorized; b. said deflector is controlled by said CU; c. said deflector is constructed from a food-grade metal.” as cited in claim 95 – see details on pages 13-14 of the Remarks dated 03/24/2026. Examiner would like to note that Applicant(s)’ amendments to the Claims filed on 03/24/2026 have changed the scope of the claim; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. Accordingly, the recited limitations in claims 94-95 are now taught by the newly added prior art Durnan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0394841 A1, newly cited). Accordingly, Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 03/24/2026 regarding dependent claims 94-95 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. See detailed rejections in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: AN ON-SITE COFFEE ROASTING SYSTEM.
Claim Objections
Claims 91-103 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 91 recites number following claimed limitation several time in lines 1-7. To be specific: “The coffee roaster 100”, “a resonant cavity 11”, “heating unit (HU) 13”, “sensing unit (SU) 14”, and “control unit (CU) 15”. The number at the end of each limitation should be removed.
Claim 91 recites the limitation “said bean-steerer” in lines 8-9. It is understood that the limitation “bean-steerer” herein refers to the limitation “beam-steerer” recited previously in claim 91 (line 5). Therefore, the limitation “said bean-steerer” recited in claim 91 (lines 8-9) should be changed to “said beam-steerer”.
Claim 91 recites the limitation “the spatial position” in line 9. Since this is the first time this limitation is recited, it should be changed to “a spatial position”.
Claim 91 recites the limitation “said wave” in line 9. Since this is the first time this limitation is recited, it should be changed to “a wave” or “a wave generated by the heating unit”.
Claim 91 recites the limitation “the amount of energy absorbed by the beans” in line 13. Since this is the first time the limitation “amount of energy absorbed” and “beans” are recited, the limitation “the amount of energy absorbed by the beans” should be changed to “[[the]] an amount of energy absorbed by [[the]] beans”.
Claim 91 recites the limitation “the amount of energy returned to the heat source” in lines 13-14. Since this is the first time the limitation “amount of energy returned” is recited, and it is understood that the limitation “the heat source” refers to the “heating unit” recited previously in claim 91 (line 3); therefore, the limitation “the amount of energy returned to the heat source” should be changed to “[[the]] an amount of energy returned to the [[heat source]] heating unit”.
Claims 92-103 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 91.
Claims 92-103 recite “The roaster” in line 1. This should be changed to “The coffee roaster” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 91 (line 1).
Claim 93 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 92.
Claim 95 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 94.
Claim 98 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 97.
Claim 100 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 99.
Claim 102 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 101.
Claim 92 is objected because it contains 3 periods (lines 4, 6, 7). The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. MPEP 608.01m “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.”.
Claim 92 recites the limitation “the power state and power output” in line 5. Since this is the first time this limitation is recited, it should be changed to “a power state and a power output”.
Claim 92 recites the limitation “the standing wave appearance” in line 7. Since this is the first time this limitation is recited, it should be changed to “a standing wave appearance”.
Claim 93 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 92.
Claim 93 recites the limitation “said wave appearance” in lines 1-2. This should be changed to “the standing wave appearance” or “said standing wave appearance” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 92 (line 7).
Claim 97 is objected because it contains 2 periods (lines 14, 17). The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. MPEP 608.01m “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.”.
Claim 97 recites the limitation “the cavity” in lines 5 and 6. This should be changed to “the resonant cavity” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 91 (line 2).
Claim 97 recites the limitation “the amount of energy not absorbed by said beans” in line 13. Since this is the first time the limitation “amount of energy not absorbed” is recited, the limitation “the amount of energy not absorbed by said beans” should be changed to “[[the]] an amount of energy not absorbed by said beans”.
Claim 97 recites the limitation “the heat source” in line 14. It is understood that the limitation “the heat source” refers to the “heating unit” recited previously in claim 91 (line 3); therefore, the limitation “the heat source” should be changed to “the heating unit”.
Claim 98 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 97.
Claim 98 recites the limitation “said s sensing unit” in line 1. This should be changed to “said [[s]] sensing unit”.
Claim 99 recites the limitation “said orders” in line 4. This should be changed to “said order” or “said at least one HU order”.
Claim 100 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 99.
Claim 100 stated “(Currently Amended)”, however, the claim appears to have not been amended. See 37 CFR 1.121(c).
Claim 102 recites the limitation “the temperature range” in lines 1-2. Since this is the first time the limitation “temperature range” is recited, it should be changed to “a temperature range”.
Claim 103 recites the limitation “said system” in line 1; however, there is no system recited previously in claim 103 or claim 91. Since claim 103 depends directly on claim 91, it is understood that the limitation “said system” recited in claim 103 (line 1) refers to the “coffee roaster” recited in claim 91 (line 1). Therefore, the limitation “said system” should be changed to “said coffee roaster” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 91 (line 1).
Claim 103 recites the limitation “an external system, grinder, coffee brewer, or container” in line 4. Since this limitation was recited previously in claim 103 (line 3), the limitation “an external system, grinder, coffee brewer, or container” recited in claim 103 (line 4) should be changed to “[[an]] the external system, grinder, coffee brewer, or container”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“sensing unit” in claim 91 (lines 6, 10) and claim 99 (line 3). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “sensing” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “sensing unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “sensing unit” will be interpreted as “thermal imaging, fiber optic based thermal sensing, image sensor, camera, spectroscopic sensor, microphone, chemical detector, or microwave receiver” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 5 lines 5-7: “the sensing unit comprises at least one detection system selected from a group consisting of thermal imaging, fiber optic based thermal sensing, image sensor, camera, spectroscopic sensor, microphone, chemical detector and microwave receiver”.
“control unit” in claim 91 (line 7): “control unit is configured to control said microwave oscillator and said bean-steerer in order to regulate the spatial position of said wave, according to data received from said sensing unit” in claim 91 (lines 8-10), “control unit is configured to generate at least one HU order comprising at least one target point, and wherein said data comprises at least one of: (i) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, (ii) the amount of energy absorbed by the beans, (iii) the amount of energy returned to the heat source, (iv) bean color, (v) bean size or (vi) bean shape” in claim 91 (lines 11-15), “control unit is configured according to at least one of the following: a. to receive data from said sensing unit and regulate said heating unit; b. to generate at least one HU order, said orders selected from a group consisting of brewing recipes and roasting profiles; c. to generate at least one HU order, said order comprising at least one target point” in claim 99 (lines 1-7). These limitations use generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to control said microwave oscillator and said bean-steerer in order to regulate the spatial position of said wave, according to data received from said sensing unit” & “configured to generate at least one HU order comprising at least one target point, and wherein said data comprises at least one of: (i) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, (ii) the amount of energy absorbed by the beans, (iii) the amount of energy returned to the heat source, (iv) bean color, (v) bean size or (vi) bean shape” in claim 91, and “configured according to at least one of the following: a. to receive data from said sensing unit and regulate said heating unit; b. to generate at least one HU order, said orders selected from a group consisting of brewing recipes and roasting profiles; c. to generate at least one HU order, said order comprising at least one target point” in claim 99 (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is noted that the Specification and Drawings of the Instant Application do not provide description to define structure of the control unit. However, one ordinary skill in the art would understand the “control unit” is controller and equivalents.
“system for generating a flow of air” in claim 101 (line 2). This limitation uses generic placeholder “system” (Prong A); the term “system” is modified by functional language “for generating a flow of air” (Prong B); and the term “system” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “system” will be interpreted as “fan” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 26 line 10: “The chamber is cooled by a fan 47”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 97-100 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.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 03/24/2026 have created 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as follows.
Claim 97 is unclear because claim 97 depends on claim 91 and recites that “said sensing unit is characterized according to at least one of the following: a. configured to detect at least one parameter, selected from a group consisting of: i. bean temperature; ii. radiated heat within the cavity; iii. ambient temperature within the cavity; iv. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) emissions; v. bean color; vi. bean size; vii. bean shape; viii. sound; ix. the amount of energy absorbed by the beans; x. the amount of energy not absorbed by said beans; and xi. the amount of energy returned to the heat source” in lines 1-14 of claim 97. However, claim 91 requires the control unit to regulate the spatial position of the wave “according to data received from said sensing unit”, and “wherein said data comprises at least one of: (i) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, (ii) the amount of energy absorbed by the beans, (iii) the amount of energy returned to the heat source, (iv) bean color, (v) bean size or (vi) bean shape”. It is unclear how the scope of claim 97 is to be construed when “sound” is the at least one parameter detected by the sensing unit, because “sound” is not included among the type of “said data” recited in claim 91. In particular, it is unclear whether the detected sound itself constitutes the “data” according to which the control unit regulates the spatial position of the wave, or whether the sensing unit must additionally provide one of the date types expressly recited in claim 91. The claim does not recite any relationship which detected sound is converted into, used to determine, or otherwise provides volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, the amount of energy absorbed by the beans, the amount of energy returned to the heat source, bean color, bean size or bean shape. Moreover, the Specification of the Instant Application treats sound as a separate sensing parameter from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, the amount of energy absorbed by the beans, the amount of energy returned to the heat source, bean color, bean size and bean shape, and describes monitoring sound as monitoring the cracking sound produced by the beans during roasting. Accordingly, claim 97 is unclear when “sound” is selected as the detected parameter.
Claim 98 is rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 97.
Claim 99 recites “said control unit is configured according to at least one of the following: a. to receive data from said sensing unit and regulate said heating unit; b. to generate at least one HU order, said orders selected from a group consisting of brewing recipes and roasting profiles; c. to generate at least one HU order, said order comprising at least one target point.” in lines 1-7. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 99 depends on claim 91; however, claim 91 already recites “said control unit is configured to generate at least one HU order comprising at least one target point” previously in lines 11-12 of claim 91. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the “at least one HU order” recited in the alternatives (b) and (c) of claim 99 refers to the same HU order recited in claim 91, or an additional HU order different from the HU order recited in claim 91, or something else. For example, when alternative (b) is selected, it is unclear whether the HU order selected from a brewing recipe or roasting profile must be the same Hu order that comprises at least one target point as required by claim 91, or whether the control unit may generate a first HU order comprising a target point to satisfy claim 91 and a separate HU order selected from a brewing recipe or roasting profile to satisfy claim 99. These constructions result in different scopes of the claimed subject matter. Further, alternative (c) substantially repeats the requirement of claim 91 that the control generate at least one HU order comprising at least one target point, without specifying what additional limitation, if any, is imposed on the HU order already required by claim 91. Additionally, it is also unclear if the alternative (c) at least one HU order is the same as the claim 91 at least one HU order, or an additional HU order. Therefore, the relationship between the HU order(s) recited in dependent claim 99 and the HU order recited in the independent claim 91 is unclear.
Claim 100 is rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 99.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 91-103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0295906 A1, previously cited) in view of Durnan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0394841 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 91, Jacobsen discloses a coffee roaster 100 (bean roasting system 100, Jacobsen Fig.2) (Jacobsen Par.0097 discloses: “The present invention employs focused microwaves as a means of creating high intensity microwave energy for rapid high-temperature roasting of coffee beans.”), comprising:
a resonant cavity 11 (microwave cavity 128, Jacobsen Fig.2);
a heating unit (HU) 13 (heating unit includes the microwave energy emitter 114 [Jacobsen Fig.2] and phase shifters [Jacobsen Par.0108]), comprising:
at least one microwave oscillator (microwave energy emitter 114, Jacobsen Fig.2);
at least one beam-steerer (“phase shifters”, Jacobsen Par.0108);
a sensing unit (SU) 14 (Jacobsen discloses the bean roasting system 100 comprises a sensing unit because Jacobsen Par.0138 discloses: “The microwave devices of the present invention may also include any one of numerous sensory inputs that regulate the flow of coffee beans into the roasting chamber, the rate of airflow, the degree of preheating, etc. For example, the present invention contemplates the use of a microphone roast detector for sensing the sound created by the roasting bean and/or the frequency of the noise of roasting, coupled with the bean flow metering unit that dispenses additional quantities of coffee when the roasting ceases or the frequency of roasting falls below a selected threshold. In addition, such inputs may include sudden increased airflow to clean passageways of un-roasted beans or roasted beans that may occasionally adhere to surfaces.”); and
a control unit (CU) 15 (“control system”, Jacobsen Par.0049);
said control unit (“control system”, Jacobsen Par.0049) is configured to control said microwave oscillator (microwave energy emitter 114, Jacobsen Fig.2) and said bean-steerer [see the claim objections above for the limitation “bean-steerer”, in this case, the “bean-steerer” will be interpreted as beam-steerer as recited previously in claim 90] (“phase shifters”, Jacobsen Par.0108), according to data received from said sensing unit (Jacobsen Par.0049 discloses: “Such microwave chips may be arranged in an array to provide sufficient microwave energy for roasting the beans. In addition, because such the microwave chips are capable of emitting microwaves at various frequencies and energies, a control system may be employed to vary the microwave energy being emitted from the microwave chips to control roasting at various stages of the roasting process. For example, the microwave energy from the chips can be varied during the roasting process so that the beans are roasted at different microwave energies at different stated of roasting.” and according to the disclosure of Jabobsen in Pars.0108, 0137-0138, Jabobsen discloses control unit is configured to control said microwave oscillator and said beam-steerer, according to data received from said sensing unit);
Jacobsen does not explicitly disclose:
said control unit is configured to control said microwave oscillator and said bean-steerer in order to regulate the spatial position of said wave, according to data received from said sensing unit;
wherein said control unit is configured to generate at least one HU order comprising at least one target point, and wherein said data comprises at least one of: (i) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, (ii) the amount of energy absorbed by the beans, (iii) the amount of energy returned to the heat source, (iv) bean color, (v) bean size or (vi) bean shape.
Durnan teaches a microwave system (microwave cooking system 700, Durnan Fig.7) comprising a control unit (controller 760, Durnan Fig.7):
said control unit (controller 760, Durnan Fig.7) is configured to control said microwave oscillator (RF signal generator 810, Durnan Fig.8 & Par.0038) (Durnan Par.0038 teaches: “The RF signal generator 810 is configured to produce an RF signal at a desired frequency (e.g., in a range of 2.4-2.5 GHz, or some other range)”) (Durnan Par.0037 teaches: “FIG. 8 illustrates a schematic drawing of a synthesizer 800 (e.g., synthesizer 740, FIG. 7)”, and Durnan Fig.7 shows the controller 760 controls the synthesizer including the RF signal generator 810) and said bean-steerer [see the claim objections above for the limitation “bean-steerer”, in this case, the “bean-steerer” will be interpreted as beam-steerer as recited previously in claim 90] (in this case, the beam-steerer incudes phased array 730 with two elements 732, 733 and multi-channel variable attenuator and variable phase controller 830, Durnan Figs.7-8) in order to regulate the spatial position of said wave (Durnan Par.0039 teaches: “a variable attenuator and variable phase controller 830 applies a desired attenuation and/or a desired phase shift to the corresponding RF signal, which ultimately facilitates steering the electromagnetic energy within the cavity in a desired manner. Solid state power amplifier 840, which may be a single-stage amplifier or a multiple-stage amplifier (as shown), amplifies the corresponding RF signal produced by the controller 830. Detector 850 detects the forward and reverse RF signal along each channel 821, 822. Finally, an RF signal is produced along each channel 821, 822 at outputs 860, 862, each of which is coupled to a different element (e.g., elements 732, 733, FIG. 7) within the phased array (e.g., phased array 730, FIG. 7)”), according to data received from said sensing unit (cameras 720, 721 (e.g., optical and/or IR cameras), Durnan Fig.7 & Par.0032) (Durnan Pars.0042-0044 disclose the controller 760 is configured to control the microwave oscillator and the beam-steerer in order to regulate the spatial position of said wave, according to data received from cameras 720, 721. Specifically, Durnan Par.0042 teaches: “In block 904, which may be performed before, after, or simultaneously with block 902, one or more IR cameras (e.g., camera 720, FIG. 7) are used to collect thermal images, and the images are used (e.g., by controller 760, FIG. 7) to produce a map of the position of RF power (the E field mode position) in the cavity at an instance of time. In other words, the positions of the E field maximums also are mapped via the use of a thermal camera directed at the food load.”, Durnan Par.0043 teaches: “one or more optical cameras (e.g., camera 721, FIG. 7) also are used to collect optical images of the food load, which may be analyzed (e.g., by controller 760) using optical recognition algorithms to determine food load condition (e.g., browning, etc.), food load shape, and/or food load volume, as discussed previously.”, and Durnan Par.0044 teaches: “More particularly, food load shape recognition information is used (e.g., by controller 760) to select E field data from IR and return loss mapping activities in order to determine cooking heat profiles that impinge the food load via variable time division multiplexing. The combination of E field modes via variable time division multiplexing allows for the food load to be cooked in a desired heat pattern. Essentially, the process may involve steering (or shaping) the RF power using the phased array to produce a desired heating profile within the cavity. For example, the desired heating profile may correspond with the shape of the food load.”);
wherein said control unit (controller 760, Durnan Fig.7) is configured to generate at least one HU order comprising at least one target point (Durnan Pars.0042-0045 teaches the controller 760 selecting frequency/phase operating modes that direct the electromagnetic energy (RF power) to a particular location in the cavity 710 or on/within the food load 712.), and wherein said data comprises at least one of: (i) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, (ii) the amount of energy absorbed by the beans, (iii) the amount of energy returned to the heat source, (iv) bean color, (v) bean size or (vi) bean shape (It is noted that the limitation “at least one of: (i) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, (ii) the amount of energy absorbed by the beans, (iii) the amount of energy returned to the heat source, (iv) bean color, (v) bean size or (vi) bean shape” is in alternative form; therefore, only of these was required during examination. In this case, Durnan Pars.0043-0044 teach said data comprises food shape. Therefore, in combination, the food is bean, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches said data comprises bean shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coffee roaster of Jacobsen, by adding the teachings of said control unit is configured to control said microwave oscillator and said beam-steerer in order to regulate the spatial position of said wave, according to data received from said sensing unit; wherein said control unit is configured to generate at least one HU order comprising at least one target point, and wherein said data comprises bean shape, as taught by Durnan, in order to enable the controller to regulate the spatial position of microwave energy based on sensed bean characteristics, thereby improving roasting uniformity, reducing localized overheating and under-roasting, and providing adaptive control for different bean sizes and shapes.
Regarding claim 92, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 91, and also teaches additionally characterized according to at least one of the following (it is noted that the claim only requires one of the following):
said microwave oscillator is characterized as a phase locked generator, a magnetron or as solid-state.
the power state and power output of said microwave oscillator are controlled by said CU.
said beam-steerer (the beam-steerer incudes phased array 730 with two elements 732, 733 and multi-channel variable attenuator and variable phase controller 830, Durnan Figs.7-8, as explained, cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 91 above) is configured to change the standing wave appearance (Durnan teaches beam-steerer is configured to change the standing wave appearance because Durnan Par.0039 teaches: “a variable attenuator and variable phase controller 830 applies a desired attenuation and/or a desired phase shift to the corresponding RF signal, which ultimately facilitates steering the electromagnetic energy within the cavity in a desired manner. Solid state power amplifier 840, which may be a single-stage amplifier or a multiple-stage amplifier (as shown), amplifies the corresponding RF signal produced by the controller 830. Detector 850 detects the forward and reverse RF signal along each channel 821, 822. Finally, an RF signal is produced along each channel 821, 822 at outputs 860, 862, each of which is coupled to a different element (e.g., elements 732, 733, FIG. 7) within the phased array (e.g., phased array 730, FIG. 7)”, Durnan Par.0044 teaches: “More particularly, food load shape recognition information is used (e.g., by controller 760) to select E field data from IR and return loss mapping activities in order to determine cooking heat profiles that impinge the food load via variable time division multiplexing. The combination of E field modes via variable time division multiplexing allows for the food load to be cooked in a desired heat pattern. Essentially, the process may involve steering (or shaping) the RF power using the phased array to produce a desired heating profile within the cavity. For example, the desired heating profile may correspond with the shape of the food load.”, and Durnan Par.0045 teaches selecting frequency/phase combination that leads to directing the electromagnetic energy (RF power) to a particular location in the cavity 710 or on/within the food load 712).
Regarding claim 93, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 92, and also teaches wherein said change in said wave appearance (as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 92 above) is characterized by at least one of the following:
wave path;
wave phase (It is noted that claim 93 requires at least one; in this case, Durnan teaches wave phase because Durnan Par.0039 teaches: “a variable attenuator and variable phase controller 830 applies a desired attenuation and/or a desired phase shift to the corresponding RF signal, which ultimately facilitates steering the electromagnetic energy within the cavity in a desired manner.”.);
wave frequency.
Regarding claim 94, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 91, and also teaches
wherein said beam-steerer (the beam-steerer incudes phased array 730 with two elements 732, 733 and multi-channel variable attenuator and variable phase controller 830, Durnan Figs.7-8, as explained, cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 91 above) is characterized as a deflector (Durnan Par.0039 teaches: “variable attenuator and variable phase controller 830 applies a desired attenuation and/or a desired phase shift to the corresponding RF signal, which ultimately facilitates steering the electromagnetic energy within the cavity in a desired manner”; thus, the beam-steerer includes phased array 730 with two elements 732, 733 and the variable attenuator and variable phase controller 830 change the direction (spatial position) of the microwave beam by changing the phase of the RF signals, thereby deflecting the microwave energy to different locations within the cavity; accordingly, the beam-steerer is characterized as a deflector.).
Regarding claim 95, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 94, and also teaches wherein said deflector (the beam-steerer incudes phased array 730 with two elements 732, 733 and multi-channel variable attenuator and variable phase controller 830 is characterized as a deflector, Durnan Figs.7-8, as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 94 above) is characterized by at least one of the following:
said deflector is motorized;
said deflector (the beam-steerer incudes phased array 730 with two elements 732, 733 and multi-channel variable attenuator and variable phase controller 830 is characterized as a deflector, Durnan Figs.7-8, as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 94 above) is controlled by said CU (controller 760, Durnan Fig.7) (It is noted that claim 95 requires at least one from the list; in this case, the deflector is controlled by the control unit because Durnan Fig.7 shows the controller 760 causes the synthesizer 740 (including phase controller 830) to implement the selected phase/frequency conditions, and it is further noted that Durnan Fig.7 & Pars.0032-0035, 0042-0044 teach the controller 760 controls overall microwave cooking system, including the phased-array operation.);
said deflector is constructed from a food-grade metal.
Regarding claim 96, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 91, Jacobsen also discloses additionally comprising at least one of the following:
an antenna, connected to said microwave oscillator;
a waveguide (waveguide 126, Jacobsen Fig.2), connected to said microwave oscillator (microwave energy emitter 114, Jacobsen Fig.2) (It is noted that claim 96 requires at least one from the list. In this case, Jacobsen discloses the waveguide 126 connected to the microwave energy emitters 114 because Jacobsen Par.0094 discloses: “microwave energy emitters comprise a magnetron 122 for generating microwaves and a magnetron antenna 124 disposed within a waveguide 126.”).
Regarding claim 97, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 91, and also teaches wherein said sensing unit (sensing unit of Jacobsen in view of Durnan, as explained, cited, and incorporated in the rejection of claim 91 above) is characterized according to at least one of the following:
configured to detect at least one parameter, selected from a group consisting of:
bean temperature;
radiated heat within the cavity;
ambient temperature within the cavity;
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) emissions;
bean color;
bean size;
bean shape (It is noted that claim 97 is in alternative form and requires only one from the list. In this case, Durnan Pars.0043-0044 teach said data comprises food shape. Therefore, in combination, the food is bean, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches said data comprises bean shape, as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of claim 91 above.);
sound;
the amount of energy absorbed by the beans;
the amount of energy not absorbed by said beans; and
the amount of energy returned to the heat source.
comprises at least one detection system selected from a group consisting of thermal imaging, fiber optic based thermal sensing, image sensor, camera, spectroscopic sensor, microphone, chemical detector and microwave receiver (It is noted that claim 97 requires “at least one of the following”, in this case, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches said data comprises bean shape, as explained above. Furthermore, Durnan teaches cameras 720 & 721, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 91 above.).
Regarding claim 98, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 97, Jacobsen also discloses wherein said sensing unit is characterized by at least one of the following:
said spectroscopic sensor is selected from a group consisting of Infra-red and Ultraviolet based technologies;
said microphone is configured to detect a sound produced by said beans during roasting (It is noted that the claim 98 requires at least one; in this case, Jacobsen Pars.0137-0138 teaches microphone is configured to detect a sound produced by said beans during roasting).
Regarding claim 99, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 91, and also teaches wherein said control unit is configured according to at least one of the following:
to receive data from said sensing unit and regulate said heating unit;
to generate at least one HU order, said orders selected from a group consisting of brewing recipes and roasting profiles;
to generate at least one HU order, said order comprising at least one target point (It is noted that the claim 99 requires at least one; in this case, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches the control unit is configured to generate at least one HU order, said order comprising at least one target point, as explained, cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 91 above.).
Regarding claim 100, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 99, and also teaches
wherein said target point is selected from a group consisting of bean temperature, cavity temperature, bean color, energy generated, energy absorbed, bean shape, bean sound, wave position, wave energy, wave power, antenna position, wave phase and VOC emissions (It is noted that the limitation “said target point is selected from a group consisting of bean temperature, cavity temperature, bean color, energy generated, energy absorbed, bean shape, bean sound, wave position, wave energy, wave power, antenna position, wave phase and VOC emissions” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches wave phase and wave position because Durnan Pars.0042-0045 teaches the controller 760 selecting frequency/phase operating modes that direct the electromagnetic energy (RF power) to a particular location in the cavity 710 or on/within the food load 712.).
Regarding claim 101, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 91, Jacobsen also discloses
additionally comprising a system (“air blower”, Jacobsen Par.0032) for generating a flow of air (Jacobsen Par.0032 discloses: “the apparatus comprises an airflow input and an airflow outlet and the air blower causes airflow to pass in the airflow input, through the roasting chamber, and out of the airflow outlet.”).
Regarding claim 102, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 101, Jacobsen also discloses
wherein said air is in the temperature range of -10°C to +300°C (Jacobsen Par.0032 discloses: “the apparatus comprises an airflow input and an airflow outlet and the air blower causes airflow to pass in the airflow input, through the roasting chamber, and out of the airflow outlet.”, and Jacobsen Par.0036 discloses: “The air being blown into the airflow chamber may, for example, above ambient room temperature of about 20° C. up to about 245° C.”).
Regarding claim 103, Jacobsen in view of Durnan teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 91, Jacobsen also discloses wherein said system is configured to:
be attached to an existing or external system, grinder, coffee brewer, or container (Jacobsen Fig.8 discloses the system is attached to grinder);
feed roasted beans to an external system, grinder, coffee brewer, or container (Jacobsen Fig.8 & Par.0144 discloses feed roasted beans to grinder, specifically, Jacobsen Par.0144 discloses: “Raw coffee beans 422 enter the coffee roasting device 421 (configured similarly to the roasting device shown and described in FIG. 7). Once roasted, the roasted coffee beans are dispensed to the grinding mills 424, where the coffee is finely ground and then discharged to the left into the ground coffee collection chamber 440.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coffee roaster of Jacobsen Embodiment of Fig.2 in view of Durnan, by adding the teachings of said system is configured to be attached to grinder, and feed roasted beans to grinder, as taught by Jacobsen Embodiment of Fig.8, in order to provide an integrated coffee preparation system that minimizes time between roasting and grinding, preserves the freshness and aroma of the roasted coffee beans, reduces manual handling of the beans, and improves the efficiency and convenience of coffee preparation.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Gard et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0034350 A1) discloses a microwave oven capable of batch roasting low-moisture units of foods, which are considered to be food items with less than 20% water content, such as coffee beans.
Lima et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0136760 A1) discloses a microwave oven including a housing and a plurality of solid state microwave generating cells carried by the housing. Each cell may include a microwave transmitting antenna to transmit electromagnetic (EM) energy in the microwave spectrum into the oven cavity at the material to be heated, and a respective phase shifter configured to alter a pattern of the EM energy transmitted by the antenna. A processor is configured to receive feedback from at least one feedback circuit based upon the EM radiation not absorbed by the material to be heated, and control the phase shifters of the plurality of beamforming cells to change the patterns of EM energy transmitted by the antennas based upon the feedback received from the at least one feedback circuit.
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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 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, 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 08/07/2026
Prosecution Insights