DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's preliminary amendment filed on 9/23/2022, and response to the Pre-Exam Formalities Notice filed on 9/5/2023 have been entered. The specification and claims 1-22 have been amended. Claims 1-22 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 15 being independent.
Drawings
The substitute drawings filed 9/5/2023 are objected to because of:
minor informalities in fig. 1 [see extraneous character above “(FS)” and reference character “(10” missing a closed parenthesis]
solid black coloring in figures 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16 [see MPEP Appendix T(11.13)(a); Examiner acknowledges that the original drawings filed on 9/23/2022 contains amended figures 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16 which address this issue, however the figures had not been indicated as being amended or with “Replacement Sheet”]
Reference characters obscured by lines and solid black coloring in figure 5 [see reference characters (E), (91), (10), (4, II), and (92) interfered by lines and solid black shading, with regards to original drawings filed on 9/23/2022; see MPEP Appendix T(11.13)(e)]
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of at least the following informalities: “vide” on p. 10, “so that provides” at least on p. 4, 10, “so that can collect” at least on p. 18, including other instances of “that can”, e.g., see claim objections/112b rejections below. Appropriate correction is required. The specification/claims are replete with similar grammatical and idiomatic errors and fails to conform with current U.S. practice, and Examiner respectfully requests Applicant to correct any other informalities that become apparent during prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities, appropriate correction is required [see Claim Interpretation wherein corresponding Examiner interpretations of each claim is shown]:
Claim 1:
“a recipient placement disposition (2) adapted so that provides operative placement of at least one type of drinking recipient (10, 10') so that can collect edible product from a product discharge (21 ), in particular a product discharge (21) provided so that the edible product can be discharge along a direction opposite to the gravity force”
“control means (6) adapted so that can control at least the fluid circulation on the apparatus (1)”
“preferentially further presenting portion supply means, such as for example an entry passageway (8) of portion, adapted so that can supply a portion (7) of edible substance to a product preparation device (5)”
“input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94) adapted so that can apprehend an input external to the apparatus (1) and provided in operative connection with the control means (6),”
“characterized in that the apparatus (1) presents an access disposition (4; 41, 42) adapted so that can be moved and thereby provide access to at least one of: entry passageway (8) and product discharge (21), and”
“in that the apparatus (1) is adapted so that can carry out at least the following operations:”
Claim 2:
“The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the apparatus (1) is adapted so that at least part of said access disposition (4; 41, 42), and preferentially further at least one of: the recipient placement disposition (2) and control means (6), can be actuated by at least one of:”
Claim 3:
“The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94) are adapted so that can apprehend at least one of, preferentially at least two types of input gestures, including:
in remote manner, for example of the type image capture or infrared interaction, magnetic interaction, in particular within an input space (E) associated with said access disposition (4; 41, 42), for example extending in the orthogonal projection thereof, at least in at least one of the top and frontal regions of the apparatus (1),
in haptic manner, for example of the capacitive type, so as to generate a variation of electrical field, in particular in at least one point of an input surface presenting a plurality of adjacent possible touch points, preferentially a surface associated with said access disposition (4; 41, 42).
Claim 4:
“The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means (9; 91, 92) are adapted so that can discriminate at least one of”
Claim 5:
“The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94) are adapted so that can discriminate at least two positions of at least one of: an input gesture and an object on the apparatus (1), including at least one of, preferentially at least two of: at least one of at least two different locations of a touch gesture with a portion of the envelope (3) of apparatus, preferentially with the access disposition (4; 41, 42)”
Claim 6:
“The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means (9) are adapted so that can generate an input that triggers actuation of non-manual movement of the recipient placement disposition (2) in case of apprehension of at least one gesture of”
Claim 7:
“The system according to claim 1, characterized in that at least part of the input means (9; 91, 92) are associated to at least one exterior input location, preferentially to a plurality of exterior input locations of the apparatus envelope (3), and are directed in an orientation along at least part of the proximal surrounding at sight, and are adapted so that can in isolation or jointly apprehend remote interactions, in particular at least one of: presence, duration of presence, trajectory, relative distance, in at least part of the proximal surrounding, in particular in a respective input space (E, E'), preferentially including associated with at least one of the top and frontal regions of the apparatus (1), preferentially associated with the access disposition ( 4), or in that at least part of the input means (9; 91, 92) are associated with at least one exterior input surface of the apparatus envelope (3) comprising a plurality of different adjacent locations of input apprehension by touch without pressure, whereby said input means (9; 91, 92) are preferentially provided underneath an exterior surface, for example as mutual capacitive sensors or similar, and are not provided in the form of a button or similar, and are preferentially provided so that are not visible or perceptible on the exterior of the apparatus (1).”
Claim 8:
“System according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94) are adapted so that can distinguish between at least one of: proximity and placement of a portion (7) of edible substance and of a recipient (10, 10') with relation to a portion of the apparatus (1), preferentially including to the access disposition (4; 41, 42), being preferentially further adapted so that can generate input relative to at least one of: a respective first initial position and a second position, and in that the input means (9) are adapted so that can automatically detect at least one of...”
Claim 9:
“The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means (9) are operatively associated with at least one of: a recipient placement disposition (2) adapted so that can carry out a movement from an initial position (I), an access disposition (4; 41, 42) adapted so that can carry out a movement from a closed position (I); a portion of the apparatus envelope (3) in the proximity of, preferentially a portion in the same face of the apparatus (1) as at least one of: recipient placement disposition (2) and access disposition (4; 41, 42); control means (6) adapted so that can control operation of the apparatus (1), including based upon the apprehension of a code associated with the portions (7) of edible substance.
Claim 10:
“The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means (9; 91, 92) are adapted so that can apprehend an input gesture…”
Claim 11:
“The system according to claim 1, characterized in that at least part of the recipient placement disposition (2) is adapted so that can be moved in non-manual manner, for example by electromechanical means, including at least one of…”
Claim 12:
“The system according to claim 1, characterized in that at least part of the access disposition (4; 41, 42) is adapted so can be moved nonmanually…”
Claim 15:
“…placing, manually or automatically, a recipient (10, 10') on the recipient placement disposition (2) so that can collect edible product from a product discharge (21 ); the cycle of preparation of edible product being characterized in that further includes the steps: …providing and operative input based upon the apprehended input gesture to control means (6), so that there is triggered a respective operation of the cycle of preparation of edible product by the apparatus (1); carrying out an of the cycle of preparation of edible product after…”
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 1-22 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 [see Claim Interpretation wherein corresponding Examiner interpretations of each claim is shown].
Claims 1-22:
The claims are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claims are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors, and indefinite language, and fail to conform with current U.S. practice. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claims must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patents cited.
Claim 1:
The recitations of “for example” and “preferentially” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The recitation of “(10, 10’)”, “(9; 91, 92, 93, 94)”, and “(4; 41, 42)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The second recitation of “a product discharge (21)” in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from the first recitation in lines 5-6.
The recitation of “the apparatus,” in line 8 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The second recitation of “a portion (7) of edible substance” in line 12 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from the first recitation in line 2.
The recitation of “a portion of edible substance” in line 22 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “a portion (7) of edible substance” in line 2.
The recitation of “a product preparation device (5)” in line 22 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “a product preparation device (5)” in line 13.
The limitation “the entry passageway (8) of portions” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the recipient (10, 10')” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the proximal surrounding” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the exterior surface” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 2:
The recitation of “(4; 41, 42)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The recitations of “for example” and “preferentially” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation “the weight” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the interacting object” in lines 7-8 and 10 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 3:
The recitation of “(9; 91, 92, 93, 94)” and “(4; 41, 42)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The recitations of “preferentially” and “for example” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation “the orthogonal projection” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 4:
The limitation “the input means (9; 91, 92)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “(9; 91, 92)”, “(E, E’)”, and “(4; 41, 42)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The limitation “the proximal surrounding” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “preferentially” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5:
The recitation of “(9; 91, 92, 93, 94)” and “(4; 41, 42)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The recitation of “an input gesture” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “an input gesture” in claim 1.
The recitations of “preferentially” and “for example” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The recitation of “a touch gesture” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “a touch gesture” in claim 1.
The recitation of “recipient (10)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “at least one type of drinking recipient (10, 10')” in claim 1.
The recitation of “a portion (7) of edible substance” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “a portion (7) of edible substance” in claim 1.
The recitation of “an entry passageway (8) of portions” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “an entry passageway (8) of portion”/“the entry passageway (8) of portions” in claim 1.
Claim 6:
The limitation “the input means (9)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “recipient (10)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “at least one type of drinking recipient (10, 10')” in claim 1.
The recitation of “proximal surrounding” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “the proximal surrounding” in claim 1.
The recitation of “preferentially” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The recitation of “(4; 41, 42)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
Claim 7:
The limitation “the input means (9; 91, 92)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitations of “preferentially” and “for example” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation “the apparatus envelope (3)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the proximal surrounding at sight” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “(9; 91, 92)” and “(E, E')” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The limitation “the access disposition (4)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 8:
The recitation of “(9; 91, 92, 93, 94)”, “(4; 41, 42)”, and “(10, 10')” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The recitation of “a portion (7) of edible substance” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “a portion (7) of edible substance” in claim 1.
The recitation of “recipient (10)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “at least one type of drinking recipient (10, 10')” in claim 1.
The recitations of “preferentially” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation “the input means (9)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the access disposition (4)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “a recipient (10, 10')” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “at least one type of drinking recipient (10, 10')” in claim 1.
Claim 9:
The limitation “the input means (9)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “a recipient placement disposition (2)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “a recipient placement disposition (2)” in claim 1.
The recitation of “a closed position (I)” in lines 6-7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “an initial position (I)” in line 5.
The recitation of “an access disposition (4; 41, 42)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “an access disposition (4; 41, 42)” in claim 1.
The recitation of “(4; 41, 42)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The limitation “the apparatus envelope (3)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “preferentially” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation “the portions (7) of edible substance” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 10:
The limitation “the input means (9; 91, 92)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “(9; 91, 92)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The recitation of “an input gesture” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “an input gesture” in claim 1.
The recitations of “preferentially” and “for example” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation “the interacting object” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “proximal surrounding” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “proximal surrounding” in claim 1.
The limitation “the access disposition (4)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 11:
The recitations of “preferentially” and “for example” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation “the respective closed position (I)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “closed position (I)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “initial placement position (I)”.
The recitation of “retention position (II)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “open position (II)”.
The x2 limitations “recipient” in line 7 lack sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “an input apprehended by said input means…” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “an input external to the apparatus (1)” in claim 1.
The recitation of “(9; 91, 92, 93, 94)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
Claim 12:
The recitation of “(4; 41, 42)” and “(9; 91, 92)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The recitation of “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation “the closed position (I)” in line 5 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “an open position” in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “an open position” in line 5.
The recitation of “an input apprehended by said input means…” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “an input external to the apparatus (1)” in claim 1.
Claim 13:
The recitation of “(4; 41, 42)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The recitation of “preferentially” and “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation “the recipient (10)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “said contactless, haptic or presence detection inputs” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “said contactless, haptic or presence detection inputs” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “an input external to the apparatus (1)” in claim 1.
Claim 14:
The recitation of “(4; 41, 42)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The recitation of “an input” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “an input external to the apparatus (1)” in claim 1.
The limitation “said input means (9)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “said closed position (I)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation “recipient (10, 10)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “a previously defined operation event of the apparatus (1)” in lines 11-12 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “previously defined operation event of the apparatus (1)” in line 7.
The limitation “the input means (9)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 15:
The recitation of “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation “the recipient placement disposition (2)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the proximal surrounding” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the exterior envelope” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the apparatus (1)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “(10, 10’)” and “(9; 91, 92, 93, 94)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The limitation “the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the input means (9)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 16:
The recitation of “a cycle of preparation of edible product” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “a cycle of preparation of edible product” in claim 15.
The recitations of “preferentially” and “for example” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The recitation of “(10, 10’)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
Claim 17:
The recitations of “for example” and “preferentially” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The limitation “the proximal surrounding” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the envelope (3) of apparatus” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the access disposition (4; 41, 42)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “(4; 41, 42)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The recitation of “a recipient (10)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “a recipient (10, 10')” in claim 15.
Claim 18:
The limitation “the remote gesture” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the proximity surrounding” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the access disposition (4; 41, 42)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “(4; 41, 42)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
Claim 19:
The limitation “the operative condition” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the fluid” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the access disposition (4; 41, 42)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “(4; 41, 42)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The recitation of “preferentially” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20:
The recitations of “preferentially” and “for example” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The recitation of “(10, 10')” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the claims are requiring either: only one of an element/embodiment listed, all elements, or an equivalent element not listed.
The limitation “the recipient (10)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the entry passageway (8) of portion” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the access disposition (4; 41, 42)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the fluid” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The recitation of “an edible product” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from “edible product” in claim 15.
Claim 21:
The limitation “access disposition (42)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the entry passageway (8) of portion” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the recipient (10)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 22:
The limitation “the inputs” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the parts (41, 42) of the access disposition (4)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the respective access part (41, 42)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
The limitation “the other access part (41, 42)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 2-14 and 16-22 are also rejected due to dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1:
“portion (7) of edible substance” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the coffee brewing art [i.e., an amount of coffee to be brewed, e.g., a portion of coffee to be brewed contained in a capsule/pod; see fig. 13 showing a capsule/pod 7; p. 8: “As represented, said apparatus (1) presents a product preparation device (5), in this case provided inside of the apparatus casing (3) of said apparatus (1) and comprising two parts at least one of which can be moved between closed and open position, so that the product preparation device (5) can collect a portion (7) of edible substance that is precursor of a beverage, for example contained inside of a capsule, and introduced through an entry passageway (8) of portions.”].
“recipient placement disposition (2)” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e., structure for supporting drinking recipients and for dispensing beverages through a base portion of the drinking recipient; e.g., see fig. 2 and at least product discharge (21); p. 9: “ A beverage flow discharge (BD) is conducted from an exit of said product preparation device (5) to a recipient placement disposition (2) that includes a product discharge ( 21) so that the beverage discharge to the interior of the drinking recipient (10, 10') unfolds through the base portion (11) thereof. In the case of this type of system, the drinking recipient (10, 10') presents flow regulation means (13) arranged on a base portion (11) thereof and adapted so that only enable flow entry in the drinking recipient (10, 10') if the flow pressure is greater than a previously defined flow pressure.”].
“drinking recipient (10, 10')” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e., different sized/shaped cups; see fig. 1]
“product discharge (21)” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e., structure for dispensing beverages, e.g., structure configured to discharge beverage through corresponding structure in the base portion of a cup; fig. 2]
“control means (6)” is used by the claims to indicate to conventional structure known in the art [i.e., structure known in the art, e.g., controllers, reservoirs, pumps, boilers, etc.; p. 9: “Moreover, said apparatus (1) can include a fluid reservoir (not represented), as well as a flow pressurization device and a fluid heating device (not represented), so that can supply a flow (FS) at a temperature comprised between 60 and 100 °C and at a pressure comprised between 1 and 20 bar, so as to interact with said edible substance. The apparatus (1) further comprises control means (6) adapted so that can control each beverage preparation cycle. The expert in the field knows these means such that one herewith abdicates from a more detailed representation or description thereof.”]
“portion supply means” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art [e.g., a capsule/pod entry passageway, p. 2: “The objective of the present invention is to provide a system for preparing edible products, for example of the espresso coffee type, based upon portions of edible substance, for example coffee in capsules or pods…”]
“entry passageway (8) of portion” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e., structure for supporting the coffee to be brewed, e.g., structure configured for supporting capsules/pods of coffee; p. 8]
“product preparation device (5)” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e., structure for brewing coffee and dispensing coffee; p. 8: “As represented, said apparatus (1) presents a product preparation device (5), in this case provided inside of the apparatus casing (3) of said apparatus (1) and comprising… A beverage flow discharge (BD) is conducted from an exit of said product preparation device (5) to a recipient placement disposition (2) that includes a product discharge ( 21) so that the beverage discharge to the interior of the drinking recipient (10, 10') unfolds through the base portion (11) thereof.”]
“input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94)” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e., conventional sensors as input devices for detecting human gestures or touch (9), e.g., optical, magnetic, or infrared sensors (91, 92, 93, 94); pp. 13-14: “According to an inventive aspect, the apparatus (1) further presents input means (9) operatively associated with the access disposition ( 4) and adapted so that can apprehend a contactless input generated on the proximal surrounding of the access disposition (4), in particular a tri-dimensional input space (E) associated with said input means (9). Said contactless input can be a gesture by a free hand, or a gesture of a hand holding a recipient ( 10), in particular a gesture of approaching a recipient ( 10) towards the access disposition ( 4), optionally further the presence during a previously defined period of time in the proximity of the access disposition (4)…. Alternatively, said input can be provided by means of a hand touch gesture without exerting pressure on the access disposition (4), including a touch in a single point, a downwards pressure touch, a pushing and/or dragging touch in a given direction.”; pp. 15-16: “Said input means (91, 92) can be adapted, for example as optical, magnetic or infrared detection devices, to remotely apprehend at least one of: a gesture and an object… Moreover, there are further provided third input means (93) adapted so as to apprehend the interaction of a portion (7) of edible substance with at least one of: entry passageway ( 8) of portions and product preparation device (5), and fourth input means (94) adapted so that can apprehend the placement of a recipient (10)”]
“access disposition (4; 41, 42)” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e., removeable lids/covering structures; see figs. 6, 9, and 10; p. 3: “In particular, the aforementioned objective is solved by means of a system comprising an apparatus that presents an access disposition that provides selective access…”; p. 12: “The access disposition (4; 41, 42) is provided with a general shape of type lid, hood, or similar, door, window, or similar, for example of planar type, and as a single piece or as a plurality of pieces.”]
Claim 1 will be interpreted as reciting:
A system for preparing edible products
a recipient placement disposition (2) adapted [[so that provides]]to provide operative placement of at least one type of drinking recipientto collect edible product from a product discharge (21 ), in particular a product discharge (21) [[provided so that the edible product can be]]to discharge the edible product along a direction opposite to the gravity force,
an envelope (3) of the apparatus (1),
control means (6) adapted [[so that can]]to control at least the fluid circulation on the apparatus (1),
an entry passageway (8) of portion as a portion supply means[[, such as for example an entry passageway (8) of portion]], adapted [[so that can]]to supply [[a]]the portion (7) of edible substance to a product preparation device (5),
input means to detect an input external to the apparatus (1) and [[provided]] in operative connection with the control means (6),
characterized in that the apparatus (1) presents an access disposition to be moved and thereby provide access to at least one of: the entry passageway (8) and product discharge (21), and
in that the apparatus (1) is adapted [[so that can]]to carry out at least the following operations:
actuating [[at least part of said]]the access disposition [[(4; 41, 42), preferentially also]]and the recipient placement disposition (2),
initiating the supply of [[a]]the portion (7) of edible substance to [[a]]the product preparation device (5) by the [[portion supply means, such as for example the ]]entry passageway (8) of [[portions]]portion,
initiating the fluid circulation [[including]] through the portion (7) of edible substance, and discharge to the at least one type of drinking recipient
whereby at least one of [[said]]the operations [[can be]]is carried out based upon the [[apprehension]]detection of an input gesture, including at least one of:
a hand gesture in [[the]]a proximal surrounding area of the apparatus (1) without touching thereupon, and
a touch gesture on a portion of the [[exterior surface]]envelope (3) of the apparatus (1).
Claim 2:
“object” is used by the claim to indicate conventional structure known in the art [e.g., coffee capsules/pods and cups; p. 3: “ According to another inventive aspect, the apparatus presents input means adapted so that can apprehend and discriminate different types of objects, in particular different types of portions of edible substance and recipients, in a proximity surrounding and/or placed in respective operation means of the apparatus, preferentially includes the relative position of a mark of these objects with relation to a reference.”]
Claim 2 will be interpreted as reciting:
The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the apparatus (1) is adapted [[so]]such that [[at least part of said]]the access disposition
up to two different types of free hand input gesture without touching the apparatus (1),
up to three types of input gesture at least in contact proximity by an electrically conducting interacting object, without exerting pressure force beyond [[the]]a weight of the electrically conducting interacting object,
up to four types of input gesture with contact and detection of at least one of: presence and relative position of the electrically conducting interacting object, with relation to a respective input surface of the apparatus (1).
Claim 3:
Claim 3 will be interpreted as reciting:
The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means to detect at least one of at least two types of input gestures, including:
in remote manner[[, or example of the type image capture or infrared interaction, magnetic interaction, in particular]] within an input space (E) associated with [[said]]the access disposition an orthogonal projection thereof[[, at least]] in at least one of [[the]] top and frontal regions of the apparatus (1),
in haptic manner, for example of the capacitive type, so as to generate a variation of electrical field[[, in particular]] in at least one point of an input surface associated with the access disposition presenting a plurality of adjacent possible touch points
Claim 4:
Claim 4 will be interpreted as reciting:
The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means to detect at least one of:
at least two different types of contactless input gestures carried out by a hand in the proximal surrounding area, in particular of a respective input space
at least two different types of touch input gestures carried out by at least one finger of a hand, including at least one type of touch from the list that includes pinpoint touch, sliding touch, dragging touch,
Claim 5:
Claim 5 will be interpreted as reciting:
The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94) are adapted [[so that can discriminate]]to detect at least two positions of at least one of: [[an]]the input gesture and an object on the apparatus (1), including at least [[one of, preferentially at least]] two of:
at least one of at least two different locations of [[a]]the touch gesture with
at least one of two different directions and/or configurations described by a touch gesture
at least one of two different positions of [[a recipient (10)]]the at least one type of drinking recipient (10, 10') placed on the recipient placement disposition (2), and
at least one of two different positions of [[a]]the portion (7) of edible substance with relation to the
Claim 6:
Claim 6 will be interpreted as reciting:
The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means upon detection of at least one gesture of:
oncoming of [[a recipient (10)]]the at least one type of drinking recipient [[in a proximal surrounding, preferentially at least of]]to the access disposition
placement of [[a recipient (10)]]a previously defined position of at least one portion of the at least one type of drinking recipient on the recipient placement disposition (2)
Claim 7:
Claim 7 will be interpreted as reciting:
The system according to claim 1, characterized in that
at least part of the input means area, and are adapted [[so that can]]to, in isolation or jointly, [[apprehend]]detect remote interactions, in particular at least one of: presence, duration of presence, trajectory, relative distance, in at least part of the proximal surrounding area, in particular in a respective input space
the input means
Claim 8:
Claim 8 will be interpreted as reciting:
The [[System]]system according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means detect at least one of: proximity and placement of [[a]]the portion (7) of edible substance and of [[a recipient (10, 10')]]the at least one type of drinking recipient with relation to a portion of the apparatus (1)to generate input relative to at least one of: a respective first initial position and a second position, and in that the input means to automatically detect at least one of:
proximity of [[a recipient (10, 10')]]the at least one type of drinking recipient relative to the access disposition
placement of [[a recipient (10, 10')]]the at least one type of drinking recipient on the recipient placement disposition (2).
Claim 9:
“a recipient placement disposition (2) adapted so that can carry out a movement from an initial position (I)” is used by the claim to indicate conventional structure in the art [i.e., detection of an initial placement of a cup adjacent a dispenser, the cup still unsecured/retained, e.g., the movement of an engagement part for securing a cup before dispensing; pp. 16-17: “ The detection of the recipient (10) can trigger the movement of an engagement part of said recipient placement disposition (2), in particular from a first position to a position of retention of said recipient (10). The control means (6) can now trigger the start of the process of preparation and discharge of edible product to the recipient ( 10). After conclusion thereof, there can be automatically triggered the movement of the engagement part of the recipient placement disposition (2), from the position of retention to a position of releasing of said recipient (10).”]
“an access disposition (4; 41, 42) adapted so that can carry out a movement from a closed position (I)” is used by the claim to indicate the open and closed positions of a lid [see figs. 9-10]
“code” is used by the claim to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e., a marking/code, triggering a predetermined set of actions, e.g., the identification of a recipe corresponding to a coffee capsule for properly brewing and dispensing the corresponding beverage; p. 18: “The input means (9) associated with the recipient placement disposition (2) can further apprehend at least one of: data associated with said recipient (10, 10'), for example in the form of a code, and discharging the edible product according to the thereby apprehended input.”]
Claim 9 will be interpreted as reciting:
The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means
[[a]]the recipient placement disposition (2) adapted [[so that can]]to carry out [[a]] movement from an initial position
[[an]]the access disposition to carry out [[a]] movement from a closed position
a portion of the a same face of the apparatus (1) as at least one of: the recipient placement disposition (2) and the access disposition
control means (6) adapted [[so that can]]to control operation of the apparatus (1)detection of a code associated with the [[portions]]portion (7) of edible substance.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 will be interpreted as reciting:
The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the input means to detect [[an]]the input gesture associated with at least one of: an optical interactionan interacting objectof: a proximal surrounding[[, in particular]] input space (E), and the envelope (3), in particular [[input surface, associated with the apparatus (1), in particular with]] the access disposition
Claim 11
“closed position”, “open position”, “initial placement position”, and “retention position” are used by the claim to indicate conventional structure in the art [i.e., detection of an initial placement of a cup adjacent a dispenser, the cup still unsecured/retained, e.g., the movement of an engagement part for securing the cup before dispensing; pp. 16-17: “ The detection of the recipient (10) can trigger the movement of an engagement part of said recipient placement disposition (2), in particular from a first position to a position of retention of said recipient (10). The control means (6) can now trigger the start of the process of preparation and discharge of edible product to the recipient ( 10). After conclusion thereof, there can be automatically triggered the movement of the engagement part of the recipient placement disposition (2), from the position of retention to a position of releasing of said recipient (10).”]
Claim 11 will be interpreted as reciting:
The system according to claim 1, characterized in that at least part of the recipient placement disposition (2) is adapted [[so that can]]to be moved in non-manual manner,
[[at least from]]between [[the]]a respective closed position and
[[from]]between an initial placement position the at least one type of drinking recipient to a retention position the at least one type of drinking recipient
whereby at least one of [[said]]the movements is triggered by and according to [[an]]the input
Claim 12:
Claim 12 will be interpreted as reciting:
The system according to claim 1, characterized in that at least part of the access disposition to be moved nonmanually,
from [[the]]a closed position (I) to an open position (II),
from [[an]]the open position (II) to the closed position (I),
whereby at least one of said movements is triggered by and according to [[an]]the input
Claim 13:
Claim 13 will be interpreted as reciting:
The system according to claim 1, characterized in that the apparatus (1) is adapted so that at least part of the access disposition and the recipient placement disposition (2), can further be automatically actuated based upon at least one of:
detection of the presence of an object on the apparatus (1)
counting of a previously defined period of time without apprehension of [[said contactless, haptic or presence detection inputs]]the input.
Claim 14:
“actuation means” is used by the claim to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e., conventional user input interfaces, e.g., buttons, sensors; pp. 2-3: “…said apparatus being adapted so as to provide actuation of at least said access disposition by means of interfaces that do not require application of a force or exerting a pressure upon actuation means of the apparatus, in particular interfaces having different actuation buttons, mechanical dispositions and similar.”]
“operation event”/“operative condition” are used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e., known user actions (e.g., loading a capsule, loading a cup, opening lids, etc.) and corresponding events (e.g., the placement of a cup for dispensing, loading of a capsule before brewing, etc.); “…such as for example detection of the presence of at least one of: portion (7) of edible substance and recipient (10, 10) in operative condition in the apparatus (1 ), or other indication of a respective operative condition”]
Claim 14 will be interpreted as reciting:
The system according to claim 1, characterized in that at least one of: the recipient placement disposition (2) and the access disposition the input a closed position (I), and so that the actuation of closing movement from an open position (II) can be triggered by at least one of:
previously defined operation event of the apparatus (1),
automatic count of previously defined period of time after [[a]]the previously defined operation event of the apparatus (1), in particular a period of time without apprehension of other input by the input means
Claim 15:
Claim 15 will be interpreted as reciting:
A process for preparing edible products
supplying, manually or automatically, a portion (7) of edible substance to a product preparation device (5), and
placing, manually or automatically, a recipient a recipient placement disposition (2) [[so that can]]to collect edible product from a product discharge (21);
the cycle of preparation of edible product
carrying out at least one input gesture in at least one of: part of [[the]]a proximal surrounding area and part of [[the]]an exterior envelope of [[the]]an apparatus (1);
[[apprehending]]detecting the input gesture by means of [[the]]an input means
detected input gesture to a control means (6), [[so that there is triggered]]triggering a respective operation of the cycle of preparation of edible product by the apparatus (1);
carrying out [[an]] of the cycle of preparation of edible product after and according to the input gesture
so that the cycle of preparation of edible product does not
Claim 16:
Claim 16 will be interpreted as reciting:
The process according to claim 15, characterized in that [[at least part of said operations of a]]all the steps of the cycle of preparation of edible product
[[apprehension]]detection of at least one of: a characteristic of object, a spatial characteristic of handling, and an event associated with at least one of the portion (7) of edible substance and recipient (10, 10'),
counting a period of timedetection of any characteristic, dimension or event until ending the counting of the period of time,
so that, the cycle of preparation of edible product does not require a user to
Claim 17:
Claim 17 will be interpreted as reciting:
The process according to claim 15, characterized in that the input gesture includes at least one of:
proximity gesture without touchingan access disposition
touch gesture, for example with the fingers of a hand, in particular upon an input surfacethe exterior envelope the access disposition
gesture of approaching [[a recipient (10)]]the recipient (10, 10') from proximal surrounding area;
gesture of placing [[a recipient (10)]]the recipient (10, 10') on the recipient placement disposition (2);
and does not include a touch gesture upon a user interface of the button type, or similar, of the apparatus (1).
Claim 18:
Claim 18 will be interpreted as reciting:
The process according to claim 15, characterized in that the [[remote]]input gesture in the [[proximity]]proximal surrounding area includes at least one of:
gesture along at least one of: a single direction, and a single plane;
continuous gesture along at least one of: at least a first and a second direction, and at least a first and a second plane,
and in that the touch gesture upon at least part of [[the]]an access disposition
at least one of: a pinpoint touch and a succession of pinpoint touches, upon any location amongst a plurality of locations, and
continuous touch upon a plurality of adjacent points, thereby describing at least one of a direction and a configuration, and
in that the touch is exerted in at least one of: in a direction similar to the direction of required movement, in a direction different from the direction of required movement.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 will be interpreted as reciting:
The process according to claim 15, characterized in that the input gesture triggers at least one of the following steps:
transition of [[the]]an operative condition of the apparatus (1) from a "standby" condition to a readiness condition;
automatic verification of the readiness of availability of [[the]] fluid for preparation of edible product and operative condition of operative devices of the apparatus (1);
opening movement of at least part of [[the]]an access disposition
opening movement of the product preparation device (5);
Claim 20:
“handling” is used by the claim to indicate conventional structure in the art [i.e., rotation of a cup to secure it to a dispenser, through a rotational locking movement; p. 17: “The gesture of approaching a recipient (10) from a second access part (42) can be apprehended by respective input means (92) and thereby generating an input for the actuation of automatic opening of said second access part (42). The gesture of placing the recipient in the recipient placement disposition (2), preferentially including a particular gesture, such as for example of rotation of the recipient (10), can also generate input for starting the circulation of flow for preparation of edible product.”]
Claim 20 will be interpreted as reciting:
The process according to claim 15, characterized in that the process further includes at least [[one of, preferentially at least]] a plurality, of the following steps:
placing the recipient
detecting the presence of the recipient
apprehension of a characteristic associated with the recipient
retention movement so as to retain the recipient
handling of the recipient
confirmation that the recipient
detection of supply of portion (7) of edible substance to the product preparation device (5) in at least one of: through [[the]]an entry passageway (8) of portion, directly upstream and downstream of the product preparation device (5);
detection of presence of portion (7) of edible substance in at least one of: in the proximity of the entry passageway (8) of portion and inside of the product preparation device (5);
apprehension of data associated with the portion (7) of edible substance and supply thereof to control means;
whereby at least one of the aforementioned steps is automatically followed by at least one of:
automatic selection of preparation parameters of edible product, based upon apprehended data;
closing movement of at least part of [[the]]an access disposition
start of the edible product and discharge thereof to the recipient
Claim 21:
Claim 21 will be interpreted as reciting:
The process according to claim 15, characterized in that the opening movement of [[the]]an access disposition (42) associated with [[the]]an entry passageway (8) of portion is carried out after at least one of the following steps:
detection of the presence of the recipient
confirmation that the recipient
Claim 22:
Claim 22 will be interpreted as reciting:
The process according to claim 15, characterized in that the [[inputs]]input gesture upon each of [[the parts (41, 42)]]a first access part (41) and a second access part (42) of [[the]]an access disposition part (41, 42)]]first access part (41) and second access part (42), [[autonomously]]independently from [[the]]each other
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andronis (DE 102008007254 A1) in view of Nichols (US 20170079465 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Andronis discloses:
A system for preparing edible products, for example beverages, based upon the circulation of a fluid through a portion (7) of edible substance [brewing coffee with hot water and a coffee serving capsule 5, and dispensing to a drinking vessel 18/mug 19; see fig. 1, showing a vehicle console 1 comprising coffee machine 2 as the claimed system; pp. 1-2], and comprising an apparatus (1) that presents:
a recipient placement disposition (2) [fig. 1: extraction head recording 9] adapted so that provides operative placement of at least one type of drinking recipient (10, 10') [fig. 2: mug 19] so that can collect edible product from a product discharge (21) [fig. 4: connecting piece 10], in particular a product discharge (21) provided so that the edible product can be discharge along a direction opposite to the gravity force [i.e., see fig. 2 and 4, wherein coffee would be discharged upwards from the console, into the mug],
an envelope (3) of the apparatus [see fig. 1, showing exterior surfaces of the console 1 as the envelope],
control means (6) adapted so that can control at least the fluid circulation on the apparatus (1) [p. 21: “A method according to claim 57, characterized in that a control device for actuating the device, in particular a coffee machine ( 2 ), is provided, which releases the operation of the device, in particular a coffee machine”],
preferentially further presenting portion supply means, such as for example an entry passageway (8) of portion [fig. 3: extraction head 11], adapted so that can supply a portion (7) of edible substance [i.e., capsule 5; see fig. 2] to a product preparation device (5) [i.e., the console 1, comprising extraction head 11, a water supply device, and a heating and pumping device, as a brewing unit/the product preparation device; p. 7: “Furthermore, a water supply device provided by means of the extraction head for preferably coffee extraction a defined, heated to a predetermined extraction temperature Amount of water to be supplied at a predetermined pressure…”; p. 8: “The Water supply device is preferably arranged on the vehicle side and has a heating and pumping device. This heating and pumping device is by means of a vehicle-mounted control and / or regulating device operated corresponding to the power supply to the coffee maker predefinable parameter controls or regulates.”],
input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94) adapted so that can apprehend an input external to the apparatus (1) and provided in operative connection with the control means (6) [i.e., operating switches for detecting/apprehending external user input; p. 11: “…a switch box 14 provided, which may also have display elements in addition to operating switches for the coffee machine”],
characterized in that the apparatus (1) presents an access disposition (4; 41, 42) adapted so that can be moved and thereby provide access to at least one of: entry passageway (8) and product discharge (21) [see fig. 1, showing hinged lids 12 and 13, and fig. 4, showing sliding blind 15], and
in that the apparatus (1) is adapted so that can carry out at least the following operations [The applicant is respectfully advised that it has been held by the courts that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(III.).]:
actuating at least part of said access disposition (4; 41, 42) [i.e., the lids 12/13 and the sliding blind 15 can be at least individually manually opened by a vehicle passenger], preferentially also the recipient placement disposition (2) [i.e., the console 1 is configured to discharge hot water through the connecting piece 10 and through the capsule 5; see fig. 2],
initiating the supply of a portion of edible substance to a product preparation device (5) by the portion supply means, such as for example the entry passageway (8) of portions [i.e., the insertion of capsule 5; p. 12: “When inserting the coffee serving capsule 5 in the coffee portion intake 40 One capsule base is inserted through one into the coffee portion intake 40 protruding spinous process 41 , which will be described in more detail below, perforated. At the same time in the connected state of the drinking vessel 18 with the extraction head 11 , ie in the screwed state of these two components, the cutting grid 35 pressed into the capsule top, whereby it is perforated.”],
initiating fluid circulation including through the portion (7) of edible substance, and discharge to the recipient (10, 10') [i.e., the coffee machine 2 conventionally brews and dispenses coffee; p. 2: “Next this conventional espresso coffee making system gives It is also a coffee system, where a given amount of coffee powder portioned in aluminum capsules as outer packaging and the entire aluminum capsule in a special coffee maker is introduced, in which the capsule is perforated, for coffee extraction to be able to introduce hot pressurized water into the capsule, which then leaves it as a coffee extract again.”],
However, although Andronis discloses physical switches for detecting user input, Andronis does not disclose any gesture-type control, and explicitly does not disclose:
whereby at least one of said operations can be carried out based upon the apprehension of an input gesture, including at least one of:
a hand gesture in the proximal surrounding of the apparatus (1) without touching thereupon, and
a touch gesture on a portion of the exterior surface of the apparatus (1).
Nichols, in the same field of endeavor [para. 0007: “The present disclosure includes an apparatus and process for preparing diluted-brewed beverages in an automatic espresso brewer.”], teaches whereby operations can be carried out based upon the apprehension of an input gesture [para. 0035: “In the embodiment shown in FIG. 4, the control interface 60 may include a display such as an LED, LCD, intensity changing light, audio, other display 64 and manually controllable indicia or icons 68, user gesture recognition features...”], including at least one of: a hand gesture in the proximal surrounding of the apparatus (1) without touching thereupon, and a touch gesture on a portion of the exterior surface of the apparatus (1) [i.e., conventional touch gestures detected by, e.g., a touch screen; para. 0035: “The use of the control interface 60 is intended to be broadly interpreted to include any form of interface which will facilitate ease of use by the user. The control interface 60 may include a touch panel screen 80 by which a user may touch the screen with their finger (not shown) and raise or lower indicia 68 on the screen 80 to increase or decrease the strength, or change the extraction characteristics of the beverage.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Andronis whereby at least one of said operations can be carried out based upon the apprehension of an input gesture, including at least one of: a hand gesture in the proximal surrounding of the apparatus (1) without touching thereupon, and a touch gesture on a portion of the exterior surface of the apparatus (1), since Nichols teaches a touch gesture on a portion of the exterior surface of the apparatus (1), and, as evidenced by Nichols [para. 0035], the selection of input means and corresponding input gesture, would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, e.g., according to a desired user experience.
Regarding claim 2, Andronis in view of Nichols discloses the system according to claim 1.
Andronis as modified by Nichols further discloses:
characterized in that the apparatus (1) is adapted so that at least part of said access disposition (4; 41, 42), and preferentially further at least one of: the recipient placement disposition (2) and control means (6) [In this case, since Andronis discloses opening and closing the access disposition, providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace the same manual opening and closing, such that the access disposition actuation is triggered by user input, requires only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(III.).], can be actuated by at least one of:
up to two different types of free hand input gesture without touching the apparatus (1),
up to three types of input gesture at least in contact proximity by an electrically conducting interacting object, without exerting pressure force beyond the weight of the interacting object, for example of haptic type, with a respective input surface of the apparatus (1),
up to four types of input gesture with contact and detection of at least one of: presence and relative position of the interacting object, with relation to a respective input surface of the apparatus (1) [Nichols discloses that user input gesture types may change beverage characteristics, and specifically may be up to four different types, e.g., to increase water amount, decrease water amount, increase temperature, decrease temperature; para. 0035: “a user may touch the screen with their finger (not shown) and raise or lower indicia 68 on the screen 80 to increase or decrease the strength, or change the extraction characteristics of the beverage.”].
Claims 3-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andronis (DE 102008007254 A1) in view of Nichols (US 20170079465 A1) as respectively applied to claim 1 and 15, and further in view of Davis (US 20190121522 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Andronis in view of Nichols discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, although:
Nichols discloses that input means isn’t limited, and is selected according to a desired user experience [para. 0035: “The use of the control interface 60 is intended to be broadly interpreted to include any form of interface which will facilitate ease of use by the user.”],
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not disclose any remote/touchless or haptic input means, and specifically,
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not explicitly disclose:
characterized in that the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94) are adapted so that can apprehend at least one of, preferentially at least two types of input gestures, including:
in remote manner, for example of the type image capture or infrared interaction, magnetic interaction, in particular within an input space (E) associated with said access disposition (4; 41, 42), for example extending in the orthogonal projection thereof, at least in at least one of the top and frontal regions of the apparatus (1),
in haptic manner, for example of the capacitive type, so as to generate a variation of electrical field, in particular in at least one point of an input surface presenting a plurality of adjacent possible touch points, preferentially a surface associated with said access disposition (4; 41, 42).
Davis, in the same field of endeavor [fig. 29C: coffee machine 1237; para. 0563: “Embodiments of the present technology comprise hardware, software, and methods to implement an AGUI (Adaptive Graphical User Interface) system that allows a user to interface with a computerized system in a dynamic and changing environment.”], teaches:
an AGUI as an input means [para. 0814: “The AGUI system may image and/or map the spatial position, contents and status of items placed inside a …appliance… and identify how long an item has been in the space, the temperature of an item, how long an item has been cooking, how much of an items contents are left in the container, or other information on the status of a device, appliance, object, item, person, vehicle or other space or display surface and enable one or more users to interface with and/or take actions regarding such items such as remotely ordering a new item, turning on or off or changing the temperature of refrigerator, oven or other device or system or beginning, ending or controlling a task such as brewing coffee…”]
wherein the input means can include various sensors capable of detecting user input, including input gestures [paras. 0717-0718: “…Sensors can take the form of a module to detect gestures used to input user commands….A variety of sensors are used to determine the bounds and content of the environment in which the AGUI system is operating. Inputs have standard models and a plug-in architecture. Sensor inputs can also be incorporated in the output display such as a pointer, gesture, or control. Examples of common sensors include light and optical systems, cameras, motion, orientation and altitude sensors such as accelerometers, gyroscopes, altimeters and compass as well as temperature, chemical, electrical, electro-magnetic, biometric, radio frequency, wireless networking, GPS and others.”] in a remote manner [see fig. 3A, showing a user’s gestures in an input space, detected by AGUI device 201; para. 0586: “Referring to FIG. 3A, when the user later stands up, the user can be seen making gestures, in this case with his hand, to control the AGUI system.”], wherein the device can include sensors of the image capture type, infrared type, or magnetic type [paras. 0588, 0718]; or in a haptic manner [para. 0045], wherein the device can include sensors of the capacitive type [para. 0598].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Andronis and Nichols such that the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94) are adapted so that can apprehend at least one of, preferentially at least two types of input gestures, including: in remote manner, for example of the type image capture or infrared interaction, magnetic interaction, in particular within an input space (E) associated with said access disposition (4; 41, 42), for example extending in the orthogonal projection thereof, at least in at least one of the top and frontal regions of the apparatus (1), in haptic manner, for example of the capacitive type, so as to generate a variation of electrical field, in particular in at least one point of an input surface presenting a plurality of adjacent possible touch points, preferentially a surface associated with said access disposition (4; 41, 42), since Davis teaches equivalent sensors capable of detecting user input gestures in a remote manner or in a haptic manner, and thus a PHOSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of the claim, e.g., by selecting, with a reasonable expectation of success, image capture/infrared, magnetic, or capacitive sensors for detecting user input, according to a desired user experience].
Regarding claim 4, Andronis in view of Nichols discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, although:
Nichols discloses that user input gesture types may change beverage characteristics, and specifically may be up to four different types [e.g., to increase water amount, decrease water amount, increase temperature, decrease temperature; para. 0035], and
Nichols discloses that input means isn’t limited, and is selected according to a desired user experience [para. 0035],
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not disclose any contactless or non-touch screen touch input means, and specifically,
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not explicitly disclose:
characterized in that the input means (9; 91, 92) are adapted so that can discriminate at least one of:
at least two different types of contactless input gestures carried out by a hand in the proximal surrounding, in particular of a respective input space (E, E'), including at least one type of gesture from the list that includes gestures along a single direction, along at least a first and a second direction, in a single plane and at least in a first and second planes, with a first and a second configuration of the spatial path;
at least two different types of touch input gestures carried out by at least one finger of a hand, including at least one type of touch from the list that includes pinpoint touch, sliding touch, dragging touch, preferentially upon the exterior surface of the access disposition (4; 41, 42).
Davis, in the same field of endeavor [fig. 29C: coffee machine 1237; para. 0563], teaches:
an AGUI as an input means [para. 0814]
wherein the input means can include various sensors capable of detecting user input, including input gestures [paras. 0717-0718] in a contactless manner [see fig. 3A, showing a user’s gestures in an input space, detected by AGUI device 201; para. 0586]; or in a touch manner [e.g., a user touching the graphical user interface displayed/projected on a surface; para. 0045; para. 0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Andronis and Nichols such that the input means (9; 91, 92) are adapted so that can discriminate at least one of: at least two different types of contactless input gestures carried out by a hand in the proximal surrounding, in particular of a respective input space (E, E'), including at least one type of gesture from the list that includes gestures along a single direction, along at least a first and a second direction, in a single plane and at least in a first and second planes, with a first and a second configuration of the spatial path; at least two different types of touch input gestures carried out by at least one finger of a hand, including at least one type of touch from the list that includes pinpoint touch, sliding touch, dragging touch, preferentially upon the exterior surface of the access disposition (4; 41, 42), since Davis teaches equivalent sensors capable of detecting user input gestures in a contactless manner or in a touch manner, and thus a PHOSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of the claim, e.g., by selecting, with a reasonable expectation of success, contactless or touch sensors for detecting user input, according to a desired user experience].
Regarding claim 5, Andronis in view of Nichols discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, although:
Andronis discloses at least one of two different positions of a recipient (10) placed on the recipient placement disposition (2) [i.e., the mug having a locked position and an unlocked position relative to the extraction head; p. 5: “Especially Preferably, it is provided that the detachable connection between the drinking vessel and the extraction head im with the tapping point, in particular an extraction head receptacle, coupled state locked by means of a locking device can be. This is preferably done so that a z. B. spring-loaded Locking element in coupled with the tap state in a Locking position is shifted, in the example, a extraction head side trained locking element with a drinking vessel side locking counter-element interacts. For example, for this purpose, an extraction head receiving side concrete Actuating the locking element against the Force of a biasing spring in an engaged position with a drinking vessel side Shift locking element holder. In the decoupled state between extraction head and tapping point, however, is the locking element shifted in an unlocked position in which the locking element then the detachable connection between the drinking vessel and Extraction head releases, so that these z. B. unscrewed can be used to perform a cleaning process.”], and
Andronis discloses at least one of two different positions of a portion (7) of edible substance with relation to the portion supply means, such as for example an entry passageway (8) of portions [i.e., the capsule 5 in storage compartment 3 (fig. 1) or in operative placement (fig. 3)], and Nichols discloses sensing and tracking various components [para. 0032: “Other means of sensing and tracking the characteristics of various components in the beverage brewing system 20 are generally known in the art.”], and
Nichols discloses that input means isn’t limited, and is selected according to a desired user experience [para. 0035],
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not disclose detecting a user/hand or objects like cups or mugs, and specifically,
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not explicitly disclose:
characterized in that the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94) are adapted so that can discriminate at least two positions of at least one of: an input gesture and an object on the apparatus (1), including at least one of, preferentially at least two of:
at least one of at least two different locations of a touch gesture with a portion of the envelope (3) of apparatus, preferentially with the access disposition (4; 41, 42);
at least one of two different directions and/or configurations described by a touch gesture on a portion of the envelope (3) of apparatus, preferentially with the access disposition (4; 41, 42);
at least one of two different positions of a recipient (10) placed on the recipient placement disposition (2), and
at least one of two different positions of a portion (7) of edible substance with relation to the portion supply means, such as for example an entry passageway (8) of portions.
Davis, in the same field of endeavor [fig. 29C: coffee machine 1237; para. 0563], teaches:
an AGUI as an input means [para. 0814]
wherein the input means can include various sensors capable of detecting user input, including input gestures [paras. 0717-0718],
characterized in that the input means are adapted so that can discriminate at least two positions of at least one of: the input gesture [paras. 0717-0718] and an object on the apparatus [i.e., item as the claimed object, e.g., the mug or capsule of Andronis; para. 0814: “The AGUI system may image and/or map the spatial position, contents and status of items placed inside a …appliance… and identify how long an item has been in the space, the temperature of an item, how long an item has been cooking, how much of an items contents are left in the container, or other information on the status of a device, appliance, object, item, person, vehicle or other space or display surface and enable one or more users to interface with and/or take actions regarding such items such as remotely ordering a new item, turning on or off or changing the temperature of refrigerator, oven or other device or system or beginning, ending or controlling a task such as brewing coffee…”], including at least one of, preferentially at least two of:
at least one of at least two different locations of a touch gesture with a portion of the envelope of apparatus, preferentially with the access disposition [i.e., a user touching the graphical user interface displayed/projected on one or more surfaces, e.g., on a lid or cover of Andronis; para. 0045; para. 0005; para. 0002];
at least one of two different directions and/or configurations described by a touch gesture on a portion of the envelope of apparatus, preferentially with the access disposition [i.e., conventionally known 2-dimensional hand gestures on a surface configured to control, e.g., the opening and closing of the lids of Andronis; para. 0598: “FIG. 17 shows a similar embodiment except that the display surface is a vertical surface 1214. The vertical surface may be a wall, the front panel of an appliance, or suitably treated transparent glass or plastic panel. The user may use their hand 1102 to make gestures or to touch the GUI elements 520 projected onto the surface 1214 to control the system.”];
at least one of two different positions of a recipient (10) placed on the recipient placement disposition (2) [e.g., the input means detecting the position of Andronis’ recipient], and
at least one of two different positions of a portion (7) of edible substance with relation to the portion supply means, such as for example an entry passageway (8) of portions [e.g., the input means of detecting the position of Andronis’ capsule and passageway].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Andronis and Nichols such that the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94) are adapted so that can discriminate at least two positions of at least one of: an input gesture and an object on the apparatus (1), including at least one of, preferentially at least two of: at least one of at least two different locations of a touch gesture with a portion of the envelope (3) of apparatus, preferentially with the access disposition (4; 41, 42); at least one of two different directions and/or configurations described by a touch gesture on a portion of the envelope (3) of apparatus, preferentially with the access disposition (4; 41, 42); at least one of two different positions of a recipient (10) placed on the recipient placement disposition (2), and at least one of two different positions of a portion (7) of edible substance with relation to the portion supply means, such as for example an entry passageway (8) of portions, since Davis teaches equivalent input means capable of detecting user input gestures and controlling a brewing process, and thus a PHOSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of the claim, e.g., by selecting, with a reasonable expectation of success, various sensors for detecting user input and objects, according to a desired user experience].
Regarding claim 6, Andronis in view of Nichols discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, although:
Andronis discloses manual movement of the recipient placement disposition (2) [i.e., the mug having a locked position and an unlocked position relative to the extraction head; p. 5: “Especially Preferably, it is provided that the detachable connection between the drinking vessel and the extraction head im with the tapping point, in particular an extraction head receptacle, coupled state locked by means of a locking device can be. This is preferably done so that a z. B. spring-loaded Locking element in coupled with the tap state in a Locking position is shifted, in the example, a extraction head side trained locking element with a drinking vessel side locking counter-element interacts. For example, for this purpose, an extraction head receiving side concrete Actuating the locking element against the Force of a biasing spring in an engaged position with a drinking vessel side Shift locking element holder. In the decoupled state between extraction head and tapping point, however, is the locking element shifted in an unlocked position in which the locking element then the detachable connection between the drinking vessel and Extraction head releases, so that these z. B. unscrewed can be used to perform a cleaning process.”], wherein, after opening the access disposition sliding cover, a user brings the mug to a proximal surrounding area of the recipient placement disposition before locking the recipient mug thereto in a dispensing position [fig. 2], wherein the recipient has a previously defined position of at least one portion [i.e., extraction head 11 placed on extraction head recording 9; see fig. 1, 2],
Andronis does not disclose any sensors for apprehension/detecting motion of the recipient, or placement of the recipient, and
Nichols discloses that input means isn’t limited, and is selected according to a desired user experience [para. 0035],
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not explicitly disclose:
characterized in that the input means (9) are adapted so that can generate an input that triggers actuation of non-manual movement of the recipient placement disposition (2) in case of apprehension of at least one gesture of:
oncoming of a recipient (10) in a proximal surrounding, preferentially at least of the access disposition (4; 41, 42), and
placement of a recipient (10) on the recipient placement disposition (2), preferentially in a previously defined position of at least one portion of the recipient (10).
Davis, in the same field of endeavor [fig. 29C: coffee machine 1237; para. 0563], teaches:
an AGUI as an input means [para. 0814]
wherein the input means can include various sensors capable of detecting user input, including input gestures [paras. 0717-0718], wherein the input gestures and position, contents, and status of objects in the coffee machine are detected, and trigger/control coffee brewing operations [para. 0814] .
Therefore, since it has been held by the courts that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art [see MPEP 2144.04(III.)], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Andronis and Nichols such that the input means (9) are adapted so that can generate an input that triggers actuation of non-manual movement of the recipient placement disposition (2) in case of apprehension of at least one gesture of: oncoming of a recipient (10) in a proximal surrounding, preferentially at least of the access disposition (4; 41, 42), and placement of a recipient (10) on the recipient placement disposition (2), preferentially in a previously defined position of at least one portion of the recipient (10), and since Davis teaches equivalent sensors capable of detecting user input gestures and objects controlling a coffee brewing task, and thus a PHOSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of the claim, e.g., by selecting, with a reasonable expectation of success, various sensors for detecting user input and objects, according to a desired user experience].
Regarding claim 7, Andronis in view of Nichols discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, although:
Andronis discloses the lids 12/13 and the sliding blind 15 that can in isolation or jointly, be opened or closed [i.e., independently moved], and
Nichols discloses that input means isn’t limited, and is selected according to a desired user experience [para. 0035],
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not explicitly disclose:
characterized in that
at least part of the input means (9; 91, 92) are associated to at least one exterior input location, preferentially to a plurality of exterior input locations of the apparatus envelope (3), and are directed in an orientation along at least part of the proximal surrounding at sight, and are adapted so that can in isolation or jointly apprehend remote interactions, in particular at least one of: presence, duration of presence, trajectory, relative distance, in at least part of the proximal surrounding, in particular in a respective input space (E, E'), preferentially including associated with at least one of the top and frontal regions of the apparatus (1 ), preferentially associated with the access disposition ( 4), or
in that at least part of the input means (9; 91, 92) are associated with at least one exterior input surface of the apparatus envelope (3) comprising a plurality of different adjacent locations of input apprehension by touch without pressure, whereby said input means (9; 91, 92) are preferentially provided underneath an exterior surface, for example as mutual capacitive sensors or similar, and are not provided in the form of a button or similar, and are preferentially provided so that are not visible or perceptible on the exterior of the apparatus (1).
Davis, in the same field of endeavor [fig. 29C: coffee machine 1237; para. 0563], teaches:
an AGUI as an input means [para. 0814]
wherein the input means can include various sensors capable of detecting user input, including input gestures [paras. 0717-0718],
wherein the input means may comprise a plurality of exterior input locations [e.g., in order to accommodate multiple users; para. 0811], comprising an input space [see fig. 3A, showing a user’s gestures in an input space, detected by AGUI device 201; para. 0586: “Referring to FIG. 3A, when the user later stands up, the user can be seen making gestures, in this case with his hand, to control the AGUI system.”], and
wherein the input means may comprise exterior input surfaces [para. 0598: “FIG. 17 shows a similar embodiment except that the display surface is a vertical surface 1214. The vertical surface may be a wall, the front panel of an appliance, or suitably treated transparent glass or plastic panel. The user may use their hand 1102 to make gestures or to touch the GUI elements 520 projected onto the surface 1214 to control the system. Alternatively, vertical surface 1214 may be capacitive or resistive touch sensitive and detect the user's touch.”] wherein the surfaces may comprise not visible/embedded capacitive sensors [para. 0607: “The AGUI jacket may detect user's selection using resistive or capacitive embedded sensors in the fabric or a lapel,”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Andronis and Nichols such that at least part of the input means (9; 91, 92) are associated to at least one exterior input location, preferentially to a plurality of exterior input locations of the apparatus envelope (3), and are directed in an orientation along at least part of the proximal surrounding at sight, and are adapted so that can in isolation or jointly apprehend remote interactions, in particular at least one of: presence, duration of presence, trajectory, relative distance, in at least part of the proximal surrounding, in particular in a respective input space (E, E'), preferentially including associated with at least one of the top and frontal regions of the apparatus (1 ), preferentially associated with the access disposition ( 4), or in that at least part of the input means (9; 91, 92) are associated with at least one exterior input surface of the apparatus envelope (3) comprising a plurality of different adjacent locations of input apprehension by touch without pressure, whereby said input means (9; 91, 92) are preferentially provided underneath an exterior surface, for example as mutual capacitive sensors or similar, and are not provided in the form of a button or similar, and are preferentially provided so that are not visible or perceptible on the exterior of the apparatus (1), since Davis teaches equivalent input means capable of detecting user input gestures and controlling a brewing process, and thus a PHOSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of the claim, e.g., by selecting, with a reasonable expectation of success, various sensors for detecting user input, according to a desired user experience].
Regarding claim 8, Andronis in view of Nichols discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, although:
Andronis discloses opening and closing positions of the access disposition sliding blind 15 [fig. 4], and locked and unlocked positions of the recipient/recipient placement disposition [p. 5], and moving of capsule 5 from storage to in proximity of the recipient mug, before placement of the capsule in the extraction head 11, before operative placement then locking of the mug in the recipient placement disposition [figs. 1-4], and
Nichols discloses that input means isn’t limited, and is selected according to a desired user experience [para. 0035],
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not disclose detecting a user/hand or objects, and specifically,
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not explicitly disclose:
characterized in that the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94) are adapted so that can distinguish between at least one of: proximity and placement of a portion (7) of edible substance and of a recipient (10, 10') with relation to a portion of the apparatus (1), preferentially including to the access disposition (4; 41, 42), being preferentially further adapted so that can generate input relative to at least one of: a respective first initial position and a second position, and in that the input means (9) are adapted so that can automatically detect at least one of:
proximity of a recipient (10, 10') relative to the access disposition (4) and/or to the recipient placement disposition (2);
placement of a recipient (10, 10') on the recipient placement disposition (2).
Davis, in the same field of endeavor [fig. 29C: coffee machine 1237; para. 0563], teaches:
an AGUI as an input means [para. 0814]
wherein the input means can include various sensors capable of detecting user input, including input gestures [paras. 0717-0718], characterized in that the input means is configured to detect proximity and placement of objects with respect to the coffee machine [para. 0814]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Andronis and Nichols such that the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94) are adapted so that can distinguish between at least one of: proximity and placement of a portion (7) of edible substance and of a recipient (10, 10') with relation to a portion of the apparatus (1), preferentially including to the access disposition (4; 41, 42), being preferentially further adapted so that can generate input relative to at least one of: a respective first initial position and a second position, and in that the input means (9) are adapted so that can automatically detect at least one of: proximity of a recipient (10, 10') relative to the access disposition (4) and/or to the recipient placement disposition (2); placement of a recipient (10, 10') on the recipient placement disposition (2), since Davis teaches equivalent input means capable of detecting user input gestures and controlling a brewing process, and thus a PHOSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of the claim, e.g., by selecting, with a reasonable expectation of success, various sensors for detecting user input and objects, according to a desired user experience].
Regarding claim 9, Andronis in view of Nichols discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, although:
Andronis discloses locked and unlocked positions of the recipient/recipient placement disposition [p. 5], and
Andronis discloses open and closed positions of the access dispositions sliding blind 15 [figs. 1 and 4], and
Andronis discloses a portion of the apparatus envelope in the proximity of, preferentially a portion in the same face of the apparatus as at least one of: recipient placement disposition and access disposition [see fig. 1, showing the lids and blind and extraction head recording arranged on an upper face of the console], and
Nichols discloses that input means isn’t limited, and is selected according to a desired user experience [para. 0035],
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not disclose detecting a user/hand or objects, and specifically,
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not explicitly disclose:
characterized in that the input means (9) are operatively associated with at least one of:
a recipient placement disposition (2) adapted so that can carry out a movement from an initial position (I),
an access disposition (4; 41, 42) adapted so that can carry out a movement from a closed position (I);
a portion of the apparatus envelope (3) in the proximity of, preferentially a portion in the same face of the apparatus (1) as at least one of: recipient placement disposition (2) and access disposition (4; 41, 42);
control means (6) adapted so that can control operation of the apparatus (1), including based upon the apprehension of a code associated with the portions (7) of edible substance.
Davis, in the same field of endeavor [fig. 29C: coffee machine 1237; para. 0563], teaches:
an AGUI as an input means [para. 0814]
wherein the input means can include various sensors capable of detecting user input, including input gestures [paras. 0717-0718], characterized in that the input means is operatively associated with the coffee machine, and is configured to detect objects with respect to the coffee machine in order to control operation of the coffee machine [para. 0814], according to, e.g., a code [para. 0814].
Therefore, since it has been held by the courts that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art [see MPEP 2144.04(III.)], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Andronis and Nichols such that the input means (9) are operatively associated with at least one of: a recipient placement disposition (2) adapted so that can carry out a movement from an initial position (I), an access disposition (4; 41, 42) adapted so that can carry out a movement from a closed position (I); a portion of the apparatus envelope (3) in the proximity of, preferentially a portion in the same face of the apparatus (1) as at least one of: recipient placement disposition (2) and access disposition (4; 41, 42); control means (6) adapted so that can control operation of the apparatus (1), including based upon the apprehension of a code associated with the portions (7) of edible substance, since Davis teaches equivalent input means capable of detecting user input gestures and controlling a brewing process, and thus a PHOSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of the claim, e.g., by selecting, with a reasonable expectation of success, various sensors for detecting user input and objects, according to a desired user experience].
Regarding claim 10, Andronis in view of Nichols discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, although:
Nichols discloses that input means isn’t limited, and is selected according to a desired user experience [para. 0035],
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not disclose any remote/touchless or capacitive input means, and specifically,
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not explicitly disclose:
characterized in that the input means (9; 91, 92) are adapted so that can apprehend an input gesture associated with at least one of: an optical interaction, for example image capture, an electromagnetic interaction, for example by infrared, a magnetic interaction, an interaction of capacitive type, preferentially by means of touch with a force not greater than the weight of the interacting object, for example a finger, occurring in at least one of: proximal surrounding, in particular input space (E), and envelope (3), in particular input surface, associated with the apparatus (1), in particular with the access disposition (4).
Davis, in the same field of endeavor [fig. 29C: coffee machine 1237; para. 0563], teaches:
an AGUI as an input means [para. 0814]
wherein the input means can include various sensors capable of detecting user input, including input gestures [paras. 0717-0718] in a remote manner [see fig. 3A, showing a user’s gestures in an input space, detected by AGUI device 201; para. 0586: “Referring to FIG. 3A, when the user later stands up, the user can be seen making gestures, in this case with his hand, to control the AGUI system.”], wherein the device can include sensors of the image capture type, infrared type, or electromagnetic interaction type [paras. 0588, 0718]; or in a haptic manner [para. 0045], wherein the device can include sensors of the capacitive type [para. 0598].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Andronis and Nichols such that the input means (9; 91, 92) are adapted so that can apprehend an input gesture associated with at least one of: an optical interaction, for example image capture, an electromagnetic interaction, for example by infrared, a magnetic interaction, an interaction of capacitive type, preferentially by means of touch with a force not greater than the weight of the interacting object, for example a finger, occurring in at least one of: proximal surrounding, in particular input space (E), and envelope (3), in particular input surface, associated with the apparatus (1), in particular with the access disposition (4), since Davis teaches equivalent sensors capable of detecting user input gestures in a remote manner or in a haptic manner, and thus a PHOSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of the claim, e.g., by selecting, with a reasonable expectation of success, image capture/infrared, magnetic, or capacitive sensors for detecting user input, according to a desired user experience].
Regarding claim 11, Andronis in view of Nichols discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, although:
Andronis discloses part of the recipient placement disposition (2) is adapted so that can be moved in non-manual manner and an initial unsecured position of the mug and a locked retention position [i.e., a spring element as the part for enabling a locked position and an unlocked position of the mug relative to the extraction head; pps. 4-5], and
Nichols discloses that input means isn’t limited, and is selected according to a desired user experience [para. 0035],
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not explicitly disclose:
characterized in that at least part of the recipient placement disposition (2) is adapted so that can be moved in non-manual manner, for example by electromechanical means, including at least one of:
at least from the respective closed position (I) to an open position (II), preferentially also vice-versa,
from an initial placement position (I) of recipient to a retention position (II) of recipient, and preferentially also vice-versa,
whereby at least one of said movements is triggered by and according to an input apprehended by said input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94).
Davis, in the same field of endeavor [fig. 29C: coffee machine 1237; para. 0563], teaches:
an AGUI as an input means [para. 0814]
wherein the input means can include various sensors capable of detecting user input, including input gestures [paras. 0717-0718], and objects [e.g., cups or components of the coffee machine; para. 0814].
Therefore, since it has been held by the courts that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art [see MPEP 2144.04(III.)], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Andronis and Nichols such that at least part of the recipient placement disposition (2) is adapted so that can be moved in non-manual manner, for example by electromechanical means, including at least one of: at least from the respective closed position (I) to an open position (II), preferentially also vice-versa, from an initial placement position (I) of recipient to a retention position (II) of recipient, and preferentially also vice-versa, whereby at least one of said movements is triggered by and according to an input apprehended by said input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94), since Davis teaches equivalent input means capable of detecting user input gestures and objects and controlling a brewing process, and thus a PHOSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of the claim, e.g., by selecting, with a reasonable expectation of success, various sensors for detecting user input and objects, according to a desired user experience].
Regarding claim 12, Andronis in view of Nichols discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, although:
Andronis discloses open and closed positions of the access dispositions sliding blind 15 [figs. 1 and 4], and
Nichols discloses that input means isn’t limited, and is selected according to a desired user experience [para. 0035],
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not disclose detecting a user/hand or objects, and specifically,
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not explicitly disclose:
characterized in that at least part of the access disposition (4; 41, 42) is adapted so can be moved nonmanually, for example by electromechanical means, including at least one of:
from the closed position (I) to an open position (II),
from an open position (II) to the closed position (I),
whereby at least one of said movements is triggered by and according to an input apprehended by said input means (9; 91, 92).
Davis, in the same field of endeavor [fig. 29C: coffee machine 1237; para. 0563], teaches:
an AGUI as an input means [para. 0814]
wherein the input means can include various sensors capable of detecting user input, including input gestures [paras. 0717-0718], and objects [e.g., cups or components of the coffee machine; para. 0814].
Therefore, since it has been held by the courts that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art [see MPEP 2144.04(III.)], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Andronis and Nichols such that at least part of the access disposition (4; 41, 42) is adapted so can be moved nonmanually, for example by electromechanical means, including at least one of: from the closed position (I) to an open position (II), from an open position (II) to the closed position (I), whereby at least one of said movements is triggered by and according to an input apprehended by said input means (9; 91, 92), since Davis teaches equivalent input means capable of detecting user input gestures and objects and controlling a brewing process, and thus a PHOSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of the claim, e.g., by selecting, with a reasonable expectation of success, various sensors for detecting user input and objects, according to a desired user experience].
Regarding claim 13, Andronis in view of Nichols discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, although:
Andronis discloses open and closed positions of the access dispositions sliding blind 15 [figs. 1 and 4], and locked and unlocked positions of the recipient/recipient placement disposition [p. 5], and
Nichols discloses that input means isn’t limited, and is selected according to a desired user experience [para. 0035] and that the brewing process has defined periods of time [para. 0036], and
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not disclose detecting objects, and specifically,
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not explicitly disclose:
characterized in that the apparatus (1) is adapted so that at least part of the access disposition (4; 41, 42), preferentially also said recipient placement disposition (2), can further be automatically actuated based upon at least one of:
detection of the presence of an object on the apparatus (1), for example of the recipient (10) on the recipient placement disposition (2);
counting of a previously defined period of time without apprehension of said contactless, haptic or presence detection inputs.
Davis, in the same field of endeavor [fig. 29C: coffee machine 1237; para. 0563], teaches:
an AGUI as an input means [para. 0814]
wherein the input means can include various contactless, haptic, or presence type sensors capable of detecting user input, including input gestures [paras. 0717-0718], and objects [e.g., cups or components of the coffee machine; para. 0814].
Therefore, since it has been held by the courts that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art [see MPEP 2144.04(III.)], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Andronis and Nichols such that the apparatus (1) is adapted so that at least part of the access disposition (4; 41, 42), preferentially also said recipient placement disposition (2), can further be automatically actuated based upon at least one of: detection of the presence of an object on the apparatus (1), for example of the recipient (10) on the recipient placement disposition (2); counting of a previously defined period of time without apprehension of said contactless, haptic or presence detection inputs., since Davis teaches equivalent input means capable of detecting user input gestures and objects and controlling a brewing process, and thus a PHOSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of the claim, e.g., by selecting, with a reasonable expectation of success, various sensors for detecting user input and objects, according to a desired user experience].
Regarding claim 14, Andronis in view of Nichols discloses the system according to claim 1.
However, although:
Andronis discloses opening and closing positions of the access disposition sliding blind 15 [fig. 4], and locked and unlocked positions of the recipient/recipient placement disposition [p. 5], and moving of the portion (7) of edible substance capsule 5 from storage to in proximity of the recipient mug, before placement of the capsule in the extraction head 11, before operative placement then locking of the mug in the recipient placement disposition [figs. 1-4], and
Nichols discloses that input means isn’t limited, and is selected according to a desired user experience [para. 0035] and that the brewing process has defined periods of time [para. 0036],
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not disclose detecting objects, and specifically,
Andronis as modified by Nichols does not explicitly disclose:
characterized in that at least one of: recipient placement disposition (2) and access disposition (4; 41, 42) presents actuation means adapted so that an input apprehended by said input means (9) only triggers the actuation of opening movement from said closed position (I), and so that the actuation of closing movement from an open position (II) can be triggered by at least one of:
previously defined operation event of the apparatus (1 ), such as for example detection of the presence of at least one of: portion (7) of edible substance and recipient (10, 10) in operative condition in the apparatus (1 ), or other indication of a respective operative condition,
automatic count of previously defined period of time after a previously defined operation event of the apparatus (1 ), in particular a period of time without apprehension of other input by the input means (9).
Davis, in the same field of endeavor [fig. 29C: coffee machine 1237; para. 0563], teaches:
an AGUI as an input means [para. 0814]
wherein the input means can include sensors capable of detecting user input, including input gestures [paras. 0717-0718], and objects [e.g., cups or components of the coffee machine; para. 0814].
Therefore, since it has been held by the courts that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art [see MPEP 2144.04(III.)], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Andronis and Nichols such that at least one of: recipient placement disposition (2) and access disposition (4; 41, 42) presents actuation means adapted so that an input apprehended by said input means (9) only triggers the actuation of opening movement from said closed position (I), and so that the actuation of closing movement from an open position (II) can be triggered by at least one of: previously defined operation event of the apparatus (1 ), such as for example detection of the presence of at least one of: portion (7) of edible substance and recipient (10, 10) in operative condition in the apparatus (1 ), or other indication of a respective operative condition, automatic count of previously defined period of time after a previously defined operation event of the apparatus (1 ), in particular a period of time without apprehension of other input by the input means (9), since Davis teaches equivalent input means capable of detecting user input gestures and objects and controlling a brewing process, and thus a PHOSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of the claim, e.g., by selecting, with a reasonable expectation of success, various sensors for detecting user input and objects, according to a desired user experience].
Regarding claim 15,
Andronis discloses:
A process for preparing edible products, for example a beverage, including a cycle of preparation of edible product [brewing coffee with hot water and a coffee serving capsule 5, and dispensing to a drinking vessel 18/mug 19; see fig. 1, showing a vehicle console 1 comprising coffee machine 2 as the claimed system; pp. 1-2] that comprises the following steps:
supplying, manually or automatically, a portion (7) of edible substance [i.e., coffee serving capsule 5] to a product preparation device (5) [i.e., the console 1, comprising extraction head 11, a water supply device, and a heating and pumping device, as a brewing unit/the product preparation device; p. 7: “Furthermore, a water supply device provided by means of the extraction head for preferably coffee extraction a defined, heated to a predetermined extraction temperature Amount of water to be supplied at a predetermined pressure…”; p. 8: “The Water supply device is preferably arranged on the vehicle side and has a heating and pumping device. This heating and pumping device is by means of a vehicle-mounted control and / or regulating device operated corresponding to the power supply to the coffee maker predefinable parameter controls or regulates.”], and
placing, manually or automatically, a recipient (10, 10') [fig. 2: mug 19] on the recipient placement disposition (2) [fig. 1: extraction head recording 9] so that can collect edible product from a product discharge (21) [fig. 4: connecting piece 10
However, although Andronis discloses physical switches for detecting user input, Andronis does not disclose any gesture-type control, and explicitly does not disclose:
the cycle of preparation of edible product being characterized in that further includes the steps:
carrying out at least one input gesture in at least one of: part of the proximal surrounding and part of the exterior envelope of the apparatus (l);
apprehending the input gesture by means of the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94);
providing and operative input based upon the apprehended input gesture to control means (6), so that there is triggered a respective operation of the cycle of preparation of edible product by the apparatus (1);
carrying out an of the cycle of preparation of edible product after and according to the input gesture apprehended by the input means (9),
so that the cycle of preparation of edible product does not mandatorily require a direct touch gesture or a gesture of exerting a force by the user in any part of the apparatus (1), and does not include touching an explicit or visible user interface.
Nichols, in the same field of endeavor [para. 0007: “The present disclosure includes an apparatus and process for preparing diluted-brewed beverages in an automatic espresso brewer.”], teaches whereby operations can be carried out based upon the apprehension of an input gesture [para. 0035: “In the embodiment shown in FIG. 4, the control interface 60 may include a display such as an LED, LCD, intensity changing light, audio, other display 64 and manually controllable indicia or icons 68, user gesture recognition features...”] and that input means isn’t limited, and is selected according to a desired user experience [para. 0035: “The use of the control interface 60 is intended to be broadly interpreted to include any form of interface which will facilitate ease of use by the user.”].
Davis, in the same field of endeavor [fig. 29C: coffee machine 1237; para. 0563], teaches:
an AGUI as an input means [para. 0814]
wherein the input means can include various sensors capable of detecting user input, including input gestures [paras. 0717-0718] in a contactless manner [see fig. 3A, showing a user’s gestures in an input space, detected by AGUI device 201; para. 0586].
Therefore, since it has been held by the courts that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art [see MPEP 2144.04(III.)], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the process of Andronis and Nichols such that the cycle of preparation of edible product being characterized in that further includes the steps: carrying out at least one input gesture in at least one of: part of the proximal surrounding and part of the exterior envelope of the apparatus (l); apprehending the input gesture by means of the input means (9; 91, 92, 93, 94); providing and operative input based upon the apprehended input gesture to control means (6), so that there is triggered a respective operation of the cycle of preparation of edible product by the apparatus (1); carrying out an of the cycle of preparation of edible product after and according to the input gesture apprehended by the input means (9), so that the cycle of preparation of edible product does not mandatorily require a direct touch gesture or a gesture of exerting a force by the user in any part of the apparatus (1), and does not include touching an explicit or visible user interface, since Davis teaches equivalent input means capable of detecting user input gestures and objects and controlling a brewing process, and thus a PHOSITA would have found it an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at the limitations of the claim, e.g., by selecting, with a reasonable expectation of success, various sensors for detecting user input and objects, according to a desired user experience].
Regarding claim 16, Andronis in view of Nichols and Davis discloses the process according to claim 15.
Andronis as modified by Nichols and Davis further discloses:
characterized in that at least part of said operations of a cycle of preparation of edible product, preferentially all the steps thereof, can be automatically triggered after and according to at least one of:
apprehension of at least one of: a characteristic of object, a spatial characteristic of handling, and an event associated with at least one of the portion (7) of edible substance and recipient (10, 10') [i.e., the input means of Davis detecting the capsule and mug of Andronis, during the brewing process],
counting a period of time, for example previously defined, with or without apprehension of any characteristic, dimension or event until ending the counting of the period of time [Nichols discloses that the brewing process has defined periods of time [para. 0036],
so that, the cycle of preparation of edible product does not require a user to mandatorily carry out more than two, preferentially more than one input gesture associated with the apparatus (1) [i.e., the input means of Davis configured to detect the movement of a user’s hand, the mug, and the various components of the coffee machine].
Regarding claim 17, Andronis in view of Nichols and Davis discloses the process according to claim 15.
Andronis as modified by Nichols and Davis further discloses:
characterized in that the input gesture includes at least one of:
proximity gesture without touching, for example by a free hand, in the proximal surrounding, in particular a tri-dimensional input space, of at least part of the envelope (3) of apparatus, preferentially of the access disposition (4; 41, 42) [i.e., the input means and input space of Davis detecting without touching a free hand in a proximal surrounding area of the access disposition of Andronis; see Davis fig. 3A, showing a user’s gestures in an input space, detected by AGUI device 201; para. 0586: “Referring to FIG. 3A, when the user later stands up, the user can be seen making gestures, in this case with his hand, to control the AGUI system.”];
touch gesture, for example with the fingers of a hand, in particular upon an input surface, preferentially associated with at least one of: envelope (3) of apparatus and access disposition (4; 41, 42) [i.e., the input means of Davis, displayed/projected on a surface of the access disposition of Andronis; para. 0045; para. 0005];
gesture of approaching a recipient (10) from the proximity surrounding of the apparatus (1), preferentially at least the proximity surrounding of at least part of the access disposition (4; 41, 42) [i.e., the input means of Davis detecting the motion and location of the mug of Andronis];
gesture of placing a recipient (10) on the recipient placement disposition (2) [i.e., the input means of Davis detecting the motion and location of the mug of Andronis];
and does not include a touch gesture upon a user interface of the button type, or similar, of the apparatus (1) [i.e., any physical button type or similar replaced with the contactless input means of Davis, according to, e.g., design a particular user experience].
Regarding claim 18, Andronis in view of Nichols and Davis discloses the process according to claim 15.
Andronis as modified by Nichols and Davis further discloses:
characterized in that the remote gesture in the proximity surrounding includes at least one of:
gesture along at least one of: a single direction, and a single plane [i.e., the input means of Davis, capable of detecting a user’s 2 dimensional gesture along a direction of a plane];
continuous gesture along at least one of: at least a first and a second direction, and at least a first and a second plane [i.e., the input means of Davis, capable of detecting a user’s 3 dimensional gesture along at least 2 planes],
and in that the touch gesture upon at least part of the access disposition (4; 41, 42), includes at least one of:
at least one of: a pinpoint touch and a succession of pinpoint touches, upon any location amongst a plurality of locations [i.e., the input means of Davis, capable of detecting a user’s gestures amongst a plurality of locations in the input space], and
continuous touch upon a plurality of adjacent points, thereby describing at least one of a direction and a configuration [i.e., the input means of Davis, capable of detecting a user’s gestures amongst a plurality of adjacent points in the input space], and
in that the touch is exerted in at least one of: in a direction similar to the direction of required movement, in a direction different from the direction of required movement [i.e., the input means of Davis, capable of detecting a user’s 3 dimensional gestures in the input space].
Regarding claim 19, Andronis in view of Nichols and Davis discloses the process according to claim 15.
Andronis as modified by Nichols and Davis further discloses:
characterized in that the input gesture triggers at least one of the following steps:
transition of the operative condition of the apparatus (1) from a "standby" condition to a readiness condition [i.e., the input means of Davis controlling the operative condition of the coffee machine of Andronis];
automatic verification of the readiness of availability of the fluid for preparation of edible product and operative condition of operative devices of the apparatus (1) [i.e., the input means of Davis detecting the fluid and capsule and coffee machine of Andronis];
opening movement of at least part of the access disposition (4; 41, 42), thereby providing access to at least one of the recipient placement disposition (2) and entry passageway (8) of portions [i.e., the input means of Davis controlling the access disposition of Andronis];
opening movement of the product preparation device (5) [i.e., the input means of Davis controlling the coffee machine of Andronis];
preferentially at least two of the aforementioned steps, sequentially in automatic manner.
Regarding claim 20, Andronis in view of Nichols and Davis discloses the process according to claim 15.
Andronis as modified by Nichols and Davis further discloses:
characterized in that the process further includes at least one of, preferentially at least a plurality, of the following steps:
placing the recipient (10, 10') on the recipient placement disposition (2) [Andronis fig. 6];
detecting the presence of the recipient (10, 10') on the recipient placement disposition (2) [e.g., the input means of Davis capable of detecting the mug of Andronis];
apprehension of a characteristic associated with the recipient (10, 10') including at least one of: characteristic dimension and code-like indicia [the input means of Davis capable of detecting a code on the capsule of Andronis; para. 0814];
retention movement so as to retain the recipient (10) on the recipient placement disposition (2) [Andronis discloses locked and unlocked positions of the recipient/recipient placement disposition; p. 5];
handling of the recipient (10, 10') so as to evolve, for example by means of a rotation movement, from a first to a second placement position on the recipient placement disposition (2) [Andronis discloses rotating between locked and unlocked positions of the recipient/recipient placement disposition; p. 4];
confirmation that the recipient (10) is correctly retained in the recipient placement disposition (2) [Andronis discloses a quick release device as confirmation of retainment of the mug, thus allowing fluid flow; p. 12];
detection of supply of portion (7) of edible substance to the product preparation device (5) in at least one of: through the entry passageway (8) of portion, directly upstream and downstream of the product preparation device (5) [i.e., the input means of Davis capable of detecting the capsule of Andronis];
detection of presence of portion (7) of edible substance in at least one of: in the proximity of the entry passageway (8) of portion and inside of the product preparation device (5) [i.e., the input means of Davis detecting the capsule of Andronis];
apprehension of data associated with the portion (7) of edible substance and supply thereof to control means [i.e., the input means of Davis capable of detecting the capsule of Andronis, e.g., detecting the contents of the capsule];
whereby at least one of the aforementioned steps is automatically followed by at least one of:
automatic selection of preparation parameters of edible product, based upon apprehended data [e.g., according to the code detected by the input means of Davis];
closing movement of at least part of the access disposition (4; 41, 42) [i.e., the input means of Davis capable of controlling the access disposition of Andronis, wherein it has been held by the courts that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(III.).];
start of the fluid circulation for preparation of an edible product and discharge thereof to the recipient (10, 10') [i.e., the input means of Davis capable of controlling the coffee machine of Andronis].
Regarding claim 21, Andronis in view of Nichols and Davis discloses the process according to claim 15.
Andronis as modified by Nichols and Davis further discloses:
characterized in that the opening movement of the access disposition (42) associated with the entry passageway (8) of portion is carried out after at least one of the following steps:
detection of the presence of the recipient (10) on the recipient placement disposition (2) [i.e., the input means of Davis capable of detecting the mug of Andronis];
confirmation that the recipient (10) is retained on the recipient placement disposition (2) [i.e., the input means of Davis capable of detecting the mug of Andronis].
Regarding claim 22, Andronis in view of Nichols and Davis discloses the process according to claim 15.
Andronis as modified by Nichols and Davis further discloses:
characterized in that the inputs upon each of the parts (41, 42) of the access disposition (4) triggers actions, including opening movements, driven for example by electromechanical means, associated to the respective access part (41, 42), autonomously from the other access part (41, 42) [i.e., the input means of Davis capable of detecting user inputs, objects of the coffee machine of Andronis, and the operation of the coffee machine of Andronis, wherein it has been held by the courts that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(III.).].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Webster (US 20090101020 A1) – discloses a motorized and automatic opening and closing of an access disposition [para. 0039: “Outwardly from the side 5b opposite the window 16 and near the other hinge 17, the present invention has an alternate embodiment including a second motor 21. The second motor engages the tray through gearing 21a and supplies rotation and torque about an axis parallel to the rear edge 12a for extending and retracting the tray thus opening and closing the cover.”]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm 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 F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights