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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 01/30/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, Group II, claim 16 has been withdrawn from prosecution.
Claim Objections
In claim 1, the phrase such as “introduced temporary…” is objected to because it is not a definitive language by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a period (.) at the end of the “Claim 13” at line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Furthermore, is the limitation “Calibration chamber” at line 1 in the claims 14 and 15 the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 13 at line 1. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used, e.g. “The calibration chamber…”.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a chamber (1)” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1” has been used to designate both “a chamber” and “a roasting chamber”; reference character “1a” has been used to designate both “a roasting chamber” and “a removable chamber”; and reference character “1b” has been used to designate “a calibration chamber”, “a specific chamber” and “a removable chamber”.
See paragraphs [0234, 0293, 0296, 0306, 0307, 0313, 0314, and 0327] of the instant invention publication, US 20230172253. 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. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one member” in claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8; “at least one removable device” in claims 3, 4, and 5; “at least one device” in claim 4, 11, and 14; “mover” in claim 4; “a device” in claim 9; and “a member” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0302] discloses in FIG. 4A (see FIG. 4A below), a device 16a designed to restrict the flow of air can be introduced and then removed inside the smoke conduit 14. This device, such as a plate pierced by holes, can be removably slid through an opening 141 inside this conduit during the calibration operation.
PNG
media_image1.png
517
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paragraph [0303] discloses the design is configured to simulate the pressure loss of air inside the chamber when beans are present in the chamber. In this embodiment, this device 16a can be an integrated part of the coffee beans roasting apparatus 10 and the apparatus can comprise a means to move said device 16a in the smoke conduit 14 when a calibration operation is implemented. This means can be actuated manually (lever, push button) or automatically (through a motor). A sensor can be provided to check the position of this device depending of the operation mode : roasting or calibration. This probe shall not be present inside the smoke conduit during the roasting operation.
Paragraph [0316] discloses the chamber comprises a first plate 16a pierced by holes and positioned at the bottom of the calibration chamber. This first plate creates a first pressure loss of the air flow inside the chamber to simulate the presence of beans. In addition, this plate is configured to improve the homogenisation of the sub-air flows A through the transversal horizontal section of the chamber downwards this first plate 16a : it means the flows that presented various direction upstream become more vertically aligned and parallel downstream this plate. As the air flow supplied at the air outlet hole 41 of the housing is often asymmetric, this first plate 16a break this air flow and starts homogenising this air flow by creating multiple parallel smaller flows. The holes are sized, designed and distributed to obtain these effects. For example, circular holes with 2 mm diameter and distributed along the whole surface of the plate 16a provide these effects.
Paragraph [0317] discloses the chamber comprises a second plate 16b pierced by holes and positioned at the bottom of the calibration chamber. This second plate creates a second pressure loss of the air flow inside the chamber to simulate the presence of beans. This plate is configured to improve the production of homogenised flows of air inside the chamber (because the aim is to read at the temperature probe a temperature that is not particular at one point of the chamber but that really provides the average temperature inside the chamber by dividing again the flows of air generated at the first plate in additional sub-flows. The holes are sized, designed and distributed to obtain these effects. For example, circular holes with 4 mm diameter and distributed along the whole surface of the plate 16b provide these effects. The chamber comprises a third plate 16c pierced by holes and positioned just upstream the probe 3. This plate creates a third pressure loss of the air flow. It is preferably designed to lead the different flows of air created at the second plate 16b to converge to the second temperature probe 3. For example, this third plate comprises circular holes with 3 mm diameter and distributed along the centre of the plate 16c only. The external ring of the third plate does not comprise hole in order to force flows of air to converge to the probe.
See Figure 5A below.
PNG
media_image2.png
459
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Paragraph [0041] discloses this means simulates the behaviour of the flow of hot air when it is introduced in a bed of coffee beans inside the roasting chamber. During a normal roasting operation, the flow of air introduced at the inlet of the roasting chamber is affected by the presence of coffee beans that it passes through and moves : there the air flow undergoes a loss of pressure.
Paragraph [0050] discloses in another embodiment, the means configured to create a pressure loss of the flow of hot air while the chamber is void of coffee beans comprises at least one removable device designed to restrict the flow of hot air inside and/or downstream the chamber.
Paragraph [0051] discloses such a device restricting the flow of air creates a counter pressure or a pressure loss like the coffee beans when they are present inside the roasting chamber.
Paragraph [0052] discloses by removable, it is meant that this device can be easily temporary positioned inside the roasting apparatus and then removed.
Paragraph [0053] discloses this device restricting the flow of air can comprise a grid, a mesh, a plate with at least one hole and/or a pipe with a venturi design.
Paragraph [0056] discloses the roasting apparatus comprises means configured to move the at least one device and to position said device temporary and removably inside or at the outlet of the chamber of the roasting apparatus.
Paragraph [0295] discloses in this embodiment, the second probe 3 can be an integrated part of the coffee beans roasting apparatus 10 and the apparatus can comprise a means to move said second probe 3 in the smoke conduit 14 when a calibration operation is implemented. This means can be actuated manually (lever, push button) or automatically (through a motor). A sensor can be provided to check the position of this second probe depending of the operation mode : roasting or calibration. This probe shall not be present inside the smoke conduit during the roasting operation.
Paragraph [0303] discloses the design is configured to simulate the pressure loss of air inside the chamber when beans are present in the chamber. In this embodiment, this device 16a can be an integrated part of the coffee beans roasting apparatus 10 and the apparatus can comprise a means to move said device 16a in the smoke conduit 14 when a calibration operation is implemented. This means can be actuated manually (lever, push button) or automatically (through a motor). A sensor can be provided to check the position of this device depending of the operation mode : roasting or calibration. This probe shall not be present inside the smoke conduit during the roasting operation.
Paragraph [0305] discloses in FIG. 4B, the means configured to create a pressure loss of the flow of hot air while the chamber is void of coffee beans is the air flow driver 21 of the heating device. In order to simulate the presence of coffee bans inside the chamber, the control system sets the air flow driver, e.g. the speed of rotation if this driver is a fan or the power of voltage of this fan, in order to obtain in the chamber a flow similar to the one obtained in presence of beans (as represented by arrow F).
Paragraph [0306] discloses FIG. 4C illustrates a calibration chamber 1b comprising air flow restricting means to simulate the presence of air beans. In the specific illustrated embodiment, the restricting means are three plates pierced with holes.
Paragraph [0323] discloses the apparatus comprises the features illustrated in FIG. 3B and in FIG. 4A relative to the temporary introduction of a second temperature probe 3 and of a means 16 configured to create a pressure loss of the flow of hot air while the chamber is void of coffee beans respectively. In the illustrated embodiment, this means comprises a grid but other means can be implemented like a section decrease. The probe 3 can be positioned before, after or close to the grid 16.
Paragraph [0327] discloses the apparatus comprises a specific chamber 1b dedicated to the calibration operation in addition to the roasting chamber 1a. This calibration chamber comprises a second temperature probe 3 and means 16 to create a pressure loss in order to simulate the presence of coffee beans inside the chamber. In the illustrated embodiment, this means comprises a section decrease but other means can be implemented like a grid. The probe 3 can be positioned before, after or inside the section decrease 16.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the temperature of air" at line 5, “the temperature” at line 9, and “the temperature inside the roasting chamber” at line 14, and “the roasting chamber” at line 14 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Furthermore, it is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the chamber” at lines 16 and 17 and “a chamber” at line 3 OR “the roasting chamber” at line 14 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the chamber) or provide proper antecedent basis. Note: similar issue with this limitation in claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Furthermore, the limitation "coffee beans" at line 16 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this coffee beans is the same as the one recited at line 3. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Claims 2-12 recites the limitation "Coffee beans roasting system" at line 1 in the preamble renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear for whether this Coffee beans roasting system is the same as the one recited in the claim 1 at line 1. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used, e.g. “The Coffee beans roasting system...”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a pressure loss" at line 7 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this pressure loss is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 15. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Furthermore, the limitation "coffee beans" at line 8 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this coffee beans is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 3. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a pressure loss" at line 2 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this pressure loss is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 15. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Furthermore, the limitation "coffee beans" at line 3 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this coffee beans is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 3. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “the at least one device” and "the outlet of the chamber" at line 6 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the dedicated roasting chamber" at line 3 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the dedicated chamber” in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the dedicated chamber” at lines 9-10 and “the dedicated roasting chamber” at line 3 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the dedicated chamber) or provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a pressure loss" at line 2 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this pressure loss is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 15. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Furthermore, the limitation "coffee beans" at lines 3 and 4 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this coffee beans is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 3. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outlet of the chamber" at line 4 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the at least one second probe” in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “the at least one second probe” and “at least one second temperature probe” as the one recited in the preceding claim 1 at line 13 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the at least one second probe) or provide proper antecedent basis.
Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the conduit” in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the conduit" and “the outlet of the chamber” at line 5 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the dedicated roasting chamber" at line 3 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, the word “optionally” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the roasting chamber” at line 2, "the temperature of air" at line 6, and “the temperature” at lines 10 and 11, in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the bottom of the calibration chamber" at line 3 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claim 14 is rejected for its inherited deficiencies on rejected independent claim 13.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,408,691. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they disclose similar subject matters as the instant invention.
Instant Invention
US 12,408,691
Claim 1: Coffee beans roasting system comprising:
a coffee beans roasting apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a chamber dedicated to roasting of coffee beans,
a heating device to supply a flow of hot air to the chamber,
at least one first temperature probe to regulate the temperature of air supplied by the heating device, the first temperature probe being positioned outside the chamber,
a control system configured to control the heating device and configured to reproduce roasting curves each of the roasting curves providing a set of points representing the temperature to be applied at discrete successive times, respectively, the control of the heating device being based on the temperature regulated by the at least one first temperature probe,
and
at least one second temperature probe configured to be introduced temporary inside the roasting apparatus to measure the temperature inside the roasting chamber, and
at least one member configured to create a pressure loss of the flow of hot air while the chamber is void of coffee beans in order to simulate the presence of coffee beans inside the chamber during a roasting operation.
Claim 17: Coffee beans roasting apparatus comprising:
a chamber to contain coffee beans,
a heating device to heat air supplied to the chamber,
at least one first temperature probe to regulate the temperature supplied by the heating device, said first temperature probe being positioned outside the chamber,
a control system configured to control the heating device and configured to reproduce roasting curves, said roasting curves providing at least a set of points representing the temperature to be applied at discrete successive times ti, respectively, said control of the heating device implementing a feedback loop regulation based on the temperature Treg measured by the at least one first temperature probe,
wherein said apparatus comprises means to introduce temporary at least one second temperature probe inside the chamber of the roasting apparatus or is configured to enable the temporary replacement of the chamber by a calibration chamber, said calibration chamber comprising at least one second temperature probe, and wherein the control system is configured to receive input of measured temperature by said second temperature probe.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sewell et al. (US 20140314923) in view of Kumagai et al. (US 4,325,191).
Regarding claim 1, Sewell et al. discloses coffee beans roasting system (see figure 1) comprising:
a coffee beans roasting apparatus (abstract, i.e. a roaster), the apparatus comprising:
a chamber (10) dedicated to roasting of coffee beans (¶ 0002, i.e. coffee beans, nuts, grains and other such materials),
a heating device (32) to supply a flow of hot air to the chamber (10),
at least one first temperature probe (42, 50) to regulate the temperature of air supplied by the heating device, the first temperature probe (42, 50) being positioned outside the chamber (10),
a control system (34) configured to control the heating device (32) and configured to reproduce roasting curves (see figures 3A-3C) each of the roasting curves providing a set of points representing the temperature to be applied at discrete successive times (i.e. Temperature vs. Time), respectively, the control of the heating device being based on the temperature regulated by the at least one first temperature probe (42, 50) (¶ 0009, 0036),
and
at least one second temperature probe (48) configured to be introduced temporary the roasting apparatus (i.e. a roaster) to measure the temperature inside the roasting chamber (10) (¶ 0029), and
at least one member (16, i.e. a perforated plate or screen) configured to create a pressure loss of the flow of hot air while the chamber is void of coffee beans in order to simulate the presence of coffee beans inside the chamber during a roasting operation (¶ 0022-0024, 0044).
Sewell does not specifically disclose the at least one second temperature probe configured to be introduced temporary inside the roasting apparatus to measure the temperature inside the roasting chamber.
However, Kumagai teaches the at least one second temperature probe 8 (fig. 1, i.e. called a temperature sensing device) configured to be introduced temporary inside (i.e. an interior) the roasting apparatus (1, i.e. a coffee roaster) to measure the temperature inside the roasting chamber (2, i.e. a drum) (col. 2, lines 38-40).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a coffee roaster. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sewell and Kumagai before him or her, to modify the temperature sensor of Sewell to include the temperature sensor arrangement of Kumagai because upon detecting a predetermined temperature by the temperature sensing device, the thermodetector transmits a detecting signal to the switching device to automatically disconnect the power supply to a heater, thereby making automatic completion of roasting possible. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a coffee roaster capable of being easily operated by any person and of assuring and obtaining a desirable degree of roasting (col. 1, lines 55-57).
With respect to claim 2, Sewell in view of Kumagai discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Sewell further discloses wherein: the heating device of the roasting apparatus (i.e. a roaster) comprises an air flow driver (28 , i.e. a blower) and a heater (32) and the control system (34) of the roasting apparatus is configured to operate the air flow driver (28) to adjust the flow of air, and the member (16, i.e. a perforated plate) configured to create a pressure loss of the flow of hot air while the chamber (10) is void of coffee beans is the air flow driver (28) (¶ 0025).
With respect to claim 3, Sewell in view of Kumagai discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Sewell further discloses wherein the member configured to create a pressure loss of the flow of hot air while the chamber (10) is void of coffee beans (¶ 0002, i.e. coffee beans, nuts, grains and other such materials) comprises at least one removable device (16) designed to restrict (see figures 2A, 2B) the flow of hot air inside and/or downstream the chamber (10) (¶ 0024).
With respect to claim 4, Sewell in view of Kumagai discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Sewell further discloses wherein the at least one removable device (16) designed to restrict the flow of hot air inside and/or downstream the chamber(10) is an integrated and movable part of the coffee beans roasting apparatus (i.e. a roaster), and the roasting apparatus (i.e. a roaster) comprises mover configured to move the at least one device and to position the device temporary and removably inside or at the outlet of the chamber of the roasting apparatus (10) (¶ 0024).
With respect to claim 6, Sewell in view of Kumagai discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Sewell further discloses wherein the member (16, i.e. a perforated plate or screen) configured to create a pressure loss of the flow of hot air while the chamber (10) is void of coffee beans comprises granular inert objects, the granular inert objects being designed to simulate coffee beans (¶ 0022-0024, 0044).
With respect to claim 7, Sewell in view of Kumagai discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kumagai further discloses wherein the roasting apparatus (1) comprises a positioner configured to position the at least one second temperature probe (8) temporary and removably inside or at the outlet of the chamber of the roasting apparatus (1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sewell and Kumagai before him or her, to include such temperature sensor arrangement of Kumagai because upon detecting a predetermined temperature by the temperature sensing device, the thermodetector transmits a detecting signal to the switching device to automatically disconnect the power supply to a heater, thereby making automatic completion of roasting possible. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a coffee roaster capable of being easily operated by any person and of assuring and obtaining a desirable degree of roasting (col. 1, lines 55-57).
With respect to claim 8, Sewell in view of Kumagai discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kumagai further discloses wherein the at least one second temperature probe (8) is an integrated part of the coffee beans roasting apparatus (1) and the roasting apparatus (1) comprises a member (i.e. an actuator, e.g. a button) to move the at least one second probe (8) in the conduit connected to the outlet of the chamber (2, i.e. a drum) (col. 2, lines 40-43).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sewell and Kumagai before him or her, to include such actuator of Kumagai because it provides a coffee roaster for automatically completing roasting by automatically cutting off the thermal source when detection of the surface temperature of coffee beans. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides a coffee roaster capable of being easily operated by any person and of assuring and obtaining a desirable degree of roasting (col. 1, lines 55-57).
With respect to claim 9, Sewell in view of Kumagai discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Sewell further discloses wherein the at least one second temperature probe (48) is a device external (i.e. the temperature sensor outside the roasting chamber 10) to the coffee beans roasting apparatus (abstract, i.e. a roaster) and the coffee beans apparatus (abstract, i.e. a roaster) comprises an opening designed to introduce the at least one second temperature probe (48) in an airtight manner inside the chamber (10) or in the conduit connected to the outlet (14) of the chamber (10).
With respect to claim 12, Sewell in view of Kumagai discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Sewell further discloses wherein the control system (34) of the roasting apparatus (abstract, i.e. a roaster) is configured: to receive input of measured temperature by the second temperature probe (48), and to implement a calibration process of the roasting apparatus (abstract, i.e. a roaster) based on the input (¶ 0031).
Claim(s) 5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sewell et al. (US 20140314923) in view of Kumagai et al. (US 4,325,191) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Moon et al. (US 20030207010).
Regarding claim 5, Sewell in view of Kumagai discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein: the dedicated roasting chamber of the coffee beans roasting apparatus is removable from the roasting apparatus, and the coffee beans roasting apparatus comprises an area designed to receive and hold the removable dedicated roasting chamber, and the at least one removable device designed to restrict the flow of hot air inside and/or downstream the chamber is part of a calibration chamber, the calibration chamber being configured to be introduced removably inside the holding and receiving area in place of the dedicated chamber.
However, Moon teaches wherein: the dedicated roasting chamber (14) of the coffee beans roasting apparatus (10) is removable from the roasting apparatus, and the coffee beans roasting apparatus comprises an area designed to receive and hold the removable dedicated roasting chamber (10), and the at least one removable device (47, i.e. an inlet airflow control assembly) designed to restrict the flow of hot air inside and/or downstream the chamber is part of a calibration chamber, the calibration chamber being configured to be introduced removably inside the holding and receiving area in place of the dedicated chamber (¶ 0018-0019, 0023-0024, 0027).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a coffee roaster. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sewell in view of Kumagai and Moon before him or her, to include such removable container arrangement of Moon because the coffee roaster is adapted to have at least two roasting stages where the temperature in the subsequent roasting stage is higher than that of the preceding roasting stage. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the temperature of the beans closely tracks the predetermined air temperature curve and undergo a series of predictable roasting cycles to become uniformly roasted (¶ 0030).
With respect to claim 10, Sewell in view of Kumagai and Moon discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Moon further discloses wherein: the dedicated roasting chamber (14) of the coffee beans roasting apparatus (10) is removable from the roasting apparatus (10), and the coffee beans roasting apparatus (10) comprises an area designed to receive and hold the removable dedicated chamber (14), and the at least one second temperature probe (50) is part of a calibration chamber, the calibration chamber being configured to be introduced inside the holding and receiving area in place of the dedicated roasting chamber (10) (¶ 0016, 0028).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sewell and Moon before him or her, to include such removable roasting chamber of Moon because the coffee roaster is adapted to have at least two roasting stages where the temperature in the subsequent roasting stage is higher than that of the preceding roasting stage. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the temperature of the beans closely tracks the predetermined air temperature curve and undergo a series of predictable roasting cycles to become uniformly roasted (¶ 0030).
With respect to claim 11, Sewell in view of Kumagai and Moon discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Moon further discloses wherein the coffee beans roasting apparatus (10) comprises: a chamber dedicated to calibration, the calibration chamber comprising: the at least one second temperature probe (50), and optionally at least one device (47, i.e. an inlet airflow control assembly) designed to restrict the flow of air in order to simulate the presence of coffee beans inside the chamber during a roasting operation, and a guide to guide the flow of hot air supplied by the heating device either to the chamber dedicated to roasting of coffee beans or to the chamber dedicated to calibration chamber (¶ 0018-0019, 0023-0024, 0027).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sewell and Moon before him or her, to include such a roasting chamber arrangement of Moon because the coffee roaster is adapted to have at least two roasting stages where the temperature in the subsequent roasting stage is higher than that of the preceding roasting stage. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the temperature of the beans closely tracks the predetermined air temperature curve and undergo a series of predictable roasting cycles to become uniformly roasted (¶ 0030).
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sewell et al. (US 20140314923) in view of Moon et al. (US 20030207010).
Regarding claim 13, Sewell et al. discloses the coffee beans roasting apparatus (see figure 1, i.e. a roaster) comprising:
a roasting chamber 10 (fig. 1) to contain coffee beans,
a heating device (32) to supply a flow of hot air to the chamber (10),
at least one first temperature probe (48) to regulate the temperature of air supplied by the heating device (32), the first temperature probe (48) being positioned outside the chamber (10) (¶ 0029),
a control system (34) configured to control the heating device (32) and configured to reproduce roasting curves (see figures 3A-3C) each of the roasting curves providing a set of points representing the temperature to be applied at discrete successive times (i.e. Temperature vs. Time), respectively, the control of the heating device (32) being based on the temperature regulated by the at least one first temperature probe (48) (¶ 0009, 0036).
Sewell discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for calibration chamber configured to be introduced in place of the roasting chamber of the coffee beans roasting apparatus, the roasting chamber being removable, the calibration chamber comprising: at least one second temperature probe.
However, Moon teaches calibration chamber (14) configured to be introduced in place of the roasting chamber of the coffee beans roasting apparatus (10), the roasting chamber being removable, the calibration chamber comprising: at least one second temperature probe (50) (¶ 0016, 0028).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a coffee roaster. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sewell and Moon before him or her, to include such removable roasting chamber of Moon because the coffee roaster is adapted to have at least two roasting stages where the temperature in the subsequent roasting stage is higher than that of the preceding roasting stage. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the temperature of the beans closely tracks the predetermined air temperature curve and undergo a series of predictable roasting cycles to become uniformly roasted (¶ 0030).
With respect to claim 14, Sewell in view of Moon discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Moon further discloses wherein the calibration chamber comprises at least one device (47, i.e. an inlet airflow control assembly) designed to restrict the flow of hot air inside the calibration chamber (14).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sewell and Moon before him or her, to include such an airflow control of Moon because the coffee roaster is adapted to have at least two roasting stages where the temperature in the subsequent roasting stage is higher than that of the preceding roasting stage. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the temperature of the beans closely tracks the predetermined air temperature curve and undergo a series of predictable roasting cycles to become uniformly roasted (¶ 0030).
With respect to claim 15, Sewell in view of Moon discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Moon further discloses wherein the calibration chamber (14) is a tube (i.e. the inlet conduit), the tube presenting a transversal section inferior to the transversal section of the roasting chamber of the roasting apparatus (10), optionally the tube comprises: a first plate (66, i.e. inlet plate) pierced by at least one hole (68, i.e. openings) and positioned at the bottom of the calibration chamber (14), and second plate (70, i.e. called a cover) pierced by at least one hole (72, i.e. called openings) and positioned downstream the at least one second temperature probe (50).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sewell and Moon before him or her, to include such an airflow control arrangement of Moon because the coffee roaster is adapted to have at least two roasting stages where the temperature in the subsequent roasting stage is higher than that of the preceding roasting stage. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the temperature of the beans closely tracks the predetermined air temperature curve and undergo a series of predictable roasting cycles to become uniformly roasted (¶ 0030).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Eichner (US 20040142078). And Sewell et al. (US 5,394,623).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761