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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/13/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-13 and 15 have been amended, claim 16 has been withdrawn, claim 14 has been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-13 and 15 are presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have overcome Claim Objections and the Specification from previous Office Action. However, Drawings objection, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (Claim Interpretation), and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections have not overcome as set forth below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “16” has been used to designate both “a restriction member” and (other elements, not sure what to call them. See reference number (16) on the REPLACEMENT SHEET dated 07/13/2026 is pointing at different components, see figures 4A, 4B, 4D, 6A, 6B, 7A, and 7B). 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 removable device” in claim 3; “mover” in claim 4; “a member” in claim 8; and “at least one device” in claim 11.
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.
Page 6, lines 31-35 of the Specification (07/13/2026, Clean substitute specification) 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. 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.
Page 7, lines 5-20 of the Specification discloses In one mode of this last embodiment, the at least one removable device designed to restrict the flow of hot air inside and/or downstream the chamber is an integrated and movable part of the coffee beans roasting apparatus…
- 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, said calibration chamber being configured to be introduced removably inside the holding and receiving area in place of the dedicated roasting chamber.
Page 7, lines 5-10 of the Specification 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.
Page 8, lines 8-19 of the Specification discloses in one mode, the at least one second temperature probe can be an integrated part of the coffee beans roasting apparatus and the roasting apparatus can comprise means to move said at least one second probe in the conduit connected to the outlet of the chamber. In that mode, the roasting apparatus comprises permanently the at least one second temperature probe but said probe is operable only temporary when it is moved to be positioned in the conduit connected to the outlet of the roasting chamber. Although this second temperature probe is not positioned inside the roasting chamber, it provides measures close to the temperature inside the chamber Tcal. Due to the fact that this probe can be moved to be positioned inside the conduit connected to the outlet of the roasting chamber and then moved away from this conduit, this probe can be protected from the smoke emitted during roasting operation and only used during a calibration operation in proper conditions.
Page 9, lines 10-17 of the Specification discloses In one embodiment, the coffee beans roasting apparatus comprises:
- a chamber dedicated to calibration, said calibration chamber comprising
. the at least one second temperature probe,
. and optionally at least one device designed to restrict the flow of air in order to simulate the presence of coffee beans inside the chamber during a roasting operation, and
- means 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.
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 1-13 and 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 limitation "a temperature of air" at lines 11-12 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this temperature of air is the same as the one recited at line 7. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a pressure loss" at line 6 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 18. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Furthermore, the limitation "coffee beans" at line 7 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 2. 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 18. 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 2. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "coffee beans" at line 6 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 2. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Furthermore, the limitation "a roasting operation" at lines 6-7 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this roasting operation is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 1 at lines 20-21. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a calibration process" at line 4 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this calibration process is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 1 at lines 16-17. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "coffee beans" at line 4 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this coffee beans is the same as the one recited at line 2. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
The dependent claims are rejected for its inherited deficiencies on rejected independent claims 1 and 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome Drawings objection, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (Claim Interpretation), and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, rejections as set forth in this Office action.
The dependent claims are allowable for at least their dependence on independent claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art of record are Sewell in view of Kumagai and Moon et al., the prior art of record references neither discloses, or suggests, in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 1, “at least one restricting member configured to create a pressure loss of the flow of hot air during the calibration process and while the roasting chamber is void of the coffee beans in order to simulate the presence of the coffee beans inside the roasting chamber during a roasting operation.”
Similarly, the closest prior art of record are Sewell in view of Kumagai and Moon et al., the prior art of record references neither discloses, or suggests, in combination with the other limitations of independent claim 13, “at least one restricting member configured to restrict the flow of hot air inside the calibration chamber to simulate the presence of the coffee beans inside the roasting chamber during a roasting operation.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights