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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 42, 415, 71.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the bottom end of the vertically oriented duct being opened or openable in claim 1, the temperature probe positioned as claimed in claims 5 (fig. 3 only shows it positioned in the horizontal duct 5, and not what Applicant considered to be the guiding member of element 4), 6, and 8, and the more than one air driver and common manifold of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it begins by reciting “The invention concerns,” which is a phrase which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amendment filed 17 November 2022 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/EP2021/063428, and of the European Patent Application No. 20175610.3, is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 20 May 2021. See MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 17 November 2022 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On p. 5, l. 27 of the submitted specification, the space gap between “regulation” and the semi-colon should be closed.
On p. 8, l. 1 of the submitted specification, the duplicate “and” should be struck.
On p. 9, l. 9, the ellipsis within the parenthetical should be struck.
On p. 10, l. 16, “roasting” is misspelled as “rosting.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 1–12 should begin with an article. Independent claim 1 should begin with the indefinite article, and each dependent claim should begin with one of the definite article or the indefinite article, although the indefinite article is customary.
In claim 1 on line 4, the first comma should be struck.
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 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the area vertically below the bottom opening of the roasting chamber” (ll. 9–10), which has insufficient antecedent basis, and should employ the indefinite article.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “said duct comprising a lateral air inlet designed to introduce the flow of air . . . inside the duct” (ll. 18–19), and the claim also recites “preferably tangentially,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2–12 are rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sewell et al. (US Pub. 2014/0314923).
Claim 1: Sewell discloses an apparatus for roasting coffee beans comprising:
a housing (15),
a roasting chamber (10) presenting a bottom opening (at 16), said chamber extending along a chamber axis, from said bottom opening (ascertainable from fig. 1), and said bottom opening comprising a grid to retain coffee beans inside the chamber (16),
an air driver (28) configured to drive a flow of air inside the roasting chamber from the bottom of said chamber (see ¶ 25),
an electrical heater (32; clearly disclosed as electric given the “SCR power controller” mentioned in ¶ 45) configured to heat air driven inside the roasting chamber (see ¶ 25), wherein the air driver and the electrical heater are positioned aside the area vertically below the bottom opening of the roasting chamber (the term “aside” is broad enough to read on what is shown with 16, 28, and 32 in fig. 1),
the air driver is oriented inside the housing in order to produce an initial flow of air flowing along an initial air axis, said initial air axis being different from the roasting chamber axis (the initial air axis appears to be horizontal, from right to left before entering conduit 30),
the apparatus comprises a guiding member (in fig. 1, the conduit between 28 and 16, ending at the conduit between 12 and 22 in fig. 1) configured to convert the initial flow of air produced by the air driver in an upwardly flow of air oriented along the axis of the roasting chamber and to the bottom opening of the roasting chamber (evident from at least ¶ 22),
said guiding member comprises at least one vertically oriented cylindrical duct (visible in fig. 1), said duct comprising a lateral air inlet designed to introduce the flow of air, preferably tangentially, inside the duct (ibid.),
said vertically oriented cylindrical duct is internally shaped to convert the flow of air introduced through the lateral air inlet in an upwardly swirling flow of air (the way the air flows into and up through the vertical duct would, by virtue of the turbulence and cylindrical shape, invariably cause some swirling; Applicant’s own disclosure seems to suggest that the cylindrical duct alone causes swirling, particularly because the swirling effect is only improved (and not caused) by a concavity 412 within the duct), and
the vertically oriented duct extends downwards the lateral air inlet (visible in fig. 1) and the bottom end of said duct is opened or openable (see 20 and 22 described in ¶¶ 23 and 37).
Comment: It’s unclear if Sewell is implying that lever 18 would open the perforated plate 16 at the same time it would open the bottom closure member 20, but a straightforward reading of the reference—particularly the simple structure shown in fig. 1—suggests that 16 and 20 are adjusted independently.
Claim 2: Sewell discloses that the guiding member is configured to generate a balanced flow of air at the bottom opening of the roasting chamber (“balanced” is a broad term that would read on the guiding member as shown in Sewell given the length it has from the lateral opening, between 12 and 22, to the bottom of 10; see also MPEP § 2173.04, breadth is not indefiniteness).
Claim 3: Sewell discloses that the initial air axis forms an angle comprised between 90 and 180° with the upwardly rising roasting chamber axis (based on fig. 1, this angle is 90°).
Comment: The Office recognizes that Applicant’s disclosed invention differs from Sewell in that its guiding member performs a kind of one-way reorientation of the initial air axis, whereas Sewell’s air takes a roundabout path to the chamber. However, the Office cautions against narrowing the claim in this manner, at least since repositioning and/or reorienting fluid delivery or control elements has predictable results.
Claim 4: Sewell discloses that the air driver is oriented inside the housing in order to produce an initial flow of air oriented horizontally and at a vertical level situated below the bottom opening of the roasting chamber (fairly shown in fig. 1).
Claim 5: Sewell disclose that at least one temperature probe is positioned in the at least one guiding member and downstream the heater (see 48 in fig. 1).
Claim 6: Sewell discloses that at least one temperature probe is positioned aside the area vertically below the bottom opening of the roasting chamber (see 48 in fig. 1).
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 7–9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sewell.
Claims 7, and 8: Sewell does not disclose that at least one temperature probe is positioned at the downstream side of the vertically oriented cylindrical duct, nor does it disclose at least one temperature probe positioned inside the chamber.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated how at least one temperature sensor positioned between Sewell’s own temperature sensors 48 and 42 (either as replacement or supplemental sensors) would provide similarly useful temperature information for controlling the heater (as described in ¶ 28 of Sewell).
Comment: There is no explicit antecedent basis for any such “downstream side of the vertically oriented cylindrical duct,” but the Office finds the limitation definite and simply refers to anything that can fairly be considered the downstream half of the duct.
Claims 9 and 11: Sewell does not disclose that the at least one part of the guiding member, or the roasting chamber, is removable from the housing.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that it could be beneficial to render at least one part of the guiding member, or the roasting chamber, to be removable from the housing for common purposes, e.g. cleaning, maintenance, or replacement.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sewell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 2006-0003828 A).
Sewell does not disclose that at least a part of the walls of the guiding member is covered with a second wall.
However, Kim’s disclosure is relevant to coffee roasting devices, and teaches the use of a second wall (30; 32) covering a guiding member (50).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the second wall of Kim on the guiding member of Sewell (where it has the electric heater 32) to mitigate heat loss.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest, alone or combination, more than one air driver connected to a common manifold as claimed. Furthermore, Applicant identifies that this configuration as one that improves compactness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761