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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 3, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 3, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-19 remain pending in the application. Claim 4 is canceled by the applicant. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action is provided
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments file June 3, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The interpretations under 112f should be withdrawn due to being “improper”: The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion and does not find the arguments provided to be persuasive. That being said, the 112f interpretation of “control unit” is withdrawn as it is overcome by amendment to “controller. Additionally, the 112f interpretation of “dosing unit” is withdrawn as it is a term of art and for no other reason.
The amendments to the claim overcomes the previously set forth rejection in view of Alessi and Olesky: The examiner agrees with this assertion. As a result, new grounds of rejection is provided below. As a result, arguments pertaining to the previous application of prior art are considered moot.
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 “meaqns” 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 limitations are as follows:
“Measuring unit for measuring the amount of coffee” in Claim 1 further defined by the specifications as a “weighing unit (Pg. 23),” rotary cylinders with rotations counted (Pg. 24) or an optical sensor (Pg. 24).” Therefore, the measuring unit will be interpretated in light of the specifications.
“Driver units for moving the grinder” in Claim 7 further defined on Page 6 of the specifications as “one or more motors” Therefore, the driver unit will be interpreted in light of the specifications as a motor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 18 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 3 and Claim 18 recite the phrase “preferably” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. As a result, these limitations cannot further limit the claims and may not been considered. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Graaf US 20110256273 A1 in view of Van Os (US 20120024160 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
673
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
582
549
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
621
499
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
663
510
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: de Graaff teaches a system for dispensing ground coffee (“a system for preparing a coffee beverage…comprising a grinder for grinding coffee beans to obtain ground coffee [0001]”, the system comprising:
one or more receptacles (“coffee bean package” [0090] Figure 1 Element 3) for storing one or different types of roasted coffee beans,
one or more dosing devices (“dosing device” [0089]) Figure 1 Element 23) configured for dispensing coffee beans (the dosing device is “for supplying a predetermined dose of coffee beans to the grinder” [0089]),
a grinder (“grinder” [0088] Figure 1 Element 6) for receiving coffee beans, which are dispensed by the one or more dosing devices (the dosing device is “for supplying a predetermined dose of coffee beans to the grinder” [0089]), in order to grind said coffee beans (elements of the grinder are used “for grinding coffee beans [0088]) and subsequently dispense the so ground coffee beans (through the “coffee discharge opening” Figure 1 Element 30),
the grinder being configured to move into different grinding positions for different grinding degrees, respectively, (“the distance between the grinding elements 32A and 32B may be settable…for setting a grinding coarseness” [0113]) wherein the one or more dosing devices are arranged between the one or more receptacles and the grinder (Shown in Figure 1),
controller (“control device” Figure 1 Element 13A) for controlling the one or more dosing devices (“dosing device” [0089]) Figure 1 Element 23) and the grinder (“grinder” [0088] Figure 1 Element 6), wherein the control unit controller is configured to: control one or more of the one or more dosing devices so that a specific amount of coffee beans is dispensed to the grinder (“the dosing device can be operated through an operating element 13B of the control device 13A, for setting the dose of the coffee beans” the dose of which is understood to be a specific amount of coffee beans[0089]),
and to control the grinder so that the grinder grinds said specific amount of coffee beans (the dosing device is “for supplying a predetermined dose of coffee beans to the grinder” [0089]) and, thus, dispenses the so ground coffee beans (through the “coffee discharge opening” Figure 1 Element 30), until the grinder is free from coffee beans so that the grinder can subsequently be moved in one of the different grinding positions (“so that after grinding no ground coffee residues remain behind in the grinder” Claim 71),
wherein the one or more dosing devices (“dosing device” [0089]) Figure 1 & 2B Element 23) are arranged to act as one or more retaining elements (the dosing device further comprises a “displaceable dosing element “ [0090] shown in Figure 2B which rotates to acts as a cover for the coffee bean outlet (Figure 2B Element 11) to contain coffee beans within the receptacle while in the parked position) for retaining coffee beans inside of the one or more receptacles, so that the coffee beans in the receptacles, at least partly lying or are at least in part supported on the one or more dosing devices, by preventing coffee beans from being removed from the receptacles (Shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2B),
wherein the one or more dosing devices switch between a retaining mode “displaceable dosing element “ [0090] shown in Figure 2B which rotates to acts as a cover for the coffee bean outlet (Figure 2B Element 11) to contain coffee beans within the receptacle while in the parked position ) wherein in the retaining mode, the one or more dosing devices act as the one or more retaining elements (Shown in Figure 2B) , and wherein in the dispensing mode (wherein the “displaceable dosing element “ [0090] shown in Figure 2B is rotated such that it does not act as a cover for the coffee bean outlet (Figure 2B Element 11)) , the one or more dosing devices are arranged for dispensing the coffee beans stored in the one or more receptacles (and “coffee beans fall through the coffee bean outlet 11 by gravity” [0090]),
wherein … the one or more dosing devices are arranged such that a dispensing of coffee beans can be selectively blocked or stopped (the dosing device further comprises a “displaceable dosing element “ [0090] shown in Figure 2B which rotates to acts as a cover or a blocker for the coffee bean outlet (Figure 2B Element 11) to contain coffee beans within the receptacle while in the parked position) so that always only the specific or desired amount of coffee beans is dispensed by the one or more dosing devices to the grinder…
wherein the one or more dosing devices for dispensing coffee beans are stored in the one or more receptacles (“the dosing device may be included partly in the package” [0089])
de Graaf does not teach a measuring unit configured for measuring the amount of coffee beans dispensed by the one or more dosing devices, and is configured to send signals to the controller indicative of the measured amount of dispensed coffee beans, wherein… the measuring unit is part of the one or more dosing devices or is arranged in the one or more dosing devices,
However, Van Os does teach a system for preparing coffee beverages ([0081] with a dosing device (“dosing device” [0084] ) with a measuring unit (“metering mechanism” [0126]) configured for measuring the amount of coffee beans dispensed by the one or more dosing devices (“the metering mechanism” [0126] which includes a chute 751 for coffee beans 753 coming from a dosing entrance (shown as 533 in FIG. 6), is translucent or transparent to IR-light. An IR-beam generator 761, of the LED-type, communicates through chute 751 with an IR detection sensor 763 to count coffee beans” [0126) and is configured to send signals to the controller indicative of the measured amount of dispensed coffee beans (the metering mechanism further comprises “A cable 765 can communicate these interruptions to a control unit” [0126]), and that the measuring unit is part of the one or more dosing devices or is arranged in the one or more dosing devices (the metering mechanism as shown in Figure 8 “ is also suitable for incorporation in the dosing device” [0126])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of de Graaff such that the dosing device includes a metering mechanism with a chute unit and an IR sensor to count the coffee beans as disclosed by Van Os in order to allow the user to more precisely and accurately “adjust the dosage of a single serving to the particular needs of the consumer” [0003].
Regarding Claim 2: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches that the grinder (de Graaf “grinder” [0088] Figure 1 Element 6) comprises two grinding elements (de Graaf “two grinding elements” [0113] Figure 8b Elements 32A and 32B), which are separated by a distance (de Graaf Shown in Figure 8b) and relatively movable to one another in order to grind the received coffee beans between the two grinding elements (de Graaf “the distance between the grinding elements 32A and 32B may be settable…for [adjusting] grinding coarseness” of the resultant ground beans [0113])
Regarding Claim 3: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches that each of the one or more receptacles (de Graaf- “coffee bean package” [0090] Figure 1 Element 3) is connected ( de Graaf- connection shown in Figure 1) to a respective one of the one or more dosing devices (de Graaf “dosing device” [0089]) Figure 1 Element 23)
Regarding Claim 5: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches that the measuring unit (Van Os-“metering mechanism” [0126]) is arranged to measure the volume and/or weight or number of the coffee beans (Van Os-“count the coffee beans” [0126]), dispensed by the one or more dosing devices (Van Os- “coming from dosing entrance” [0126]).
Regarding Claim 6: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches the system comprises only one grinder, or wherein the system comprises a plurality of grinders (de Graaf “grinder Figure 1 Element 6 comprises “two grinding elements” [0113] Figure 8b Elements 32A and 32B), wherein each grinder is arranged for receiving coffee beans, dispensed by one or more of the dosing devices (de Graaf- the dosing device is “for supplying a predetermined dose of coffee beans to the grinder” [0089]).
Regarding Claim 7: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches one or more driving units (de Graaf “an electric motor” [0113]) configured for moving the grinder, in particular the grinding elements, between the different grinding positions or for operating the grinder for grinding coffee beans (de Graaf “a drive means for the grinding element 32B may be provided with an electric motor” which operates the grinder).
Regarding Claim 8: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches the grinder is of a conical burr type (de Graaf “conical burr” [0114])
Regarding Claim 9: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches the grinder (de Graaf- “grinder” [0088] Figure 1 Element 6) is adapted to grind the coffee beans with a constant or variable velocity (de Graaf- the grinder may operate “for a predetermined period of time” [0115] and as such must operation at a constant or variable velocity during such time before achieving a full stop which is also understood as a constant velocity of 0 m/s).
Regarding Claim 10: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches a further retaining element (de Graaf “worm wheel” [0113]), wherein the further retaining element is arranged to force coffee beans, which are received by the grinder, towards the grinder in order to grind these coffee beans (de Graaf the “worm wheel” [0113] is for “forcing the beans along” [0113] into the grinder)
Regarding Claim 11: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches the controller is configured to receive presence signals indicative of a presence and non-presence of coffee beans received by the grinder (de Graaf signals output to control unit by a “detection elements…arranged for detecting a particular mechanical resistance” of the grinder [0115]) and to control the grinder such that the grinder operates to grind, in particular by relatively moving the two grinding elements to one another (this is understood as inherent to the operation of a grinder with two elements [0113] and as such performed by the prior art as the “grinder 6 can be controlled for a predetermined period of time [0115] ), at least until the controller receives presence signals indicative of the non-presence of coffee beans received by the grinder (de Graaf-“these detection elements can make the grinder run until all of the coffee beans…have passed” and “stop it” at that point [0115]).
Regarding Claim 12: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches that the presence signals are based on a sensed force or torque for operating the grinder for grinding (de Graaf- presence signals are based on “mechanical resistance on the grinding means 28”, in particular by relatively moving the grinding elements to one another, wherein the controller receives presence signals indicative of the non-presence if the sensed force and/or torque falls below a defined threshold value (de Graaf [0115] “resistance will fall away when the coffee beans… have passed”).
Regarding Claim 13: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches that the controller is configured to control, based on a specific control input of the controller (de Graaf- input from “operating element” [0091] Figure 1 Element 13B which feeds into the control unit 13A), the grinder to move into one of the different grinding positions or to control, based on a specific control input of the controller, one or more of the dosing devices to dispense a specific amount of coffee beans (de Graaf- the “dosing device 23 can be operated through an operating element 13B of the control device 13A, for setting the dose of coffee beans, allowing the dose to be determined by the user during operation” [0089] the selected dose of which is understood to correspond to a particular amount of coffee beans).
Regarding Claim 15: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches a user interface (de Graaf- “operating element” [0091] Figure 1 Element 13B) functionally connected to the controller (de Graaf- Figure 1 13A) for inputting the control input.
Regarding Claim 16: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches that each of the one or more receptacles (de Graaf- Figure 1 Element 3) is a tight container (de Graaf- “airtight” [0079])
Regarding Claim 19: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches a brewing unit (de Graaf- “coffee preparation device” [0057] Figure 1 Element 7) for receiving the ground coffee beans, which are dispensed by the grinder (de Graaf-shown in Figure 1), in order to brew a coffee beverage with the so received ground coffee beans (de Graaf- “to prepare the coffee beverage” [0078]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Graaf US 20110256273 A1 and Van Os (US 20120024160 A1) in further view of Bishop (US 2015/0208850 A1):
Regarding Claim 14: de Graaf as modified by Van Os does not teach that the control input is a recipe, in particular a recipe for a coffee beverage to be prepared although Van Os does teach that the control unit may “adjust the grinding and brewing process in accordance with the particular coffee bean product” to be produced ([0087])
However, Bishop does teach that the control input is a recipe (“recipe” [0048]), in particular a recipe for a coffee (“coffee” [0008]) beverage to be prepared.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify the invention of de Graaf as modified by Van Os with the recipe control input of Bishop in order to allow the user to further customize the “resultant extractions and flavor profiles and characteristics” of the resultant beverage [0048].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Graaf US 20110256273 A1 and Van Os (US 20120024160 A1) in further view of Teahan (US 20160220067 A1):
Regarding Claim 18: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches a weighing unit,
De Graaf as modified by Van Os does not teach that the weighing unit is arranged to measure the weight of the ground coffee, which is ground and dispensed by the grinder, wherein the weighing unit is configured to send signals to the controller indicative of the measured weight of received ground coffee,
However, Teahan does teach a variable speed coffee grinder (Title) wherein a weighing unit (“load cell” [0017]) is arranged to measure the weight of ground coffee (“to weigh ground coffee” Claim 1) and signal to the controller an indication of the measured weight (“Use of a load cell 8 allows the device to determine, by weight, the type of brewing [product]…and automatically load the program that brewing device requires, adjusting the grind settings and motor speed upon selection by the operator.” [0037]”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify the invention of de Graaf as modified by Van Os with the load cell configured to measure the weight of ground coffee in order to “provide the user the ability to portion ground coffee by weight” [0007] after grinding has occurred.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Graaf US 20110256273 A1 in view of Van Os (US 20120024160 A1):
PNG
media_image6.png
238
443
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: de Graaff teaches a system for dispensing ground coffee (“a system for preparing a coffee beverage…comprising a grinder for grinding coffee beans to obtain ground coffee [0001]”, the system comprising:
one or more receptacles (“coffee bean package” [0090] Figure 1 Element 3) for storing one or different types of roasted coffee beans,
one or more dosing devices (“dosing device” [0089]) Figure 1 Element 23) configured for dispensing coffee beans (the dosing device is “for supplying a predetermined dose of coffee beans to the grinder” [0089]),
a grinder (“grinder” [0088] Figure 1 Element 6) for receiving coffee beans, which are dispensed by the one or more dosing devices (the dosing device is “for supplying a predetermined dose of coffee beans to the grinder” [0089]), in order to grind said coffee beans (elements of the grinder are used “for grinding coffee beans [0088]) and subsequently dispense the so ground coffee beans (through the “coffee discharge opening” Figure 1 Element 30),
the grinder being configured to move into different grinding positions for different grinding degrees, respectively, (“the distance between the grinding elements 32A and 32B may be settable…for setting a grinding coarseness” [0113]) wherein the one or more dosing devices are arranged between the one or more receptacles and the grinder (Shown in Figure 1),
controller (“control device” Figure 1 Element 13A) for controlling the one or more dosing devices (“dosing device” [0089]) Figure 1 Element 23) and the grinder (“grinder” [0088] Figure 1 Element 6), wherein the control unit controller is configured to: control one or more of the one or more dosing devices so that a specific amount of coffee beans is dispensed to the grinder (“the dosing device can be operated through an operating element 13B of the control device 13A, for setting the dose of the coffee beans” the dose of which is understood to be a specific amount of coffee beans[0089]),
and to control the grinder so that the grinder grinds said specific amount of coffee beans (the dosing device is “for supplying a predetermined dose of coffee beans to the grinder” [0089])and, thus, dispenses the so ground coffee beans (through the “coffee discharge opening” Figure 1 Element 30), until the grinder is free from coffee beans so that the grinder can subsequently be moved in one of the different grinding positions (“so that after grinding no ground coffee residues remain behind in the grinder” Claim 71),
wherein the one or more dosing devices (“dosing device” [0089]) Figure 1 & 2B Element 23) are arranged to act as one or more retaining elements (the dosing device further comprises a “displaceable dosing element “ [0090] shown in Figure 2B which rotates to acts as a cover for the coffee bean outlet (Figure 2B Element 11) to contain coffee beans within the receptacle while in the parked position) for retaining coffee beans inside of the one or more receptacles, so that the coffee beans in the receptacles, at least partly lying or are at least in part supported on the one or more dosing devices, by preventing coffee beans from being removed from the receptacles (Shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2B),
wherein the one or more dosing devices switch between a retaining mode “displaceable dosing element “ [0090] shown in Figure 2B which rotates to acts as a cover for the coffee bean outlet (Figure 2B Element 11) to contain coffee beans within the receptacle while in the parked position ) wherein in the retaining mode, the one or more dosing devices act as the one or more retaining elements (Shown in Figure 2B) , and wherein in the dispensing mode (wherein the “displaceable dosing element “ [0090] shown in Figure 2B is rotated such that it does not act as a cover for the coffee bean outlet (Figure 2B Element 11)) , the one or more dosing devices are arranged for dispensing the coffee beans stored in the one or more receptacles (and “coffee beans fall through the coffee bean outlet 11 by gravity” [0090]),
wherein … the one or more dosing devices are arranged such that a dispensing of coffee beans can be selectively blocked or stopped (the dosing device further comprises a “displaceable dosing element “ [0090] shown in Figure 2B which rotates to acts as a cover or a blocker for the coffee bean outlet (Figure 2B Element 11) to contain coffee beans within the receptacle while in the parked position) so that always only the specific or desired amount of coffee beans is dispensed by the one or more dosing devices to the grinder…
wherein the one or more dosing devices for dispensing coffee beans are stored in the one or more receptacles (“the dosing device may be included partly in the package” [0089])
de Graaf does not teach a measuring unit configured for measuring the amount of coffee beans dispensed by the one or more dosing devices, and is configured to send signals to the controller indicative of the measured amount of dispensed coffee beans, wherein… the measuring unit is part of the one or more dosing devices or is arranged in the one or more dosing devices,
However, Van Os does teach a system for preparing coffee beverages ([0081] with a dosing device (“dosing device” [Abstract] ) with a measuring unit (“metering chamber” [Abstract]) configured for measuring the amount of coffee beans dispensed by the one or more dosing devices (“the metering mechanism” [0126] of the metering chamber may include a “drive shaft” ([0139] and a “shuttle slider [with] a dosing cavity holding a predetermined quantity of coffee beans [0139]” wherein the “number of rotations of the drive shaft 1372 together with the capacity of the dosing cavity 1397 may provide an accurate dosing for a selected number of beverage servings” [0139])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of de Graaff such that the dosing device includes a metering mechanism with a drive shaft, shuttle slider, and dosing cavity as disclosed by Van Os in order to allow the user to more precisely and accurately “adjust the dosage of a single serving to the particular needs of the consumer” [0003].
Regarding Claim 17: de Graaf as modified by Van Os further teaches that each of the one or more dosing devices is configured to act as a pump or as a reverse pump in order to dispense coffee beans (Van Os: Figure 18A and C show the dosing device with an integrated metering mechanism acting as a forward pump to move the beams through the system).
The examiner notes that the remaining claims dependent on Claim 1 may be rejected by the above embodiment as well as the embodiment in the first section regarding Claim 1. The rejection of the remaining dependent claims has been omitted for brevity.
Pertinent Prior Art
Examiner Notes that Van Os Fig 12013 is very similar to the instant application rotating cylinders in Fig 3 and p.17 of the specification.
PNG
media_image7.png
438
619
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights