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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “transferring the product parameters directly from the roasting device to the coffee processing device via a wireless or wired connection and/or indirectly transferring the product parameters via a bridge comprising a smartphone application, a cloud service, or a combination thereof” as well as “the coffee processing device comprising a second data reader to obtain the product parameters”. Independent claim 14 recites “transferring the product parameters directly from the roasting device to the coffee processing device via a wireless or wired connection and/or indirectly transferring the product parameters via a bridge comprising a smartphone application, a cloud service, or a combination thereof” as well as “reading the product parameters in the processing device”.
The application does not appear to disclose a single embodiment which utilizes both wireless/wired/indirect data transfer and a second data reader, for communicating the product parameters to the coffee processing device.
Figure 1 of the application only discloses second data readers (#62, 72). Figure 5 of the application only discloses a smartphone for data transfer.
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 1-12, 14-15 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 “transferring the product parameters directly from the roasting device to the coffee processing device via a wireless or wired connection and/or indirectly transferring the product parameters via a bridge comprising a smartphone application, a cloud service, or a combination thereof” as well as “the coffee processing device comprising a second data reader to obtain the product parameters”.
It is not clear if the system requires both a wireless/wired/indirect for data transfer and a second reader, or whether they are intended to be alternatives to each other. It is not clear which form of communication is actually used by the processing device to receive the product parameters. Also, it is not clear what the second data reader is reading (eg a container? a barcode?).
Claim 14 recites “transferring the product parameters directly from the roasting device to the coffee processing device via a wireless or wired connection and/or indirectly transferring the product parameters via a bridge comprising a smartphone application, a cloud service, or a combination thereof” as well as “reading the product parameters in the processing device”.
It is not clear if the system requires both a wireless/wired/indirect for data transfer and a second reader, or whether they are intended to be alternatives to each other. It is not clear which form of communication is actually used by the processing device to receive the product parameters. Also, it is not clear what the second data reader is reading (eg a container? a barcode?).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12, 14-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vaaranmaa, Stordy et al, Tanaka, and Dayton teach systems for roasting and processing coffee beans.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792