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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
The letters in the printed circuit board in fig. 4 are not simple and clear and are less than 0.32 cm (PCT rules 11.13e and 11.13h, MPEP 1825).
The shading in figs. 7 and 10 obscures the clear reading of reference numbers and letters (PCT rules 11.13b and 11.13e, MPEP 1825).
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
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it currently uses language with a phrase that can be implied: “The present invention relates…” and because it is not in narrative form (the abstract uses the legal phraseology of a claim). Several sample abstracts are provided in MPEP 608.01.b.I.e. 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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The use of the term “LTE,” “Bluetooth,” and “Wi-Fi,” on page 32 of the Specification, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the “center units” of claim 5, the “electrical measurement scheme” of claim 10, and the “current” of claim 11 are not mentioned in the Specification.
The amendment filed 20 March 2023 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 in the international patent application PCT/KR2021/007989 and of the patent applications KR1020200085002A and KR102241337B1 is ineffective as it was added on the day 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 24 June 2021, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 20 March 2023 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, recommend reciting: “a pressure sensor,” “an outer shape,” and “an outer surface.”
In claim 2, recommend reciting: “…the influence due to the temperature is removed from the pressure information when the…”
In claim 3, recommend reciting: “the external electronic device.”
In claim 8, recommend reciting: “the pressure sensor.”
In claim 9, recommend reciting: “a coffee machine.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 the following:
“communication unit” in claims 1 and 10
The generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitation is communication.
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitation includes a “transmitter” and a “receiver.”
“control unit” in claims 1 and 10
The generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitations are control and transmitting information.
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations includes a “microprocessor” or a “programmable computer.”
“connection unit” in claim 5
The generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitations are connection and connecting the portafilter head to the handle.
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations includes a “bolt.”
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 1-13 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recites the limitations: “therein” and “therethrough.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, it is unclear what the antecedent is for “therein”—does the “there” in “therein” refer to the “basket” or the “space”—or for “therethrough”—does the “there” in “therethrough” refer to the “bottom surface” or the “holes?” When pronouns are used in claims, recommend ensuring that it is obvious what the antecedents are for the claimed pronouns, e.g., it is clear in the claims that that the antecedent for “there” in “thereof” is the “bottom surface.”
Claim 1 recites “…wherein the pressure sensor measures physical deformation of the outer shape of the basket, which is increased or decreased at the moment water passes through the coffee powder, in the form of quantified data while being attached to the outer surface of the basket, and then measures pressure information applied to the inside of the basket based on the measured quantified data…” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the pressure sensor or based on the method for measuring using the pressure sensor. It also unclear how the pressure sensor performs one measuring step on the outside of the basket and “then” performs another measuring step on the inside of the basket. The Specification does not disclose this sequence of steps. Recommend inserting: “configured to” and removing “then” in this limitation.
Claim 5 recites: “…holes are formed at one side of an inner wall surface of the portafilter head, a center unit of the connection unit, and a center unit of one side of the handle, respectively, and the holes communicate with each other….” It is unclear what is being claimed in the underlined portion of this limitation. Although it is clear that the connection unit must have two different center units, there is ambiguity in the claim as to where these center units are located with respect to the “holes” and what meaning “respectively” imparts to this limitation. Additionally, although the Specification mentions a “center unit”,” there is also no mention of multiple “center units” in the Specification. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree regarding the claimed “center units,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claims 6-7 and 12 recite structure that is outside the scope of the claimed “portafilter” of claims 1 and 10. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claimed “portafilter” in claims 6-7 and 12 are indefinite—is a “portafilter” being claimed or is something much larger than a “portafilter” being claimed? Specifically, claims 6-7 recite structure that is part of an “external electrical device,” which is external to the portafilter. Similarly, claim 12 recites a “measuring sensor,” which the Specification discloses as being external to the portafilter. Since there is no way of determining the requisite location metes and bounds of claims 6-7 in view of claim 1 and claim 12 in view of claim 10, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended. Recommend widening the scope of the preambles of claims 1 and 10 to include this additional structure in the dependent claims.
Claim 8 recites “A method for controlling a coffee extraction process, the method comprising: generating, by the external electronic device, a guide on the basis of at least one of temperature information, pressure information, or concentration information measured through at least one of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, or a concentration sensor included in the portafilter of claim 1…” The metes and bounds of the method from claim 8 are indefinite. Specifically, is unclear how much structure from claim 1 is being incorporated into claim 8. Is the entire portafilter of claim 1 included in claim 8 or is just a sensor being claimed? Although claim 1 recites a “pressure sensor,” claim 1 does not include a “temperature sensor” or a “concentration sensor.” Since there is no way of determining the requisite metes and bounds of claim 8 in view of claim 1, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the portafilter of claim 1, then it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 10 recites: “…wherein a probe is formed on an outer bottom surface of the basket, the probe being fixed to at least one end of both ends of the outer bottom surface of the basket and being spaced apart from the outer bottom surface of the basket by a predetermined interval, wherein a concentration sensor for measuring a concentration at a moment when the water passes through the coffee powder and is drawn out of the basket in an electrical measurement scheme is formed on the probe while facing a center of the outer bottom surface of the basket…” It is unclear how the probe is “formed on an outer bottom surface of the basket” while at the same time, the probe is “spaced apart from the outer bottom surface of the basked by a predetermined interval.” Based on fig. 4 of the Drawings, it appears that what is being is claimed is that a portion of the probe is “spaced apart” from the bottom surface of the basket, i.e., the entire probe is not spaced away from the bottom surface of the basket.
It is also unclear what is meant in claiming an “electrical measurement scheme.” There is no mention of an ”electrical measurement scheme” that forms on the probe in the Specification. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of what is meant in claiming an “electrical measurement scheme,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 13 recites: “…wherein a unit of the probe except for a unit corresponding to a central unit of the outer bottom surface of the basket is treated to be insulated, so that a contact area with water discharged to the outside of the basket is constantly maintained.” It is unclear how insulating the probe leads to “contact area with water” being “constantly maintained.” Instead, respectfully submit that insulation would actually result in less contact area being maintained by the probe. The Specification describes how extraction of the liquid results in a “constant contact area.” For the purpose of the examination, it will be interpreted so long as there is extraction of the liquid onto the probe, then the “contact area with water” is being “constantly maintained.”
Claims 2-4, 9, and 11-12 are rejected based on their dependence to the independent claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia (US-20160242590-A1) in view of Talon (US-20160353918-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grassia teaches a portafilter (fig. 1) used for a coffee extraction (para 0039), the portafilter comprising: a basket (basket 103, fig. 1) having a space of a predetermined size formed therein (“compartment is adjustable vertically 108 in accordance with the rotation of a selector 110,” para 0039) so as to contain coffee powder (“ground coffee,” para 0039) and having one or more holes formed on a bottom surface thereof (perforated floor 105, fig. 1) so as to allow water to pass therethrough (para 0039); a portafilter head (head 101, fig. 1) capable of accommodating the basket; a communication unit (transmitter and receiver 106, fig. 6); and a control unit (controller 602, fig. 6; “processor,” para 0045), physical deformation of the outer shape of the basket (“the floor 105 of the compartment is adjustable vertically 108 in accordance with the rotation of a selector 110,” para 0039; moving the floor 105 up and down is construed casing physical deformation of the basket 103, fig. 1), which is increased or decreased at the moment water passes through the coffee powder (“The rotational position of the shaft, because it drives the vertically reciprocating floor 105 is indicative of the internal volume or working capacity of the basket,” para 0045; construed as increasing or decreasing the volume/capacity of the water that passes through the bucket), in the form of quantified data (“data,” para 0045) and the control unit is configured to transmit the pressure information applied to the inside of the basket, measured by the pressure sensor (“position sensor 604 transmits data to the processor 602,” para 0045), to an external electronic device (grinder 901 and machine 902, fig. 9) through the communication unit (“data relating to the output of the temperature sensor 601 and the position sensor 604 can be transmitted wirelessly by a combination transmitter and optimal receiver 606,” para 0045; fig. 9).
Grassia, figs. 2A-B and 6
PNG
media_image1.png
1083
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1100
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Grassia does not explicitly disclose wherein the pressure sensor measures physical deformation while being attached to the outer surface of the basket and then measures pressure information applied to the inside of the basket based on the measured quantified data (although Grassia teaches a position sensor 604, Grassia does not explicitly disclose that it is a pressure sensor that measures deformation).
However, in the same field of endeavor of coffee brewing devices, Talon teaches wherein the pressure sensor (pressure sensor 28, figs. 2A-2B) measures physical deformation (“deformation,” para 0070) while being attached to the outer surface of the basket (outer surface of capsule 11, fig. 2B) and then measures pressure information applied to the inside of the basket (“deformation of the capsule when the capsule-receiving cavity of the machine is closed,” para 0070) based on the measured quantified data (“sensed value of the mechanical deformation is converted by a program memorized in a machine electronic chip, into a machine operational data,” para 0070).
Talon, figs. 2A-2B
PNG
media_image3.png
1072
715
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Grassia, in view of the teachings of Talon, by using a pressure sensor in contact with a capsule, as taught by Talon in figs. 2A-2B, such that the sensor was attached below to the filter floor body 202 in the gap 203 and made contact with the floor 105, as taught by Grassia in figs. 2A-2B and 3, in order to use a sensor that measures the deformation of filter floor body as it closes and changes capacity for the basket and that is force sensitive, able to provide data that is a function of deformation properties to a control board for the advantage of determining the volume/capacity of the compartment (Talon, paras 0039-0040 and 0070; Grassia, paras 0045-0046).
Regarding claim 2, Grassia teaches wherein the physical deformation of the outer shape of the basket (vertical adjustment of basket 103, fig. 1), which is increased or decreased at the moment the water passes through the coffee powder (para 0045), includes an influence due to pressure (“data relating to the output of … the position sensor,” para 0045) and an influence due to temperature (“data relating to the output of the temperature sensor 601,” para 0045), and wherein the influence due to the temperature is removed when the pressure information applied to the inside of the basket is measured based on the quantified data of the physical deformation (data from the position sensor is processed separately from the data from the temperature sensor, para 0045; construed such that the temperature data is removed from the position data).
Regarding claim 4, Grassia teaches further comprising a battery unit (battery 605, fig. 6) and a handle (handle 107, fig. 6) for driving the control unit (controller 602, fig. 6) and the communication unit (transmitter/receiver 606, fig. 6), wherein the control unit, the communication unit, and the battery unit are positioned in an empty space formed in the handle (space inside handle 107, fig. 6) connected to the portafilter head (head 101, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Grassia teaches further comprising a connection unit (gears and shaft 207, fig.3; includes fasteners 308, which are construed as bolts) extending from one side of the portafilter head (head 101, fig. 3) in a longitudinal direction (left to right, fig. 3), wherein the portafilter head and the handle (handle 107, fig. 3) are connected to each other through the connection unit (paras 0041-0043), and holes (passageways 310 and 311, fig. 3) are formed at one side of an inner wall surface of the portafilter head (passageway 311, fig. 3), a center unit (shaft 207, fig. 3) of the connection unit, and a center unit (gears, fig. 3) of one side of the handle, respectively, and the holes communicate with each other (passageways 310 and 311 are in communication with each other, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Grassia teaches wherein the temperature information, the pressure information, or the concentration information (“brew temperature, extraction volume, extraction pressure profile,” para 0053) transmitted to the external electronic device is stored in the external electronic device to establish a database (“data from all of or any of the portafilter 100, coffee grinder 901 or coffee machine 902 can be transmitted to and collected by the communications device 903 and logged or recorded for future use,” para 0053).
Regarding claim 8, Grassia teaches a method for controlling a coffee extraction process (fig. 9), the method comprising: generating, by the external electronic device (controllers 905 and 903 on grinder 901 and coffee machine 902, fig. 9), a guide (“diagnostic data,” para 0053) on the basis of at least one of temperature information, pressure information, or concentration information (“brew temperature, extraction time, grind volume, tamping pressure,” para 0053) measured through at least one of a temperature sensor (sensor 601, fig. 6), a pressure sensor (sensor 604, fig. 6), or a concentration sensor (not explicitly disclosed) included in the portafilter of claim 1; and displaying the generated guide to a user (para 0053).
Regarding claim 9, Grassia teaches further comprising: generating, by the external electronic device, a signal (signal in fig. 9) for controlling the coffee machine (coffee machine 902, fig. 9; para 0051) to which the portafilter (portafilter 100, fig. 9) is coupled, based on at least one of the measured temperature information, pressure information, or concentration information (“brew temperature, extraction time, grind volume, tamping pressure,” para 0053), and transmitting the signal to the coffee machine (fig. 9; para 0051).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia (US-20160242590-A1) in view of Talon (US-20160353918-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Levi et al. (US-4787299-A).
Regarding claim 3, Grassia teaches wherein the basket further includes at least one of temperature sensor (temperature sensor 601, fig. 6; part of the “head,” para 0045, construed such that the sensor 106 is part of the basket 103, fig. 6) for measuring a temperature at a moment when water passes through the coffee powder (para 0045), and pressure information, temperature information, or concentration information sensed by the pressure sensor (position sensor 604, fig. 6), the temperature sensor (temperature sensor 601, fig. 6), or the concentration sensor (not explicitly disclosed) is transmitted (para 0045) to an external electronic device (grinder 901 and machine 902, fig. 9) through the communication unit (transmitter receiver 606, fig. 9).
Grassia does not explicitly disclose a concentration sensor for measuring a concentration at a moment when water passes through the coffee powder.
However, in the same field of endeavor of coffee brewing devices, Levi teaches a concentration sensor (Hall effect detector A, fig. 4) for measuring a concentration at a moment when water passes through the coffee powder (“number of water doses and number of cups corresponding to the capacity of the filter-holder bowl and the desired coffee strength,” column 3, lines 64-66; coffee strength is construed as concentration).
Levi, fig. 5
PNG
media_image4.png
534
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Grassia, in view of the teachings of Levi, by using a Hall effect detector to measure the magnetic flux which corresponds to capacity of the filter-holder bowl, as taught by Levi, in the variable compartment 103, as taught by Grassia, in order to change the capacity of the filter bowl to a desired coffee strength, which can be determined using a Hall effect detector (Levi, column 3, line 62 to column 4, line 14).
Regarding claim 6, Grassia teaches wherein the temperature information, the pressure information, or the concentration information (“data,” para 0045) transmitted to the external electronic device (grinder 901 and machine 902, fig. 9) is displayed on a screen (display 1025, fig. 10) of the external electronic device, and wherein the display includes a change in the temperature information, the pressure information, or the concentration information (“brew temperature, extraction volume, extraction pressure profile,” para 0053) over time (“extraction time,” paras 0053-0054).
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia (US-20160242590-A1) in view of Parolini et al. (US-20210267409-A1, effective filing date of 9 Jul 2018) and Levi et al. (US-4787299-A).
Regarding claim 10, Grassia teaches a portafilter (fig. 1) used for a coffee extraction (para 0039), the portafilter comprising: a basket (basket 103, fig. 1) having a space of a predetermined size formed therein (“compartment is adjustable vertically 108 in accordance with the rotation of a selector 110,” para 0039) so as to contain coffee powder (“ground coffee,” para 0039) and having one or more holes formed on a bottom surface thereof (perforated floor 105, fig. 1) so as to allow water to pass therethrough (para 0039); a portafilter head (head 101, fig. 1) capable of accommodating the basket; a communication unit (transmitter and receiver 106, fig. 6); and a control unit (controller 602, fig. 6; “processor,” para 0045), and wherein the control unit is configured to transmit (para 0045) concentration information of the water at a moment when the water passes through the coffee powder measured through the concentration sensor and is drawn out of the basket (“data relating to the output of the temperature sensor 601 and the position sensor 604 can be transmitted wirelessly by a combination transmitter and optimal receiver 606,” para 0045; the data are construed as being “concentration information”) to an external electronic device (grinder 901 and machine 902, fig. 9) through the communication unit (transmitter and receiver 606, fig. 9).
Grassia does not explicitly disclose wherein a probe is formed on an outer bottom surface of the basket, the probe being fixed to at least one end of both ends of the outer bottom surface of the basket and being spaced apart from the outer bottom surface of the basket by a predetermined interval, wherein a concentration sensor for measuring a concentration at a moment when the water passes through the coffee powder and is drawn out of the basket in an electrical measurement scheme is formed on the probe while facing a center of the outer bottom surface of the basket.
However, in the same field of endeavor of coffee brewing devices, Parolini teaches wherein a probe (probe 19, fig. 4) is formed on an outer bottom surface of the basket (upper surface 11, fig. 4; construed as being an outer surface relative to the filter 10, fig. 1, which is construed as the claimed “basket”), the probe being fixed to at least one end of both ends of the outer bottom surface of the basket (right end of surface 11, fig. 4) and being spaced apart from the outer bottom surface of the basket by a predetermined interval (part of the probe 19 that is located in hole 21 is spaced from the surface 11, fig. 4); an electrical measurement scheme is formed on the probe while facing a center of the outer bottom surface of the basket (probe 19 faces the center of surface 11, fig. 4; electrical output of the thermocouple 18 is provided to a digital thermometer 22, fig. 3 and para 0059; the electrical circuit is construed as being an “electrical measurement scheme”).
Parolini, fig. 4
PNG
media_image5.png
1022
832
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Grassia, in view of the teachings of Parolini, by using a probe 19, as taught by Parolini, instead of the temperature sensor 601, as taught by Grassia, in order to use a probe that is inserted into the containing chamber where the coffee powder is located, because the steel walls of the filter-holder could make contact with the probe, causing distortion in the correct reading of the temperature value (Paraolini, paras 0020-0021).
Grassia/Parolini do not explicitly disclose wherein a concentration sensor for measuring a concentration at a moment when the water passes through the coffee powder and is drawn out of the basket in an electrical measurement scheme.
However, in the same field of endeavor of coffee brewing devices, Levi teaches wherein a concentration sensor (Hall effect detector A, fig. 4) for measuring a concentration at a moment when the water passes through the coffee powder (“number of water doses and number of cups corresponding to the capacity of the filter-holder bowl and the desired coffee strength,” column 3, lines 64-66; coffee strength is construed as concentration) and is drawn out of the basket in an electrical measurement scheme (the electrical circuit in fig. 7 is construed as an “electrical measurement scheme”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Grassia, in view of the teachings of Levi, by using a Hall effect detector and corresponding circuit to measure the magnetic flux which corresponds to capacity of the filter-holder bowl, as taught by Levi in fig. 7, in the variable compartment 103, as taught by Grassia, in order to change the capacity of the filter bowl to a desired coffee strength, which can be determined using a Hall effect detector (Levi, column 3, line 62 to column 4, line 14).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Grassia in view of Parolini and Levi as set forth above regarding claim 10 teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, Parolini teaches wherein the probe (probe 19, fig. 4) serves as two electrodes (probe 19 above support element 20, fig. 4 and thermocouple 18, fig. 4; sheath 20 is insulated, para 0055) capable of controlling a direction of a current (probe 19 and thermocouple 18 provide a digital output, para 0059; construed as being electrodes that control electrical current). Additionally, Levi teaches when the concentration sensor (Hall effect detector A, fig. 4) measures a concentration of water at a moment when the water is drawn out of the basket (column 3, lines 64-66) in an electrical measurement manner (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Grassia in view of Parolini and Levi as set forth above regarding claim 10 teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, Parolini teaches wherein a unit of the probe (portion of the probe 19 inside the support unit 20, fig. 4) except for a unit corresponding to a central unit of the outer bottom surface of the basket (portion of probe 19 above the surface 11, fig. 4) is treated to be insulated (“insulated sheath,” para 0055), so that a contact area with water discharged to the outside of the basket is constantly maintained (contact area of probe 19 in the water stagnation zone 13 that the water is extracted through, fig. 4) .
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia (US-20160242590-A1) in view of Parolini et al. (US-20210267409-A1, effective filing date of 9 Jul 2018) and Levi et al. (US-4787299-A) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Bianchi et al. (US-20210315415-A1, effective filing date of 30 Oct 2018).
Grassia teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a measuring sensor configured to measure acidity of water discharged to the outside of the basket based on a hydrogen ion concentration.
However, in the same field of endeavor of coffee brewing devices, Bianchi teaches further comprising: a measuring sensor (measuring device 37, fig. 3.1; “conductivity meter,” para 0098) configured to measure acidity of water (“pH,” para 0088) discharged to the outside of the basket (group 13, fig. 1) based on a hydrogen ion concentration (“any ionic species dissolved in the water,” para 0076; water, i.e., H2O, is construed as having hydrogen ions).
Bianchi, fig. 3.1
PNG
media_image6.png
1651
1520
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Grassia, in view of the teachings of Bianchi, by using a conductivity meter to measure the pH levels of the water, as taught by Bianchi, before it is provided to the coffee machine 902, as taught by Grassia, in order to diagnose the pH level of the incoming water into the coffee machine to determine whether filtering should be implemented, further increasing the quality of the espresso coffee (Bianchi, para 0015).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Perentes et al. (US-20200060476-A1) teach capacitive film sensors.
Pugliese et al. (US-20200214493-A1) teach capacitive film sensors.
Dunkelberg et al. (US-11622647-B2) teach a Hall effect sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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 Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/6/2026