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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2 June 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome the Drawing objection. The Drawing objection has been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have provided grounds for a new Specification objection.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objection. The Claim objection has been withdrawn.
The examiner fully considered the Applicant’s request that the nonstatuatory double patenting rejection should be held in abeyance, but the examiner was not persuaded. Accordingly, the double patenting rejection still stands.
The examiner fully considered the Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection, but the examiner was not persuaded. Accordingly, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 101 still stand.
The examiner fully considered the Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 USC § 112 rejection, but the examiner was not persuaded. Accordingly, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 112 still stand.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 31 and 37 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, another reference teaches the amended portions of the claims. Therefore, grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 17, and 26 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 2 June 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 20, 31, and 37 have been amended. Claim 39 is new.
Claims 1-26, 31, and 37-39 are pending.
Specification
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 “fluid system” of claim 39 does not have antecedent basis in the Specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-12, 17-22, and 39 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 17-18 of copending Application No. 18/033,438 in view of Burrows (US-20170290458-A1).
Instant Application
Application 18/033,438
1. A beverage machine comprising:
a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage, the liquid having a liquid level in the liquid supply tank;
a conduit having an inlet fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank, the conduit having a section containing a gas having a gas volume; a pump fluidly coupled to an outlet of the conduit, wherein the pump is configured to pump liquid and gas; and
a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on the gas volume in the conduit or
based on an operation time of the pump required to pump the gas volume from the conduit.
13. A beverage machine comprising:
a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage;
a pump fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank;
a liquid supply line configured to provide liquid from the liquid supply tank to the pump;
wherein the pump is configured to move liquid from the liquid supply tank to the supply line;
a vent fluidly coupled to the liquid supply line to vent at least a portion of the liquid supply line to ambient pressure such that, for at least some fill levels of the liquid supply tank, a liquid level in the liquid supply line is at a same height as a liquid level in the liquid supply tank; and
a sensor configured to detect presence and absence of liquid in the liquid supply line.
17. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising
a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on a gas volume in the liquid supply line at a start of a beverage cycle based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the liquid supply line, wherein the beverage machine includes a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas.
1. A beverage machine comprising:
a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage, the liquid having a liquid level in the liquid supply tank;
a conduit having an inlet fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank, the conduit having a section containing a gas having a gas volume; a pump fluidly coupled to an outlet of the conduit, wherein the pump is configured to pump liquid and gas; and
a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank
based on the gas volume in the conduit or
based on an operation time of the pump required to pump the gas volume from the conduit.
13. A beverage machine comprising:
a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage;
a pump fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank;
a liquid supply line configured to provide liquid from the liquid supply tank to the pump;
wherein the pump is configured to move liquid from the liquid supply tank to the supply line;
a vent fluidly coupled to the liquid supply line to vent at least a portion of the liquid supply line to ambient pressure such that, for at least some fill levels of the liquid supply tank, a liquid level in the liquid supply line is at a same height as a liquid level in the liquid supply tank; and
a sensor configured to detect presence and absence of liquid in the liquid supply line.
18. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising
a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank
based on an operation time of the pump required to pump a gas volume from the liquid supply line, and further comprising a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas, wherein the controller is configured to measure the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas and to stop measuring the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid.
2. The beverage machine of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on the gas volume in the conduit.
17. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on a gas volume in the liquid supply line at a start of a beverage cycle based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the liquid supply line, wherein the beverage machine includes a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas.
3. The beverage machine of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to determine the gas volume in the conduit at a start of a beverage cycle based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the conduit.
17. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on a gas volume in the liquid supply line at a start of a beverage cycle based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the liquid supply line, wherein the beverage machine includes a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas.
4. The beverage machine of claim 3, wherein the beverage machine includes
a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas.
17. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on a gas volume in the liquid supply line at a start of a beverage cycle based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the liquid supply line, wherein the beverage machine includes a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas.
5. The beverage machine of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured
to count pump cycles during pump operation when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas and stop counting pump cycles when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid.
17. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on a gas volume in the liquid supply line at a start of a beverage cycle based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the liquid supply line, wherein the beverage machine includes a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas.
7. The beverage machine of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on the operation time of the pump required to pump the gas volume from the conduit.
18. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on an operation time of the pump required to pump a gas volume from the liquid supply line, and further comprising a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas, wherein the controller is configured to measure the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas and to stop measuring the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid.
8. The beverage machine of claim 7, wherein the beverage machine includes
a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas.
18. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on an operation time of the pump required to pump a gas volume from the liquid supply line, and further comprising
a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas, wherein the controller is configured to measure the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas and to stop measuring the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid.
9. The beverage machine of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to measure the operation time of the pump when the
sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas and to stop measuring the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid.
18. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on an operation time of the pump required to pump a gas volume from the liquid supply line, and further comprising a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas, wherein the controller is configured to measure the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas and to stop measuring the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid.
11. The beverage machine of claim 1, further including
a vent configured to vent a portion of the conduit to atmospheric pressure.
13. A beverage machine comprising:
a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage;
a pump fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank;
a liquid supply line configured to provide liquid from the liquid supply tank to the pump;
wherein the pump is configured to move liquid from the liquid supply tank to the supply line;
a vent fluidly coupled to the liquid supply line to vent at least a portion of the liquid supply line to ambient pressure such that, for at least some fill levels of the liquid supply tank, a liquid level in the liquid supply line is at a same height as a liquid level in the liquid supply tank; and
a sensor configured to detect presence and absence of liquid in the liquid supply line.
12. The beverage machine of claim 11, wherein
the vent and the conduit are arranged such that when the portion of the conduit is vented to atmospheric pressure, a liquid level in the conduit is equal to the liquid level in the liquid supply tank.
13. A beverage machine comprising:
a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage;
a pump fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank;
a liquid supply line configured to provide liquid from the liquid supply tank to the pump;
wherein the pump is configured to move liquid from the liquid supply tank to the supply line;
a vent fluidly coupled to the liquid supply line to vent at least a portion of the liquid supply line to ambient pressure such that, for at least some fill levels of the liquid supply tank, a liquid level in the liquid supply line is at a same height as a liquid level in the liquid supply tank; and
a sensor configured to detect presence and absence of liquid in the liquid supply line.
17. A beverage machine comprising: a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage, the liquid having a liquid volume in the liquid supply tank;
a conduit having an outlet and an inlet fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank, the conduit having a section extending from the outlet containing a gas; a pump having an inlet fluidly coupled to the outlet of the conduit, wherein the pump is configured to pump liquid and gas; and
a controller configured to determine the liquid volume in the liquid supply tank based on a gas volume moved by the pump
or based on an operation time of the pump required to draw the liquid to the pump inlet.
13. A beverage machine comprising:
a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage;
a pump fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank;
a liquid supply line configured to provide liquid from the liquid supply tank to the pump;
wherein the pump is configured to move liquid from the liquid supply tank to the supply line;
a vent fluidly coupled to the liquid supply line to vent at least a portion of the liquid supply line to ambient pressure such that, for at least some fill levels of the liquid supply tank, a liquid level in the liquid supply line is at a same height as a liquid level in the liquid supply tank; and
a sensor configured to detect presence and absence of liquid in the liquid supply line.
17. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising
a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on a gas volume in the liquid supply line at a start of a beverage cycle based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the liquid supply line, wherein the beverage machine includes a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas.
17. A beverage machine comprising: a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage, the liquid having a liquid volume in the liquid supply tank;
a conduit having an outlet and an inlet fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank, the conduit having a section extending from the outlet containing a gas; a pump having an inlet fluidly coupled to the outlet of the conduit, wherein the pump is configured to pump liquid and gas; and
a controller configured to determine the liquid volume in the liquid supply tank
based on a gas volume moved by the pump or
based on an operation time of the pump required to draw the liquid to the pump inlet.
13. A beverage machine comprising:
a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage;
a pump fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank;
a liquid supply line configured to provide liquid from the liquid supply tank to the pump; wherein the pump is configured to move liquid from the liquid supply tank to the supply line;
a vent fluidly coupled to the liquid supply line to vent at least a portion of the liquid supply line to ambient pressure such that, for at least some fill levels of the liquid supply tank, a liquid level in the liquid supply line is at a same height as a liquid level in the liquid supply tank; and
a sensor configured to detect presence and absence of liquid in the liquid supply line.
18. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising
a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank
based on an operation time of the pump required to pump a gas volume from the liquid supply line, and further comprising a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas, wherein the controller is configured to measure the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas and to stop measuring the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid.
18. The beverage machine of claim 17, wherein t
the controller is configured to determine the liquid volume in the liquid supply tank based on the gas volume moved by the pump to draw the liquid to the pump inlet at a start of a beverage cycle.
17. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising
a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on a gas volume in the liquid supply line at a start of a beverage cycle based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the liquid supply line, wherein the beverage machine includes a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas.
19. The beverage machine of claim 18, wherein
the controller is configured to determine the gas volume
based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the conduit.
17. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising
a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on a gas volume in the liquid supply line at a start of a beverage cycle
based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the liquid supply line, wherein the beverage machine includes a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas.
20. The beverage machine of claim 17, wherein
the controller is configured to determine the liquid volume in the liquid supply tank based on the operation time of the pump required to pump
draw the liquid to the pump inlet at a start of a beverage cycle.
18. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising
a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on an operation time of the pump required to pump a gas volume from the liquid supply line, and further comprising a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas, wherein the controller is configured to measure the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas and to stop measuring the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid.
21. The beverage machine of claim 20, wherein the beverage machine includes
a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas.
18. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on an operation time of the pump required to pump a gas volume from the liquid supply line, and further comprising
a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas, wherein the controller is configured to measure the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas and to stop measuring the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid.
22. The beverage machine of claim 17, further including
a vent configured to vent a portion of the conduit to atmospheric pressure.
13. A beverage machine comprising:
a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage;
a pump fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank;
a liquid supply line configured to provide liquid from the liquid supply tank to the pump;
wherein the pump is configured to move liquid from the liquid supply tank to the supply line;
a vent fluidly coupled to the liquid supply line to vent at least a portion of the liquid supply line to ambient pressure such that, for at least some fill levels of the liquid supply tank, a liquid level in the liquid supply line is at a same height as a liquid level in the liquid supply tank; and
a sensor configured to detect presence and absence of liquid in the liquid supply line.
39. (New) A fluid system comprising:
a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid, the liquid having a liquid level in the liquid supply tank;
a conduit having an inlet fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank, the conduit having a section containing a gas having a gas volume;
a pump fluidly coupled to an outlet of the conduit,
wherein the pump is configured to pump liquid and gas; and
a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on the gas volume in the conduit or
based on an operation time of the pump required to pump the gas volume from the conduit.
13. A beverage machine comprising:
a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage;
a pump fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank;
a liquid supply line configured to provide liquid from the liquid supply tank to the pump;
wherein the pump is configured to move liquid from the liquid supply tank to the supply line;
a vent fluidly coupled to the liquid supply line to vent at least a portion of the liquid supply line to ambient pressure such that, for at least some fill levels of the liquid supply tank, a liquid level in the liquid supply line is at a same height as a liquid level in the liquid supply tank; and
a sensor configured to detect presence and absence of liquid in the liquid supply line.
17. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising
a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on a gas volume in the liquid supply line at a start of a beverage cycle based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the liquid supply line, wherein the beverage machine includes a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas.
1. A beverage machine comprising:
a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid, the liquid having a liquid level in the liquid supply tank;
a conduit having an inlet fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank, the conduit having a section containing a gas having a gas volume; a pump fluidly coupled to an outlet of the conduit, wherein the pump is configured to pump liquid and gas; and
a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank
based on the gas volume in the conduit or
based on an operation time of the pump required to pump the gas volume from the conduit.
13. A beverage machine comprising:
a liquid supply tank configured to hold a liquid for forming a beverage;
a pump fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank;
a liquid supply line configured to provide liquid from the liquid supply tank to the pump;
wherein the pump is configured to move liquid from the liquid supply tank to the supply line;
a vent fluidly coupled to the liquid supply line to vent at least a portion of the liquid supply line to ambient pressure such that, for at least some fill levels of the liquid supply tank, a liquid level in the liquid supply line is at a same height as a liquid level in the liquid supply tank; and
a sensor configured to detect presence and absence of liquid in the liquid supply line.
18. The beverage machine of claim 13, further comprising
a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank
based on an operation time of the pump required to pump a gas volume from the liquid supply line, and further comprising a sensor configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas, wherein the controller is configured to measure the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas and to stop measuring the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid.
Claims 13/17 and 13/18 of Application No. 18/033,438 teach claim 1 of the Instant Application but do not explicitly disclose the liquid having a liquid level in the liquid supply tank; the conduit having a section containing a gas having a gas volume; an outlet of the conduit, wherein the pump is configured to pump gas.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage brewing systems, Burrows teaches the liquid having a liquid level in the liquid supply tank (level of liquid in reservoir 14, fig. 1); the conduit (conduit 40, fig. 1; construed as starting at reservoir 14 and ending at pump 12, fig. 1) having a section (from check valve 46 to pump 12, fig. 1) containing a gas having a gas volume (after the end of a brew cycle, air from line 106 is provided from check valve 46 to pump 12, para 0140); an outlet of the conduit (the outlet of the conduit is construed as the connection between the conduit 40 and entrance to the pump 12, fig. 1), wherein the pump is configured to pump gas (para 0140).
Burrows, fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
1272
943
media_image1.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 Claims 13/17 and 13/18 of Application No. 18/033,438, in view of the teachings of Burrows, by connecting an outlet, as taught by Burrows, of the liquid supply line to the pump, as taught in Application No. 18/033,438, where the pump was configured to pump air or gas, as taught by Burrows, in order to detect when the pump transfers from a high load when pumping water, which will draw a high current, to a low load, when pumping air, which will draw a lower current, that can be used to determine when to initiate the end of a brewing cycle, for the advantage of reducing costs and requirements because by simply using amperage detection of the pump, a water sensor is not required in the water reservoir (Burrows, para 0091).
Claims 13/17 and 13/18 of Application No. 18/033,438 teach claim 17 of the Instant Application but do not explicitly disclose the liquid having a liquid volume in the liquid supply tank; a conduit having an outlet and an inlet, the conduit having a section extending from the outlet containing a gas; a pump having an inlet, wherein the pump is configured to pump gas.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage brewing systems, Burrows teaches the liquid having a liquid volume in the liquid supply tank (level of liquid in reservoir 14, fig. 1); a conduit having an outlet and an inlet (conduit 40, fig. 1; construed as starting with an inlet at reservoir 14 and ending with an outlet at pump 12, fig. 1), the conduit having a section extending from the outlet containing a gas (after the end of a brew cycle, air from line 106 is provided from check valve 46 to pump 12 where the construed outlet is located, para 0140); a pump having an inlet (the connection between the conduit 40 and the pump 12 is construed as being an inlet for the pump 12, fig. 1), wherein the pump is configured to pump gas (para 0140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Claims 13/17 and 13/18 of Application No. 18/033,438, in view of the teachings of Burrows, by connecting an inlet and an outlet, as taught by Burrows, of the liquid supply line to liquid supply tank and an inlet of the pump, respectively, as taught in Application No. 18/033,438, where the pump was configured to pump air or gas, as taught by Burrows, in order to detect when the pump transfers from a high load when pumping water, which will draw a high current, to a low load, when pumping air, which will draw a lower current, that can be used to determine when to initiate the end of a brewing cycle, for the advantage of reducing costs and requirements because by simply using amperage detection of the pump, a water sensor is not required in the water reservoir (Burrows, para 0091).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 13/17 and 13/18 of Application No. 18/033,438 teach claim 39 of the Instant Application but do not explicitly disclose the liquid having a liquid volume in the liquid supply tank; a conduit having an outlet and an inlet, the conduit having a section extending from the outlet containing a gas; a pump having an inlet, wherein the pump is configured to pump gas.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage brewing systems, Burrows teaches the liquid having a liquid volume in the liquid supply tank (level of liquid in reservoir 14, fig. 1); a conduit having an outlet and an inlet (conduit 40, fig. 1; construed as starting with an inlet at reservoir 14 and ending with an outlet at pump 12, fig. 1), the conduit having a section extending from the outlet containing a gas (after the end of a brew cycle, air from line 106 is provided from check valve 46 to pump 12 where the construed outlet is located, para 0140); a pump having an inlet (the connection between the conduit 40 and the pump 12 is construed as being an inlet for the pump 12, fig. 1), wherein the pump is configured to pump gas (para 0140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Claims 13/17 and 13/18 of Application No. 18/033,438, in view of the teachings of Burrows, by connecting an inlet and an outlet, as taught by Burrows, of the liquid supply line to liquid supply tank and an inlet of the pump, respectively, as taught in Application No. 18/033,438, where the pump was configured to pump air or gas, as taught by Burrows, in order to detect when the pump transfers from a high load when pumping water, which will draw a high current, to a low load, when pumping air, which will draw a lower current, that can be used to determine when to initiate the end of a brewing cycle, for the advantage of reducing costs and requirements because by simply using amperage detection of the pump, a water sensor is not required in the water reservoir (Burrows, para 0091).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 31 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of claims 31 and 37 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 31 and 37 recite at least one step or instruction for determining a volume of a liquid, comparing volumes with a threshold, and providing an indication, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). (these processes are considered mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))))
Accordingly, each of Claims 31 and 37 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 31 recites: “a method of determining a volume of a liquid in a liquid supply tank of a beverage machine (an additional element), comprising:
determining an initial volume of liquid in the liquid supply tank at a start of a beverage cycle during which a first volume of the liquid is used to form a beverage without the use of a sensor in the liquid supply tank (an observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)));
determining a remaining volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank based on the initial volume and the first volume and without measuring a volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank after the start of the beverage cycle (an observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)));
comparing the remaining volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank to a threshold volume (an observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)));
providing an indication that the remaining volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank is lower than the threshold volume (involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
and prematurely ending the beverage cycle without attempting to form the beverage (an observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))).
Additionally, Claim 37 recites: “A beverage machine comprising: a liquid supply tank configured to hold an initial volume of a liquid at a start of a beverage cycle during which a first volume of the liquid is used to form a beverage (an additional element); and
a controller (additional element) configured to determine a remaining volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank based on the initial volume and the first volume and without measuring a volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank after the start of the beverage cycle (an observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)));
wherein the controller is configured to determine the initial volume without the use of a sensor in the liquid supply tank (an observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)));
wherein the controller is configured to compare the remaining volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank to the threshold volume (an observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) and provide an indication that the remaining volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank is lower than the threshold volume (involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
and prematurely end the beverage cycle without attempting to form the beverage (an observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 37 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the controller, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h). More specifically, the additional elements of: a controller is a generically recited computer element in independent Claims, which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 37 is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 37 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claim 37 is directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 31 and 37 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a beverage machine and a liquid supply tank. These additional elements are extra-solution activities for conventional structure, which are claimed in a merely generic manner. For example, paragraph 0004 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses that “beverage forming systems” and “water tanks” are conventional and are already well-known in the art.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 31 and 37 do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 31 and 37 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 31 and 37 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 38 is not rejected under 35 USC 101 because claim 38 requires structure that is not considered conventional.
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: “controller” in claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 14, 16-20, 24, and 37.
The generic placeholder is a “controller” (a controller is understood to be a substitute for a means for controlling). The functional limitations are “configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on the gas volume in the conduit or based on an operation time of the pump required to pump the gas volume from the conduit” (claim 1); “controller is configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on the gas volume in the conduit,” (claim 2); “wherein the controller is configured to determine the gas volume in the conduit at a start of a beverage cycle based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the conduit,” (claim 3); “wherein the controller is configured to count pump cycles during pump operation when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas and stop counting pump cycles when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid” (claim 5); “wherein the controller is configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank by comparing the counted number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the conduit to a table of known liquid level values and corresponding pump cycles” (claim 6); “wherein the controller is configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on the operation time of the pump required to pump the gas volume from the conduit” (claim 7); “wherein the controller is configured to measure the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas and to stop measuring the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid” (claim 9); “wherein the controller is configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank by comparing the operation time of the pump to a table of known liquid level values and corresponding operation times” (claim 10); “wherein the controller is configured to selectively open and close the valve” (claim 14); “wherein the controller is configured to determine a liquid volume in the liquid supply tank based on the liquid level in the liquid supply tank” (claim 16); “a controller configured to determine the liquid volume in the liquid supply tank based on a gas volume moved by the pump or based on an operation time of the pump required to draw the liquid to the pump inlet” (claim 17); “wherein the controller is configured to determine the liquid volume in the liquid supply tank based on the gas volume moved by the pump to draw the liquid to the pump inlet at a start of a beverage cycle” (claim 18); “wherein the controller is configured to determine the gas volume based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the conduit” (claim 19); “wherein the controller determines the liquid volume in the liquid supply tank based on the operation time of the pump required to pump draw the liquid to the pump inlet at a start of a beverage cycle” (claim 20); “wherein the controller is configured to selectively open and close the valve” (claim 24); “controller configured to determine a remaining volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank based on the initial volume and the first volume and without measuring a volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank after the start of the beverage cycle; wherein the controller is configured to determine the initial volume without the use of a sensor in the liquid supply tank; wherein the controller is configured to compare the remaining volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank to the threshold volume and provide an indication that the remaining volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank is lower than the threshold volume” (claim 37); “wherein the controller is configured to selectively open and close the valve; and wherein the controller is configured to determine the initial volume of the liquid at the start of the beverage cycle based on an operation time of the pump required to pump the gas volume from the conduit” (claim 38); and “configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on the gas volume in the conduit or based on an operation time of the pump required to pump the gas volume from the conduit” (claim 39);.
Structure that is used from the Specification includes an “algorithm” and a “look-up table.”
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 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 1-25 and 37-39 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 14, 16-20, 24, 37, and 39 recite a “controller.” Although the Specification discloses “algorithms” and a “look-up table,” there is no disclosure in the Specification of a processor or any hardware capable of performing the functional limitations that are attributed to the claimed “controller.” As a result, there is insufficient disclosure because the Specification does not disclose any type of processor for performing the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing (MPEP 2161.01).
Claims 4, 8, 11-13, 15, 21-23, 25, and 38 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
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.
In claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 14, 16-20, 24, 37, and 39 the limitation “controller” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-25 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burrows (US-20170290458-A1) in view of Erba et al. (EP-2409612-B1) and Hazan et al. (US-5388501-A).
Regarding claim 1, Burrows teaches a beverage machine (fig. 1) comprising:
a liquid supply tank (reservoir 14, fig. 1) configured to hold a liquid (water) for forming a beverage (“coffee,” para 0089), the liquid having a liquid level in the liquid supply tank (level of liquid in reservoir 14, fig. 1);
a conduit (channel through conduits 40, 62 and heat tank 16, fig. 1) having an inlet fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank (the connection between conduit 40 and reservoir 14 is construed as being an inlet, fig. 1), the conduit having a section containing a gas having a gas volume (after the end of a brew cycle, air from line 106 is provided from check valve 46 to pump 12, para 0140; this air is construed as having a volume while it is in the conduit 40);
a pump (pump 12, fig. 1) fluidly coupled to an outlet of the conduit (the outlet of the conduit is construed as being the sensor outlet 72, fig. 1; the pump 12 is fluidly connected to the outlet 72, fig. 1), wherein the pump is configured to pump liquid and gas (para 0140); and
a controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) configured to determine the gas volume in the conduit (“accordingly, the pump 12 stops displacing water and, instead, starts pumping air from the air line 106 exposed to atmosphere,” para 0140; the transition from pumping water to pumping air can be detected by comparing the current readings in a look-up table, paras 0091-0092; construed as an algorithm and a look-up table; the Instant Application discloses a similar algorithm, para 0029 of Specification) or an operation time of the pump required to pump the gas volume from the conduit (the system is able to determine the volume of fluid that is dispensed based on the quantity of fluid through the pump based on the amount of revolutions per time or RPMs of the pump, para 0118, the disclosed “1 minute” is construed as being the claimed “operation time,” para 0118; the Instant Application discloses a similar algorithm, para 0031 of Specification).
Burrows does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on the gas volume in the conduit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage heating systems, Erba teaches a controller (control unit 19, fig. 1) configured to determine (the water level is determined based on the air pressure, para 0045) the liquid level (level L, fig. 1) in the liquid supply tank (container 3, fig. 1) based on the gas in the conduit (conduit 6a is filled with “air,” para 0043).
Erba, fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
658
648
media_image2.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 Burrows, in view of the teachings of Erba, by using a pressure measuring device 18, as taught by Erba, in the conduit 40, as taught by Burrows, to determine a liquid level L, as taught by Erba, of the water in the reservoir 14, as taught by Burrows, in order to measure the pressure of the air after each brewing cycle to determine the water level of the reservoir, for the advantage of determining the water level without the need of performing any other operation on the reservoir other than inserting a pipe into the reservoir so that water can be drawn (Erba, para 0013).
Burrows/Erba do not explicitly disclose a gas volume.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage heating systems, Hazan teaches a gas volume (volume of gas in space 30, fig. 3; “variation of the water level causes a variation of the air volume and hence a pressure variation,” column 3, lines 54-55).
Hazan, fig. 3
PNG
media_image3.png
480
596
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 Burrows/Erba, in view of the teachings of Hazan, by using the change in the air pressure, as taught by Erba, to also infer a change in the air volume, because based on the inverse gas law, a change in pressure will indirectly correlate in a change of volume, i.e.,
P
1
V
1
=
P
2
V
2
or
P
1
P
2
=
V
2
V
1
, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one measurement method known in the art for another with predictable results (measuring the change in volume or the air instead of the change in pressure of the air will not change the calculation that is performed to detect the amount of water that is left in the reservoir).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Burrows in view of Erba and Hazan as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 2. Specifically, Erba teaches wherein the controller (control unit 19, fig. 1) is configured to determine (the water level is determined based on the air pressure, para 0045) the liquid level (level L, fig. 1) in the liquid supply tank (container 3, fig. 1) based on the gas in the conduit (conduit 6a is filled with “air,” para 0043). Additionally, Hazan teaches a gas volume (volume of gas in space 30, fig. 3; “variation of the water level causes a variation of the air volume and hence a pressure variation,” column 3, lines 54-55).
Regarding claim 3, Burrows teaches wherein the controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) is configured to determine the gas volume in the conduit (“accordingly, the pump 12 stops displacing water and, instead, starts pumping air from the air line 106 exposed to atmosphere,” para 0140; the transition from pumping air to pumping water can be detected by comparing the current readings in a look-up table, paras 0091-0092) at a start of a beverage cycle (“the beverage brewing system 10 may use the pump 12 to determine the volume of water transferred from the reservoir 14 to the heater tank 16 and/or the brew cartridge 32,” para 0118; construed such that the controller is capable of keeping track of the amount of fluid dispensed for a subsequent brewing cycle; step 204, fig. 19) based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the conduit (the system is able to determine the volume of fluid that is dispensed based on the quantity of fluid through the pump based on the amount of revolutions per time or RPMs of the pump, para 0118; the “revolutions” in para 0118 are construed as the claimed “pump cycles” and fluid can be either a gas or a liquid).
Regarding claim 4, Burrows teaches wherein the beverage machine includes a sensor (Hall Effect sensor 322, fig. 33; para 0177) configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas (para 0091).
Regarding claim 5, Burrows teaches wherein the controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) is configured to count pump cycles (configured to count “revolutions,” paras 0093 and 0118) during pump operation when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas (paras 0091 and 0177) and stop counting pump cycles when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid (the microcontroller is construed as being capable of not counting the “revolutions” of the pump when water is detected due to a “higher current,” para 0091, because the system “may monitor” the revolutions and does not have to monitor the pump speed, para 0118).
Regarding claim 6, Burrows teaches wherein the controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) is configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank by comparing the counted number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the conduit (the system is able to determine the volume of fluid that is dispensed based on the quantity of fluid through the pump based on the amount of revolutions per time or RPMs of the pump, para 0118; the “revolutions” in para 0118 are construed as the claimed “pump cycles” and fluid can be either a gas or a liquid) to a table of known liquid level values and corresponding pump cycles (“the microcontroller 50 may use a look-up table 388 (FIG. 50) to determine the quantity of water to pump from the reservoir 14 to the heater tank 16 during a brew cycle,” para 0196; para 0118 describes the calculations for determining volume based on revolutions; construed such that these calculations taught in para 0118 can be used in a look-up table, as described in para 0196).
Regarding claim 7, Burrows teaches wherein the controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) is configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank (“determine the volume of water transferred from the reservoir 14 to the heater tank 16,” para 0118) based on the operation time of the pump required to pump the gas volume from the conduit (“if the pump 12 runs for 1 minute at 500 rpm and each revolution displaces 0.02 ounces of fluid, the beverage brewing system 10 may determine therefrom that the pump 12 pumped a total of 10 ounces of fluid,” para 0118).
Regarding claim 8, Burrows teaches wherein the beverage machine includes a sensor (Hall Effect sensor 322, fig. 33; para 0177) configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas (para 0091).
Regarding claim 9, Burrows teaches wherein the controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) is configured to measure the operation time (“1 minute,” para 0118) of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping gas (para 0091) and to stop measuring the operation time of the pump when the sensor determines that the pump is pumping liquid (the microcontroller is construed as being capable of counting the “revolutions” to determine a time when air is detected due to a “lower current” and as being capable of not counting the “revolutions” to determine a time when water is detected due to a “higher current,” para 0091, because the system “may monitor” the revolutions and does not have to monitor the pump speed, para 0118).
Regarding claim 10, Burrows teaches wherein the controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) is configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank (“determine the volume of water transferred from the reservoir 14 to the heater tank 16,” para 0118) by comparing the operation time of the pump to a table of known liquid level values and corresponding operation times (“the microcontroller 50 may use a look-up table 388 (FIG. 50) to determine the quantity of water to pump from the reservoir 14 to the heater tank 16 during a brew cycle,” para 0196; para 0118 describes the calculations for determining volume based on time and revolutions and para 0175 describes how to calculate the remaining quantity of water; construed such that these calculations taught in para 0118 can be used in a look-up table, as described in para 0196).
Regarding claim 11, Burrows teaches further including a vent (“air line 106 open to atmosphere,” para 0140; the air line 106 is construed as the claimed “vent”) configured to vent a portion of the conduit (portion where line 106 connects with conduit 40, fig. 1) to atmospheric pressure (para 0140).
Regarding claim 12, Burrows teaches wherein the vent (air line 106, fig. 1) and the conduit (channel through conduits 40, 62 and heat tank 16, fig. 1) are arranged such that when the portion of the conduit is vented to atmospheric pressure, a liquid level in the conduit (liquid level in heat tank 16, fig. 1) is equal to the liquid level in the liquid supply tank (liquid level in reservoir 14, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Burrows teaches wherein the vent (air line 106, fig. 1) includes a valve (solenoid valve 108, fig. 1) configured to selectively open and close the vent (para 0140).
Regarding claim 14, Burrows teaches wherein the controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) is configured to selectively open and close the valve (para 0149).
Regarding claim 15, Burrows teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the pump is positioned at a height above a maximum liquid level of the liquid supply tank.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage heating systems, Erba teaches wherein the pump (pump 10, fig. 1) is positioned at a height above a maximum liquid level of the liquid supply tank (pump 10 is above the liquid level L of the water in the container 3, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Burrows, in view of the teachings of Erba, by locating the pump 12, as taught by Burrows, at a height higher than the liquid level in a reservoir, as taught by Erba, because the pump acts as a suction device and it would be beneficial to locate the pump at a height higher than the liquid level of the reservoir so that when the pump is suctioning air and purging the conduit, the conduit is purged of air but a minimal amount of air, e.g., bubbles, enters the reservoir (Erba, paras 0043 and 0047, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Burrows in view of Erba and Hazan as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 16. Specifically, Erba teaches a controller (control unit 19, fig. 1) configured to determine a liquid volume in the liquid supply tank (“quantity of liquid contained in the container can be calculated from the height L of the liquid,” para 0052; the “quantity” disclosed by Erba is construed as the claimed “volume”) based on the liquid level in the liquid supply tank (“level L of liquid,” para 0045).
Regarding claim 17, Burrows teaches a beverage machine (fig. 1) comprising:
a liquid supply tank (reservoir 14, fig. 1) configured to hold a liquid (water) for forming a beverage (“coffee,” para 0089), the liquid having a liquid level in the liquid supply tank (level of liquid in reservoir 14, fig. 1);
a conduit (channel through conduit 40 extending to the pump 12, fig. 1) having an outlet (the outlet of the conduit is construed as the connection of conduit 40 with the pump 12, fig. 1) and an inlet fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank (the connection between conduit 40 and reservoir 14 is construed as being an inlet, fig. 1), the conduit having a section extending from the outlet containing a gas (after the end of a brew cycle, air from line 106 is provided from check valve 46 to pump 12, para 0140);
a pump (pump 12, fig. 1) having an inlet (inlet 42, fig. 1) fluidly coupled to the outlet of the conduit, wherein the pump is configured to pump liquid and gas (para 0140); and
a controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) configured to determine a gas volume moved by the pump (“accordingly, the pump 12 stops displacing water and, instead, starts pumping air from the air line 106 exposed to atmosphere,” para 0140; the transition from pumping water to pumping air can be detected by comparing the current readings in a look-up table, paras 0091-0092; construed as an algorithm and a look-up table; the Instant Application discloses a similar algorithm, para 0029 of Specification) or an operation time of the pump required to draw the liquid to the pump inlet (the system is able to determine the volume of fluid that is dispensed based on the quantity of fluid through the pump based on the amount of revolutions per time or RPMs of the pump, para 0118, the disclosed “1 minute” is construed as being the claimed “operation time,” para 0118; the Instant Application discloses a similar algorithm, para 0031 of Specification).
Burrows does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to determine the liquid volume in the liquid supply tank based on a gas volume.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage heating systems, Erba teaches a controller (control unit 19, fig. 1) configured to determine the liquid volume in the liquid supply tank (“quantity of liquid contained in the container can be calculated from the height L of the liquid,” para 0052; the “quantity” disclosed by Erba is construed as the claimed “volume”) based on a gas (the water level is determined based on the air pressure, para 0045; conduit 6a is filled with “air,” para 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Burrows, in view of the teachings of Erba, by using a pressure measuring device 18, as taught by Erba, in the conduit 40, as taught by Burrows, to determine the quantity of liquid, as taught by Erba, for the water in the reservoir 14, as taught by Burrows, in order to measure the pressure of the air after each brewing cycle to determine the water level of the reservoir, for the advantage of determining the water level without the need of performing any other operation on the reservoir other than inserting a pipe into the reservoir so that water can be drawn (Erba, para 0013).
Burrows/Erba do not explicitly disclose a gas volume.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage heating systems, Hazan teaches a gas volume (volume of gas in space 30, fig. 3; “variation of the water level causes a variation of the air volume and hence a pressure variation,” column 3, lines 54-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Burrows/Erba, in view of the teachings of Hazan, by using the change in the air pressure, as taught by Erba, to also infer a change in the air volume, because based on the inverse gas law, a change in pressure will indirectly correlate in a change of volume, i.e.,
P
1
V
1
=
P
2
V
2
or
P
1
P
2
=
V
2
V
1
, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one measurement method known in the art for another with predictable results (measuring the change in volume or the air instead of the change in pressure of the air will not change the calculation that is performed to detect the amount of water that is left in the reservoir).
Regarding claim 18, Burrows teaches wherein the controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) is configured to determine the liquid volume in the liquid supply tank based on the gas volume moved by the pump to draw the liquid to the pump inlet (“the water volume pumped from the reservoir 14 may be determined based on the speed and duration of the pump 12,” para 0153; by tracking the “total volume displaced,” para 0118, the system is able to keep track of the volume of the quantity remaining in the reservoir, para 0175) at a start of a beverage cycle (step 204, fig. 19).
Regarding claim 19, Burrows teaches wherein the controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) is configured to determine the gas volume (“accordingly, the pump 12 stops displacing water and, instead, starts pumping air from the air line 106 exposed to atmosphere,” para 0140; the transition from pumping air to pumping water can be detected by comparing the current readings in a look-up table, paras 0091-0092) based on a number of pump cycles required to pump the gas volume out of the conduit (the system is able to determine the volume of fluid that is dispensed based on the quantity of fluid through the pump based on the amount of revolutions per time or RPMs of the pump, para 0118; the “revolutions” in para 0118 are construed as the claimed “pump cycles” and fluid can be either a gas or a liquid).
Regarding claim 20, Burrows teaches wherein the controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) determines the liquid volume (“10 oz. of water remain,” para 0175) in the liquid supply tank based on the operation time (“1 minute,” para 0118) of the pump required to pump draw the liquid to the pump inlet at a start (step 204, fig. 19) of a beverage cycle (paras 0118, 0153, and 0175).
Regarding claim 21, Burrows teaches wherein the beverage machine includes a sensor (Hall Effect sensor 322, fig. 33; para 0177) configured to determine whether the pump is pumping liquid or gas (para 0091).
Regarding claim 22, Burrows teaches further including a vent (“air line 106 open to atmosphere,” para 0140; the air line 106 is construed as the claimed “vent”) configured to vent a portion of the conduit (portion where line 106 connects with conduit 40, fig. 1) to atmospheric pressure (para 0140).
Regarding claim 23, Burrows teaches wherein the vent (air line 106, fig. 1) includes a valve (solenoid valve 108, fig. 1) configured to selectively open and close the vent (para 0140).
Regarding claim 24, Burrows teaches wherein the controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) is configured to selectively open and close the valve (para 0149).
Regarding claim 25, Burrows teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the pump is positioned at a height above a maximum liquid level of the liquid supply tank.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage heating systems, Erba teaches wherein the pump (pump 10, fig. 1) is positioned at a height above a maximum liquid level of the liquid supply tank (pump 10 is above the liquid level L of the water in the container 3, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Burrows, in view of the teachings of Erba, by locating the pump 12, as taught by Burrows, at a height higher than the liquid level in a reservoir, as taught by Erba, because the pump acts as a suction device and it would be beneficial to locate the pump at a height higher than the liquid level of the reservoir so that when the pump is suctioning air and purging the conduit, the conduit is purged of air but a minimal amount of air, e.g., bubbles, enters the reservoir (Erba, paras 0043 and 0047, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 39, Burrows teaches a fluid system (fig. 1) comprising:
a liquid supply tank (reservoir 14, fig. 1) configured to hold a liquid (“water,” para 0088), the liquid having a liquid level in the liquid supply tank (level of liquid in reservoir 14, fig. 1);
a conduit (channel through conduits 40, 62 and heat tank 16, fig. 1) having an inlet fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank (the connection between conduit 40 and reservoir 14 is construed as being an inlet, fig. 1), the conduit having a section containing a gas having a gas volume (after the end of a brew cycle, air from line 106 is provided from check valve 46 to pump 12, para 0140; this air is construed as having a volume while it is in the conduit 40);
a pump (pump 12, fig. 1) fluidly coupled to an outlet of the conduit (the outlet of the conduit is construed as being the sensor outlet 72, fig. 1; the pump 12 is fluidly connected to the outlet 72, fig. 1), wherein the pump is configured to pump liquid and gas (para 0140); and
a controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) configured to determine the gas volume in the conduit (“accordingly, the pump 12 stops displacing water and, instead, starts pumping air from the air line 106 exposed to atmosphere,” para 0140; the transition from pumping water to pumping air can be detected by comparing the current readings in a look-up table, paras 0091-0092; construed as an algorithm and a look-up table; the Instant Application discloses a similar algorithm, para 0029 of Specification) or an operation time of the pump required to pump the gas volume from the conduit (the system is able to determine the volume of fluid that is dispensed based on the quantity of fluid through the pump based on the amount of revolutions per time or RPMs of the pump, para 0118, the disclosed “1 minute” is construed as being the claimed “operation time,” para 0118; the Instant Application discloses a similar algorithm, para 0031 of Specification).
Burrows does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to determine the liquid level in the liquid supply tank based on the gas volume in the conduit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage heating systems, Erba teaches a controller (control unit 19, fig. 1) configured to determine (the water level is determined based on the air pressure, para 0045) the liquid level (level L, fig. 1) in the liquid supply tank (container 3, fig. 1) based on the gas in the conduit (conduit 6a is filled with “air,” para 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Burrows, in view of the teachings of Erba, by using a pressure measuring device 18, as taught by Erba, in the conduit 40, as taught by Burrows, to determine a liquid level L, as taught by Erba, of the water in the reservoir 14, as taught by Burrows, in order to measure the pressure of the air after each brewing cycle to determine the water level of the reservoir, for the advantage of determining the water level without the need of performing any other operation on the reservoir other than inserting a pipe into the reservoir so that water can be drawn (Erba, para 0013).
Burrows/Erba do not explicitly disclose a gas volume.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage heating systems, Hazan teaches a gas volume (volume of gas in space 30, fig. 3; “variation of the water level causes a variation of the air volume and hence a pressure variation,” column 3, lines 54-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Burrows/Erba, in view of the teachings of Hazan, by using the change in the air pressure, as taught by Erba, to also infer a change in the air volume, because based on the inverse gas law, a change in pressure will indirectly correlate in a change of volume, i.e.,
P
1
V
1
=
P
2
V
2
or
P
1
P
2
=
V
2
V
1
, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one measurement method known in the art for another with predictable results (measuring the change in volume or the air instead of the change in pressure of the air will not change the calculation that is performed to detect the amount of water that is left in the reservoir).
Claims 26, 31, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burrows (US-20170290458-A1) in view of Erba et al. (EP-2409612-B1).
Regarding claim 26, Burrows teaches a beverage machine (fig. 1) comprising:
a liquid supply tank (reservoir 14, fig. 1) configured to hold a liquid (water) for forming a beverage (“coffee,” para 0089), the liquid supply tank having a maximum capacity for holding the liquid (“When the reservoir 14 is full, for example as shown in FIG. 30”), wherein the liquid reaches a first height vertically above from a bottom of the liquid supply tank when the liquid supply tank is filled to the maximum capacity (height between the liquid and bottom of the reservoir 14 in fig. 30);
a pump (pump 12, fig. 1) having an inlet (inlet 42, fig. 1) and configured to selectively pump the liquid (step 218, fig. 19; para 0162) towards an outlet (nozzle 44, fig. 1);
a conduit (channel through conduit 40 extending to the pump 12, fig. 1) fluidly coupled between the liquid supply tank (conduit 40 is coupled to reservoir 14, fig. 1) and the pump (conduit 40 is coupled to pump 12, fig. 1) to supply liquid to the pump inlet (paras 0140 and 0162); and
a vent (“air line 106 open to atmosphere,” para 0140; the air line 106 is construed as the claimed “vent”) configured to vent a portion of the conduit (portion where line 106 connects with conduit 40, fig. 1) to atmospheric pressure (para 0140).
Burrows does not explicitly disclose wherein the pump is disposed at a second height vertically greater than the first height.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage heating systems, Erba teaches wherein the pump (pump 10, fig. 1) is disposed at a second height vertically greater than the first height (pump 10 is above the liquid level L of the water in the container 3, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Burrows, in view of the teachings of Erba, by locating the pump 12, as taught by Burrows, at a height higher than the liquid level in a reservoir, as taught by Erba, because the pump acts as a suction device and it would be beneficial to locate the pump at a height higher than the liquid level of the reservoir so that when the pump is suctioning air and purging the conduit, the conduit is purged of air but a minimal amount of air, e.g., bubbles, enters the reservoir (Erba, paras 0043 and 0047, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 31, Burrows teaches a method (fig. 19) of determining a volume of a liquid in a liquid supply tank (“continued tracking of the quantity of water remaining in the reservoir 14,” para 0175) of a beverage machine (fig. 1), comprising:
determining (step 204, fig. 19) an initial volume of liquid (“12 oz,” para 0175) in the liquid supply tank at a start of a beverage cycle (step 204 is at the start of fig. 19) during which a first volume of the liquid is used to form a beverage (“2 oz,” para 0175);
determining (step 204, fig. 19) a remaining volume (“10 oz,” para 0175) of the liquid in the liquid supply tank based on the initial volume and the first volume (“If 2 oz. of water leave the reservoir 14 after the magnet 302 trips the Hall Effect sensor 304, the system 10 knows that 10 oz. of water remain in the reservoir 14,” para 0175) and without measuring a volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank after the start of the beverage cycle (calculations are used based on measurements “using the flow meter 48 or the pump 12,” and “by tracking the amount of water that leaves the reservoir 14” and not based on measuring the volume of the liquid in the tank after the start when the reservoir is determined to have 12 oz, para 0175);
comparing (step 206, fig. 19) the remaining volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank to a threshold volume (“the microcontroller 50 may operate the pump 12 to determine whether the reservoir 14 has any water,” para 0152; para 0159 teaches various thresholds); and
providing (step 208, fig. 19) an indication that the remaining volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank is lower than the threshold volume (“If there is no water in the reservoir 14, then the system 10 will display a notification to ‘add water,’” para 0152; para 0159)
and prematurely ending the beverage cycle (method 200 ends at step 208, fig. 19) without attempting to form the beverage (step 210 begins the formation of the beverage by filling the heater tank, para 0154; step 210 is not attempted because the flow chart ends at step 208).
Burrows, fig. 19
PNG
media_image4.png
1082
795
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Burrows does not explicitly disclose determining an initial volume of liquid without the use of a sensor in the liquid supply tank.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage heating systems, Erba teaches determining an initial volume of liquid (liquid volume level L, fig. 1; para 0045) without the use of a sensor in the liquid supply tank (the level L is determined by using the pressure from the measuring device 18, fig. 1 and para 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Burrows, in view of the teachings of Erba, by using a pressure measuring device 18, as taught by Erba, in the conduit 40 instead of using the Hall Effect sensor 304 in the reservoir 14, as taught by Burrows, to determine a liquid level L, as taught by Erba, of the water in the reservoir 14, as taught by Burrows, in order to measure the pressure of the air after each brewing cycle to determine the water level of the reservoir, for the advantage of determining the water level without the need of performing any other operation on the reservoir other than inserting a pipe into the reservoir so that water can be drawn (Erba, para 0013).
Regarding claim 37, Burrows teaches a beverage machine (fig. 1) comprising:
a liquid supply tank (reservoir 14, fig. 1) configured to hold an initial volume (“12 oz,” para 0175) of a liquid at a start of a beverage cycle during which a first volume (“2 oz,” para 0175) of the liquid is used to form a beverage (“coffee,” para 0089); and
a controller (microcontroller 50, fig. 18) configured to determine a remaining volume (“10 oz,” para 0175) of the liquid in the liquid supply tank based on the initial volume and the first volume (“If 2 oz. of water leave the reservoir 14 after the magnet 302 trips the Hall Effect sensor 304, the system 10 knows that 10 oz. of water remain in the reservoir 14,” para 0175) and without measuring a volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank after the start of the beverage cycle (calculations are used based on measurements “using the flow meter 48 or the pump 12,” and “by tracking the amount of water that leaves the reservoir 14” and not based on measuring the volume of the liquid in the tank after the start when the reservoir is determined to have 12 oz, para 0175);
wherein the controller is configured to determine the initial volume (step 204, fig. 19; para 0151)
wherein the controller is configured to compare the remaining volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank to a threshold volume (“the microcontroller 50 may operate the pump 12 to determine whether the reservoir 14 has any water,” para 0152; para 0159 teaches various thresholds), provide an indication that the remaining volume of the liquid in the liquid supply tank is lower than the threshold volume (“If there is no water in the reservoir 14, then the system 10 will display a notification to ‘add water,’” para 0152; para 0159)
and prematurely ending the beverage cycle (method 200 ends at step 208, fig. 19) without attempting to form the beverage (step 210 begins the formation of the beverage by filling the heater tank, para 0154; step 210 is not attempted because the flow chart ends at step 208).
Burrows does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to determine the initial volume without the use of a sensor in the liquid supply tank.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beverage heating systems, Erba teaches wherein the controller (control unit 19, fig. 1) is configured to determine the initial volume (liquid volume level L, fig. 1; para 0045) without the use of a sensor in the liquid supply tank (the level L is determined by using the pressure from the measuring device 18, fig. 1 and para 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Burrows, in view of the teachings of Erba, by using a pressure measuring device 18, as taught by Erba, in the conduit 40 instead of using the Hall Effect sensor 304 in the reservoir 14, as taught by Burrows, to determine a liquid level L, as taught by Erba, of the water in the reservoir 14, as taught by Burrows, in order to measure the pressure of the air after each brewing cycle to determine the water level of the reservoir, for the advantage of determining the water level without the need of performing any other operation on the reservoir other than inserting a pipe into the reservoir so that water can be drawn (Erba, para 0013).
Regarding claim 38, Burrows teaches further comprising:
a conduit (channel through conduits 40, 62 and heat tank 16, fig. 1) having an inlet fluidly coupled to the liquid supply tank (the connection between conduit 40 and reservoir 14 is construed as being an inlet, fig. 1), the conduit having a section containing a gas having a gas volume (after the end of a brew cycle, air from line 106 is provided from check valve 46 to pump 12, para 0140; this air is construed as having a volume while it is in the conduit 40);
a pump (pump 12, fig. 1) fluidly coupled to an outlet of the conduit (the outlet of the conduit is construed as being the sensor outlet 72, fig. 1; the pump 12 is fluidly connected to the outlet 72, fig. 1), wherein the pump is configured to pump liquid and gas (para 0140);
a vent (“air line 106 open to atmosphere,” para 0140; the air line 106 is construed as the claimed “vent”) configured to vent a portion of the conduit (portion where line 106 connects with conduit 40, fig. 1) to atmospheric pressure (para 0140); and
a valve (solenoid valve 108, fig. 1) configured to selectively open and close the vent (para 0140), wherein the controller is configured to selectively open and close the valve (para 0149); and
wherein the controller is configured to determine the initial volume (“the system 10 determines the quantity of water present in the reservoir 14 by tracking the amount of water that leaves the reservoir,” para 0175) of the liquid at the start of the beverage cycle (step 204, fig. 19) based on an operation time of the pump required to pump the gas volume from the conduit (the system is able to determine the volume of fluid that is dispensed based on the quantity of fluid through the pump based on the amount of revolutions per time or RPMs of the pump, paras 0093 and 0118, the disclosed “1 minute” in para 0118 is construed as being the claimed “operation time,” para 0118; the Instant Application discloses a similar algorithm, para 0031 of Specification; fluids can be gases or liquids).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 2 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Double Patenting Rejection
Page 11 of the arguments requests that the nonstatuatory Double Patenting Rejection be held in abeyance until all of the other rejections have been overcome. However, per MPEP 804, the filing of a terminal disclaimer to overcome a nonstatuatory double patenting rejection “should not be held in abeyance.”
Rejection Under 35 USC § 101
Page 11 of the arguments states that the limitation “prematurely ending the beverage cycle without attempting to form the beverage” causes claim 31 to no longer be an abstract idea because this limitation requires the abstract idea to be integrated with a practical application. Specifically, the rationale provided is that “prematurely ending the beverage cycle of a beverage machine without attempting to form the beverage will necessarily involve integral use of the beverage machine.”
This argument is not persuasive. Respectfully submit that if there is no “attempt to form the beverage” (as claimed), then there will not be a reason to “necessarily involve integral use of the beverage machine” (as argued). In short, if there is no beverage, then there is no need to use a beverage machine.
It appears that the Applicant is trying to incorporate a post-solution activity in order to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection (referencing MPEP 2106.05.g). The examiner agrees that incorporating a post-solution activity into the claim would overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. However, respectfully submit that “prematurely ending the beverage cycle without attempting to form the beverage” does not constitute an action. Rather than being an action, there is instead no attempt to form a beverage. As a result, this limitation cannot be considered a significant post-solution activity (referencing MPEP 2106.05.g).
The argument on page 12 regarding claim 37 refers to the argument regarding claim 31, which has already been addressed.
Rejection Under 35 USC § 112
Page 12 of the arguments states that because the Specification discloses that “the controller 116 may store a lookup table of liquid level LL values and corresponding pump cycles or pump operation times required to pump gas from the conduit 102,” then this statement is sufficient disclosure to determine that the Applicant is in possession of a processor.
The examiner did not find this argument persuasive because one of ordinary skill in the art would not make this determination. Instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there are numerous ways of storing lookup tables that do not involve using a processor. For example, those of ordinary skill in the art are familiar with Abramowitz’ and Stegun’s Handbook of Mathematical Functions, which is a well-known reference book with lookup tables and which does not use a processor. Storing lookup tables on paper is a common practice in engineering. Thus, the examiner disagrees with the Applicant that disclosure of a controller storing a lookup table would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Applicant inherently or implicitly is in possession of a processor. Rather, there are other ways of storing lookup tables, which do not involve using a processor.
The examiner reconsidered the Applicant’s Specification and Drawings. However, the examiner could not find any disclosure that would support making this determination that the Applicant was in possession of a processor at the time of filing.
Rejection Under 35 USC § 102
Applicant' s arguments on pages 13-14 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Burrows combined with Erba.
Rejection Under 35 USC § 103
Page 14 of the argument appears to state that because there is an open extremity 12 at the end of the conduit 16a in Erba, then the mass of gas is not fixed. Because the mass of the gas is not fixed, then the method in the Hazan reference of measuring the volume cannot be used.
The examiner is not sure why the Applicant is referring to the mass measurement of the gas. Instead of measuring the mass, Erba teaches measuring the static pressure of the gas (paragraph 0045).
On page 15 of the arguments, the Applicant argue that because some of the gas escapes through the extremity 12, then there might be an inaccuracy is the pressure measurement. The examiner respectfully submit that the gas will be still be trapped by the compartment 4. As a result, this combined gas-liquid pressure will not change even though some of the gas is in the compartment 4 and not in the conduit 6a. In paragraph 0044, Erba teaches that the “pump 10 is stopped, with consequent closing of the conduit at the pump.” So long as the conduit is closed, then there should not be any inaccuracies with the pressure measurements. In paragraph 0052, Erba further teaches that even though there is an “open extremity 12….by knowing the geometry and the dimensions of the container, the quantity of liquid contained in the container can be calculated from the height L of the liquid.” As further evidence, the Hazan reference shows that gas is trapped at the top of the reservoir 12. However, Hazan is still able to measure the pressure of the gas in the space 30 despite gas being in the reservoir 12.
Page 15 of the arguments appears to argue that inverse gas law does not apply in Erba. The examiner disagrees and is not sure why the Applicant makes this assertion.
Page 15 of the arguments also states that the volume of the gas in Erba will always be the same. The examiner again disagrees with the Applicant and can find no evidence in Erba to support this assertion. Instead, respectfully submit that that as the volume of the liquid decreases, the volume of the gas that is pumped into the conduit should increase. This increase in volume will lead to a decrease in pressure (inverse gas law), which allow for detection of the water level using the pressuring measuring device 18 that is taught by Erba.
Page 15 further opines that measuring the gas pressure is not based on the gas volume. The examiner again disagrees with the Applicant because Hazan teaches that a “variation of the air volume” will result in a “pressure variation” (Hazan, column 3, lines 54-55).
Page 16 of the arguments references claim 26 and states that because the pump 10 in Erba is not entirely disposed above the fill level L, then Erba does not teach that the “pump is disposed at a second height vertically greater than the first height.”
However, the Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not require that the entirety of the pump has to be disposed at a height greater than the first height. Instead, the claim requires the pump to be “disposed at a second height vertically greater than the first height.” Therefore, under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, so long as a part of the pump is above the first height of the water level, then the limitation is satisfied.
Page 17 states that because Erba describes fig. 1 as a “diagrammatic representation,” then fig. 1 cannot be used in a prior-art rejection. However, drawings can be used as prior art (MPEP 2125), and there is no mention in this section of the MPEP that diagrammatic drawings cannot be used as prior art. Although this section of the MPEP does not permit drawings to be used for measurements that are based on drawing proportions, the claim does not require any measurements, e.g., the claim does not require that the “pump is disposed as second height that is greater than one inch more than the first height.” The examiner further submits that although fig. 1 is described by Erba as a “diagrammatic representation,” the figure still shows measurements L and H, which would suggest that at least the vertical dimension of fig. 1 is an accurate description of the features in Erba’s invention.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights