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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species 1, claims 2-5; with Claims 16-19 withdrawn in the reply filed on 07/28/2026 was acknowledged and has been entered. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Neither Webster nor Du teach how a non-isolated power supply could be configured to limit the maximum current delivered by the sensor circuit to less than 2 milliamps. Webster teaches using an isolated power supply to reduce voltage and current, and Du simply states that its sensors may be used with isolated or non-isolated power supplies. The combination of Webster and Du therefore does not teach using a non-isolated power supply to limit the maximum current delivered by the sensor circuit to less than 2 milliamps, and does not provide any suggestion as to how this would be achieved, or any motivation as to why such an arrangement would be desirable. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that generic claim 1 does indeed make a contribution over the prior art of Webster and Du. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the Unity Rejection and accompanying Election of Species Requirement. This is not found persuasive because the Species lack unity of invention even though the inventions of these Species require the technical feature of a beverage machine, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make contribution over the prior art of Webster et al. (US 2008/0282897 A1) in view of DU (CN107440512A). With respect to functional limitation directed toward the properties of “The combination of Webster and Du therefore does not teach using a non-isolated power supply to limit the maximum current delivered by the sensor circuit to less than 2 milliamps”, the applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP sections 2112 and 2114; since the combination of prior art teach all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112); and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir.1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2114). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. An action on the merits of claims 1-15 are as follow.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The claim to priority filled on 04/24/2023 acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2023 and 07/17/2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1. 97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “liquid” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “liquid” and liquid mentioned in line 2 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “first and second conductive probes” in line 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether they are two different probes including first conductive prove and second conductive probe or there are multiple of first and second conductive probes? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first conductive probe” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the second conductive probe” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “liquid” in difference places render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between these “liquid” and liquid mentioned in line 2 of claim 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a beverage” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “a beverage” and a beverage mentioned in line 2 of claim 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “liquid” in difference places render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between these “liquid” and liquid mentioned in line 2 of claim 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “first and second conductive probes” in line 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether they are two different probes including first conductive prove and second conductive probe or there are multiple probes of first and second conductive probes? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “corresponds to a liquid level” in in line 3 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between these “a liquid level” and a liquid level in the supply line mentioned in line 2 are? it is unclear what the relation between these “a liquid level” and a liquid level in the tank mentioned in line 2 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a pimp” in line 1 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “a pimp” and a pimp mentioned in line 2 of claim 8 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “liquid” in line 3 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “liquid” and liquid mentioned in line 2 of claim 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
The rest of the claims has also been rejected because each claim depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster et al. (US 2008/0282897 A1) in view of Du et al. (CN 107 440 512 A).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Webster et al. disclose a beverage machine (see Fig 1) comprising: a liquid supply (A dilution valve 214 is provided for supplying cold water to the beverage container, [0084], Fig 27) configured to provide liquid for use in forming a beverage;
a sensor circuit (water level probes 210 and fill valve 213, Fig 27) including a sensor component (water level probes 210 control the water level entering into and existing in the heater tank, [0080], Fig 27) arranged to contact liquid in the liquid supply, the sensor circuit arranged to detect a physical characteristic of the liquid;
a power supply (a transformer 50, [0053], Fig 22 and transformer 204, [0076], Fig 27) arranged to convert input electrical power (a power cord 201, [0075], Fig 27) to output electrical power having a lower voltage than the input electrical power (transformer 50 which normally operates from a 120 volt primary current, and reduces the voltage down to a 24 volt charge, for operations of the controls for the brewer, [0053]); and
a controller (control board 217, [0085], Fig 27) coupled to the sensor circuit and arranged to receive a signal from the sensor circuit indicative of the physical characteristic (details see Fig 27),
wherein the sensor circuit is powered by the output electrical power of the power supply (210 is powered by the output electrical power of 204, see Fig 27) and is configured to limit a maximum possible current delivered by the sensor circuit to the liquid to be less than 2 milliamps (Clearly, “a maximum possible current delivered by the sensor circuit to the liquid” is capable of “to be less than 2 milliamps” as claimed).
Webster et al. disclose invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose the power supply is a non-isolated power supply.
Du et al. further teach a beverage machine (see Fig 4) comprising: a non-isolated power supply (the first anti-overflow electrode 4 and the second anti-overflow electrode 5 can be powered by... a non-isolated power supply, [0082], Fig 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Webster et al. with Du et al.’s further teaching of the power supply is a non-isolated power supply; because Du et al. teach of using a simpler and more energetically efficient non-isolated power supply instead of a transformer during operation.
Regarding claims 6-7: Webster et al. disclose Claim 6, wherein the non-isolated power supply is arranged to receive input electrical power at 120 Volts AC and includes a plurality of impedances to reduce the voltage of the input electrical power to 12 Volts AC (in FIG. 22, is a transformer 50 which normally operates from a 120 volt primary current, and reduces the voltage down to a 24 volt charge, [0053], Fig 27); and Claim 7, wherein the non-isolated power supply includes a voltage converter to convert the 12 Volts AC power to 12 Volts DC power, and includes a voltage regulator to reduce the 12 Volts DC power to 3.3 Volts DC power which is used to power the sensor circuit (in FIG. 22, is a transformer 50 which normally operates from a 120 volt primary current, and reduces the voltage down to a 24 volt charge, [0053], see Fig 27). Webster et al. in view of Du et al. do not explicitly disclose that Claim 6, wherein the non-isolated power supply is arranged to receive input electrical power at 120 Volts AC and includes a plurality of impedances to reduce the voltage of the input electrical power to 12 Volts AC and Claim 7, wherein the non-isolated power supply includes a voltage converter to convert the 12 Volts AC power to 12 Volts DC power, and includes a voltage regulator to reduce the 12 Volts DC power to 3.3 Volts DC power which is used to power the sensor circuit; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange such that wherein the non-isolated power supply is arranged to receive input electrical power at 120 Volts AC and includes a plurality of impedances to reduce the voltage of the input electrical power to 12 Volts AC and wherein the non-isolated power supply includes a voltage converter to convert the 12 Volts AC power to 12 Volts DC power, and includes a voltage regulator to reduce the 12 Volts DC power to 3.3 Volts DC power which is used to power the sensor circuit; since such a configurations would have involved a mere change in the value of the AC volt and DC volt, a change in voltage value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237.
Claims 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster et al. (US 2008/0282897 A1) in view of Du et al. (CN 107 440 512 A) as applied to claim 1, further in view of IWAHASHI et al. (WO 2016 189800 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Webster et al. in view of Du et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claim 2.
IWAHASHI et al. further teach a beverage machine (a water supply device 1, Fig 1) comprising: a sensor component (a water level sensor unit 120, P 6 of 77, Fig 3. Note: “sensor component” taught by Webster et al. already), and Claim 2, wherein the sensor component includes first and second conductive probes (see 120 includes first and second conductive probes in Fig 3) that are arranged to contact the liquid in the liquid supply and that are electrically insulated from each other except for a path through the liquid (The water level sensor unit 120 has two conductive terminals: a positive terminal and a negative terminal, P 33 of 77; the water level sensor unit 120 detects the amount of water (water level) by detecting conduction or non-conduction between the two terminals, P 34 of 77; Fig 3).
Claim 3, wherein the first conductive probe is connected to the output electrical power (electric power generated by the generator, P 71 of 77. Note: “the output electrical power” taught by Webster et al. already), and the second conductive probe is connected to electrical ground via a protective impedance (including said circuitry incorporating a hi-limit thermostat, to protect the heating system, P 9 claim 16, Fig 27. Webster et al.).
Claim 4, wherein the protective impedance has a resistance of 1k Ohms, and the output electrical power has a voltage of 3.3 Volts DC. Webster et al. in view of Du et al. and IWAHASHI et al. do not explicitly disclose Claim 4; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the protective impedance has a resistance of 1k Ohms, and the output electrical power has a voltage of 3.3 Volts DC, since such a configurations would have involved a mere change in the value of resistance and DC volts of components, a change in value is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237.
Claim 5, wherein the physical characteristic is a presence or absence of liquid in the path between the first and second conductive probes, and the controller is arranged to detect the presence of the liquid at the first and second conductive probes when a voltage at the first conductive probe is at a low level, and to detect the absence of liquid at the first and second conductive probes when the voltage at the first conductive probe is at a high level that is higher than the low level (the water level sensor unit 120 detects the amount of water (water level) by detecting conduction or non-conduction between the two terminals, P 34 of 77; Fig 3; clearly, “the controller is” capable of “arranged to detect the presence of the liquid at the first and second conductive probes when a voltage at the first conductive probe is at a low level, and to detect the absence of liquid at the first and second conductive probes when the voltage at the first conductive probe is at a high level that is higher than the low level” as claimed). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Webster et al. in view of Du et al. with IWAHASHI et al’s further teaching of Claims 2-5; because this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US 2011/0151075 A1) in view of IWAHASHI et al. (WO 2016 189800 A1) and Du et al. (CN 107 440 512 A).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Peterson discloses a beverage machine (a beverage forming apparatus 100, [0047], Fig 24) comprising:
a liquid supply (a storage tank 110, [0049], Fig 25) configured to provide liquid for use in forming a beverage;
a sensor circuit including a sensor component (liquid level sensors, [0049]) arranged to contact liquid, the sensor circuit arranged to detect a physical characteristic of the liquid (the liquid level sensors arranged to detect a quantity of the liquid, see [0049]);
a power supply (The total brew time for all power levels was about 35 seconds, [0067]) arranged to convert input electrical power to output electrical power having a lower voltage than the input electrical power (controller 130 may also include a suitable control or driver circuit, [0050]; provided with different power levels 0, 5, 7, 11. 15 and 40 watts, [0067]); and
a controller (a controller 130, [0049], Fig 25) coupled to the sensor circuit and arranged to receive a signal from the sensor circuit (other data processing device along with suitable software or other operating instructions, one or more memories (including non-transient storage media that may store software and/or other operating instructions), temperature and liquid level sensors, [0049]) indicative of the physical characteristic (necessary to perform desired input/output or other functions, [0049], Fig 25),wherein the sensor circuit is powered by the output electrical power of the power supply (controller 130 may also include a suitable control or driver circuit, [0050]) and is configured to limit a maximum possible current delivered by the sensor circuit to the liquid to be less than 2 milliamps (Clearly, “a maximum possible current delivered by the sensor circuit to the liquid” is capable of “to be less than 2 milliamps” as claimed).
Peterson discloses invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose the sensor circuit including a sensor component (taught by Peterson already) arranged to contact liquid in the liquid supply; the power supply is a non-isolated power supply.
IWAHASHI et al. further teach a beverage machine (a water supply device 1, Fig 1), and the sensor circuit including a sensor component (taught by Peterson already) arranged to contact liquid in the liquid supply (The water level sensor unit 120 has two conductive terminals: a positive terminal and a negative terminal, P 33 of 77; the water level sensor unit 120 detects the amount of water (water level) by detecting conduction or non-conduction between the two terminals, P 34 of 77; Fig 3);
Du et al. further teach a beverage machine (see Fig 4) comprising: a non-isolated power supply (the first anti-overflow electrode 4 and the second anti-overflow electrode 5 can be powered by... a non-isolated power supply, [0082], Fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Peterson with IWAHASHI et al.’s further teaching of the sensor circuit including a sensor component arranged to contact liquid in the liquid supply and Du et al.’s further teaching of the power supply is a non-isolated power supply; because this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claims 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US 2011/0151075 A1) in view of IWAHASHI et al. (WO 2016 189800 A1) and Du et al. (CN 107 440 512 A) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Gharpure et al. (US 2018/0163595 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Peterson discloses wherein the liquid supply includes a tank (a storage tank 110, [0049], Fig 25) configured to hold the liquid for forming a beverage (a beverage forming apparatus 100, [0047], Fig 24) and a supply line (a supply conduit 111, [0049], Fig 25) arranged to supply liquid from the tank to a pump (a pump 112, [0049], Fig 25), wherein the sensor component (liquid level sensors, [0049]) is arranged to contact liquid to detect a presence or absence of liquid (details see Fig 25).
Peterson in view of IWAHASHI et al. and Du et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; but does not disclose wherein the sensor component (taught by Peterson already) is arranged to contact liquid in the supply line to detect a presence or absence of liquid.
Gharpure et al. teach a liquid supply line (a reductant supply line 60, [0029], Fig 4), and wherein the sensor component (a fluid sensor 69, [0043], Fig 4. Note: “the sensor component” taught by Peterson already) is arranged to contact liquid in the supply line (a fluid sensor 69 may be provided in the reductant supply line 60, [0043]. Note: “the supply line” taught by Peterson already) to detect a presence or absence of liquid (fluid sensor 69 may be configured to detect a presence of reductant fluid in the reductant supply line 60, [0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Peterson in view of IWAHASHI et al. and Du et al. with Gharpure et al’s further teaching of Claim 8; because this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 9, wherein the sensor component includes first and second conductive probes (see water level sensor unit120 includes first and second conductive probes in Fig 3, IWAHASHI et al.) that are arranged to contact the liquid in the liquid supply and that are electrically insulated from each other except for a path through the liquid (The water level sensor unit 120 has two conductive terminals: a positive terminal and a negative terminal, P 33 of 77; the water level sensor unit 120 detects the amount of water (water level) by detecting conduction or non-conduction between the two terminals, P 34 of 77; Fig 3, IWAHASHI et al.).
Claim 10, wherein the tank and the supply line are arranged such that a liquid level in the supply line corresponds to a liquid level in the tank (Fig 25, Peterson), and wherein the sensor component is positioned in the supply line (sensor component of 69 is positioned in the supply line 60, Fig 4, Gharpure et al. “the sensor component” taught by Peterson already) at a location that corresponds to a liquid level below which the controller provides an indication to a user to add liquid to the tank (the water level sensor unit 120 detects the amount of water (water level) by detecting conduction or non-conduction between the two terminals, P 34 of 77; Fig 3, IWAHASHI et al.).
Claim 11, wherein the supply line includes a vent (an air release valve 66, [0043], Fig 4, Gharpure et al.) to vent the supply line to atmosphere (opening of the air release valve 66 allows the air in the reductant supply line 60 to escape from the system, [0043]) such that the liquid level in the supply line corresponds to the liquid level in the tank.
Claim 12, wherein the liquid supply includes a pump (a pump 112, [0049], Fig 25, Peterson) having an inlet fluidly coupled to the supply line to receive liquid from the tank (112 having an inlet fluidly coupled to the supply line 111 to receive liquid from 110, Fig 25, Peterson), and wherein the pump is positioned above the sensor component (pump 54 is positioned above 69, Fig 6(a), Figs 2 and 4, Gharpure et al.).
Claim 13, the liquid supply includes the pump, a heater (a heating element 123, [0049], 25, Peterson) and a beverage dispensing station (a brew chamber 120, [005849], Fig 25, Peterson), the pump having an inlet fluidly coupled to the supply line to receive liquid from the tank (112 having an inlet fluidly coupled to the supply line 111 to receive liquid from 110, Fig 25, Peterson) and an outlet fluidly coupled to provide the liquid to the heater (112 having an outlet fluidly coupled to provide the liquid to 123, Fig 25, Peterson), the heater being fluidly coupled to the beverage dispensing station to deliver heated liquid to the beverage dispensing station (123 being fluidly coupled to 120 to deliver heated liquid to 120, Fig 25, Peterson).
Claim 14, wherein the non-isolated power supply is arranged to provide power to the pump and the controller (controller 130 may also include a suitable control or driver circuit, [0050]; provided with different power levels 0, 5, 7, 11. 15 and 40 watts, [0067]), see details in Figs 24-25, Peterson).
Claim 15, wherein the supply line is fluidly coupled to a bottom of the tank to receive liquid from the tank and extends upwardly above a maximum liquid level of the tank (111 is fluidly coupled to a bottom of 110 to receive liquid from 110 and extends upwardly above a maximum liquid level of 110, Fig 25, Peterson).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
