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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/30/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 14, 18, and 21-22 have been amended, no claims have been withdrawn, claims 15, 19-20, and 23 have been cancelled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-14, 16-18, and 21-22 are presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have overcome Claim Objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections from previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on page 9 of the Remarks filed 04/30/2026 that “Levi does not teach a filter cup for holding ground coffee for use with a portafilter, the filter cup having a magnet attached to a body of the filter cup, as recited in claim 1. The Office alleges Levi teaches a filter cup (filter-holder bowl 1) for holding ground coffee for use with a portafilter (bowl-holder 11), where the body of the filter cup (1) includes a magnet (5) attached to the body for producing a magnetic field. See Office action, p. 4. However, Levi teaches that the filter-holder bowl (1) engages with a bowl-holder (11) of the machine. See Levi, Col. 3, lines 20- 27. Specifically, Levi expressly teaches that the bowl-holder (11) is a part of the machine (see col. 1, lines 49-50) and that the filter-holder bowl (1) corresponds to the part of the portafilter that has tabs (2) that secure the portafilter to the machine by way of the bowl-holder (11) of the machine, whereas Levi's filter (3, 6, 8) corresponds to the filter cup that is received within the filter-holder bowl (1) of the portafilter. Accordingly, Levi's bowl-holder (11) is part of the machine that receives the portafilter and cannot be part of the portafilter itself.
As a result, Levi's filter-holder bowl (1) does not receive or hold the ground coffee. Instead, Levi expressly teaches that the filter-holder bowl (1) is equipped with a filter (elements 3, 6, or 8), and that the filter, not the filter-holder bowl, holds the ground coffee. See Levi, Col. 3, lines 42-44 ("each of filter-holder bowls 1 is equipped with a filter 3, 6 or 8 whose capacity corresponds to the number of cups"); FIGS. 1-4. Thus, it is the filter (3, 6, 8) that defines a cavity for receiving ground coffee, as required by claim 1, not the filter-holder bowl (1).”
In response to applicant’s argument with respect to “a filter cup for holding ground coffee for use with a portafilter”, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, first of all, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Second of all, Levi discloses that “This invention, as it is characterized, solves the problem consisting of providing expresso coffee machines with a device which displays the number of cups corresponding to the capacity of the filter-holder bowl (1, 2 or 3 cups) when the filter-holder bowl is engaged on one of the bowl-holders of said machine.” (Col. 1, lines 45-50). Levi also discloses “The advantages provided by this invention mainly consist of fully relieving the user of the choice of the bowl-holder and selection of the water doses corresponding to the capacity of the filter-holder bowl. The only action of the user then consists of setting the coffee strength (small cup or large cup) and checking the digital readout to make sure that the filter-holder bowl is correctly chosen (1, 2 or 3 cups) before initiating the infusion phase.” (Col. 2, lines 47-55). Levi further discloses that “Referring to FIGS. 1 to 3, it can be seen that ears 2 of filter-holder bowl 1 are fitted with 3 regularly spaced cylindrical, holes 2a, located in a transverse plane, in which are mounted 1, 2 or 3 magnetic elements consisting of magnets 5 according as distribution nozzle 4, 7 or 9 has one, two or three outlets 4a, 7a or 9a to simultaneously distribute coffee into one, two or three cups; each of filter-holder bowls 1 is equipped with a filter 3, 6 or 8 whose capacity corresponds to the number of cups.” (col. 3, lines 35-44). As understood, the filter 3 (i.e. corresponding to 1 cup), 6 (i.e. corresponding to 2 cups), or 8 (i.e. corresponding to 3 cups) is an integral part of the filter-holder bowl (1) for user has to select before the infusion process can begin.
Also, Applicant’s arguments on page 10 of the Remarks filed 04/30/2026 that “Accordingly, Levi fails to disclose a magnet attached to the body of the filter cup, as required by claim 1. The magnetic elements (5) of Levi are located on the tabs (2) of the portafilter's filter-holder bowl (1) that project outwardly and secure the portafilter to the bowl- holder (11) of the machine. See Levi, Col. 3, lines 20-23; FIG. 4 (annotated below). The tabs (2) are separate from the filter that holds the ground coffee and do not form any part of the body of the filter. Thus the magnetic elements (5) are not attached to the filter (3, 6, 8) at all, but instead are attached to the portafilter.
In response to applicant’s argument with respect to “a magnet attached to the body of the filter cup” as set forth above, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, as pointed out above with respect to the filter (3, 6, or 8), Examiner disagrees with the argument because since the filter (3, 6, or 8) is an integral part of the filter-holder bowl (1). Levi also discloses that the magnetic element (5) appears to mount on the upper part of the filter-holder bowl (1) body as seen on the figures. Furthermore, since applicant has not disclosed that having such an arrangement provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs as seen and/or claimed in different embodiments of the instant invention, i.e. the magnet can be attached to various areas/portions of the filter cup. Therefore, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, the combination of Levi in view of Grassia fully meets all of the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-14, 16, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by Levi et al. (US 4,787,299) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Levi et al. (US 4,787,299) in view of Grassia (WO 2015051401).
Regarding claim 1, Levi discloses a filter cup 1 (fig. 4, i.e. called a filter-holder bowl) for holding ground coffee for use with a portafilter 11 (fig. 4,i.e. called bowl-holder) to extract coffee using a coffee machine (abstract), the filter cup (1) including a body (not labeled) having:
a sidewall (not labeled, see figure 1 for example) extending upwardly from the floor to a rim to define a cavity for holding the ground coffee (col. 1, lines 56-68); and
a magnet (5) attached to the body of the filter cup for producing a magnetic field (abstract; col. 2, line 13-17).
Levi does not specifically disclose a floor with a plurality of perforations. However, it is considered inherently property/characteristic of the filter-holder bowl bottom/floor.
As evidence by Grassia, Grassia teaches a floor (105) with a plurality of perforations (page 6, lines 21-25). Grassia also teaches that “A portafilter is a device that attaches onto the group head of an espresso making machine and that carries a quantity or dose of ground coffee in a compartment with a perforated floor that acts as a filter.” (page 1, lines 11-13).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor of a portafilter apparatus for an espresso machine. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Levi and Grassia before him or her, to include such perforated floor/bottom of Grassia because hot water entering the basket can exit only through the floor and not around it. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it obtains an optimal brew requires the fill height of the ground coffee in the basket to remain relatively constant (page 1).
With respect to claim 2, Levi in view of Grassia discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Levi does not discloses wherein the magnet (5) is attached to the floor. Since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With respect to claim 3, Levi in view of Grassia discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Levi further discloses wherein the magnet (5) is attached to the sidewall (i.e. the upper end of sidewall of the filter-holder bowl 1).
With respect to claim 4, Levi in view of Grassia discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Levi further discloses wherein the magnet (5) is attached to an outside surface of the sidewall (see figures 4-5, i.e. the upper end of outer sidewall of the filter-holder bowl 1).
With respect to claim 9, Levi in view of Grassia discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Levi further discloses wherein the magnet (5) has a predetermined property that influences the magnetic field produced by the magnet (5), for matching a property of the filter cup 1 (fig. 4, i.e. called a filter-holder bowl) to be determined by measuring the magnetic field and reference a predetermined look-up table (col. 3, lines 35-62).
With respect to claim 10, Levi in view of Grassia discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Levi further discloses wherein the predetermined property includes one or more of: a direction of a magnet axis of the magnet (5) relative to a central axis of the filter cup 1 (fig. 4, i.e. called a filter-holder bowl); and a strength of the magnet (5) (col. 3, lines 45-62).
With respect to claim 11, Levi in view of Grassia discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Levi further discloses an enclosure (2a, i.e. a cavity or a hole) for housing the magnet (5), the enclosure having a retainment space for receiving the magnet (5), and at least one flap for securing the enclosure to the filter cup (1) (col. 2, lines 18-25).
With respect to claim 12, Levi in view of Grassia discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Levi further discloses wherein the flap (i.e. a cover) is secured to the filter cup (1) by spot welding (col. 1, lines 33-34).
With respect to claim 13, Levi in view of Grassia discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Levi further discloses wherein the body (not labeled) has a plurality of magnets (abstract, i.e. one or more magnetic elements 5).
With respect to claim 14, Levi in view of Grassia discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Grassia further discloses a portafilter (100) holding the filter cup (103, i.e. called compartment or basket) of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), the portafilter including: a sensor (604, 1003) for determining a magnitude and/or direction of the magnetic field produced by the magnet and adapted to produce a magnet signal indicative of the magnitude and/or direction of the magnetic field; a portafilter processor (602) adapted to: receive the magnet signal; determine a property of the filter cup based on the magnet signal (page 15); and produce a filter cup signal indicative of the property of the filter cup; and a communication module (903) adapted to: receive the filter cup signal; and transmit the filter cup signal to a receiver module (606, i.e. receiver) mounted in the coffee machine (pages 4, 9, 11-13).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Levi and Grassia before him or her, to include such sensor, processor, and communication of Grassia because a display module may he coupled to the controller module for presenting information of a state indicated by the one or more sensors, a receiver may receive a data signal from an appliance for configuring settings of the controller module, a receiver may receive electromagnetic energy to charge an internal power source and/or a capacitor for powering the controller module. The receiver may be in the form of a wireless receiver. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because obtaining an optimal brew requires the fill height of the ground coffee in the basket to remain relatively constant (page 1).
With respect to claim 16, Levi in view of Grassia discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Levi further discloses wherein the sensor is a Hall effect sensor A (fig. 4) (abstract, i.e. called a Hall effect detector).
With respect to claim 18, Levi in view of Grassia discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Levi further discloses the coffee machine (abstract, i.e. expresso coffee machine) including: the sensor A (fig. 4, i.e. called a Hall effect detector) for determining the magnitude and/or direction of the magnetic field produced by the magnet and producing the magnet signal indicative of the magnitude and/or direction of the magnetic field (col. 2, lines 13-30); and a machine processor (i.e. an electronic circuit) 3adapted to: receive the magnet signal (col. 2, lines 37-40); determine a property of the filter cup (1) based on the magnet signal; and modify one or more of the following machine parameters based on the property of the filter cup (1): a ground coffee quantity (i.e. coffee ground doses can be changed); a brewing pressure setting or profile; a brewing temperature; a pre-infusion period; a water quantity (i.e. water doses can be changed); and a water flow rate (col. 1, lines 45-68).
With respect to claim 22, Levi in view of Grassia discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Grassia further discloses wherein the coffee machine (902) includes a user interface (904) in communication with the machine processor and the machine processor is adapted to modify the extraction profile based on a user input received at the user interface (page 14).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Levi and Grassia before him or her, to include such a user interface of Grassia because the processor uses feedback from the flow meter, the pressure sensor, the grind adjust position sensor, the tamp torque sensor and the extraction time to calculate an ideal torque tamp setting and thereby regulate the action of the
auger motor to deliver the calculated torque tamp setting. The receiver may be in the form of a wireless receiver. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because obtaining an optimal brew requires the fill height of the ground coffee in the basket to remain relatively constant (page 1).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi et al. (US 4,787,299) in view of Grassia (WO 2015051401) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Borgmann (US 4, 644,856).
Regarding claim 5, Levi et al. in view of Grassia discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the body has a key adapted to engage, when the filter cup is mounted on the portafilter, a corresponding portafilter key on the portafilter such that the filter cup is mountable on the portafilter in a predetermined configuration.
However, Borgmann teaches wherein the body (i.e. the body of the filter 31) has a key (36, i.e. called a male coupling element) adapted to engage, when the filter cup is mounted on the portafilter (24, i.e. called a holder), a corresponding portafilter key (39, i.e. a socket or slot) on the portafilter (24) such that the filter cup (31) is mountable on the portafilter (39) in a predetermined configuration (col. 7, lines 25-41).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of an espresso coffee brewing apparatus. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Levi et al. in view of Grassia and Borgmann before him or her, to include such coupling element of Borgmann because the coupling means is sufficiently pronounced to ensure that the filter shares the movements of the holder relative to the support for the holder even if the holder remains attached to its support for an extended interval of time following the making of the last cup of coffee. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it ensures that the filter shares all movements of its holder unless the operator desires to separate the filter, e.g., in order to replace it with a different filter or for the purpose of cleaning (col. 8, lines 55-58).
With respect to claim 6, Levi et al. in view of Grassia and Borgmann discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Borgmann further discloses wherein the key (36) includes a flange portion (32, i.e. called a marginal portion) of the rim (see figure 6) that extends downwardly from the rim and the portafilter key (39, i.e. a socket or slot) includes a protrusion on the portafilter (24).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Levi et al. in view of Grassia and Borgmann before him or her, to include such coupling element arrangement of Borgmann because the coupling means is sufficiently pronounced to ensure that the filter shares the movements of the holder relative to the support for the holder even if the holder remains attached to its support for an extended interval of time following the making of the last cup of coffee. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it ensures that the filter shares all movements of its holder unless the operator desires to separate the filter, e.g., in order to replace it with a different filter or for the purpose of cleaning (col. 8, lines 55-58).
With respect to claim 7, Levi et al. in view of Grassia and Borgmann discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 5 of which Borgmann further discloses wherein the key (36) includes a boss portion (i.e. the coupling male head) located on the sidewall (33a) and extending outwardly therefrom and the portafilter (24) key includes a recess (39, i.e. called a socket or slot) in the portafilter (24) for receiving the boss portion (col. 5, lines 60 – col. 6, lines 27).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Levi et al. in view of Grassia and Borgmann before him or her, to include such coupling element of Borgmann because the coupling means is sufficiently pronounced to ensure that the filter shares the movements of the holder relative to the support for the holder even if the holder remains attached to its support for an extended interval of time following the making of the last cup of coffee. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it ensures that the filter shares all movements of its holder unless the operator desires to separate the filter, e.g., in order to replace it with a different filter or for the purpose of cleaning (col. 8, lines 55-58).
With respect to claim 8, Levi et al. in view of Grassia and Borgmann discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Levi further discloses wherein the boss portion (2, i.e. a lateral ear) includes the magnet (5).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi et al. (US 4,787,299) in view of Grassia (WO 2015051401) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kihara et al. (US 20210307559).
Regarding claim 21, Levi in view of Grassia discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claims 1 and 14 including of which Grassia further discloses wherein the espresso coffee machine (902) further includes: each extraction profile containing information relating to one or more of the following machine parameters: a ground coffee quantity (abstract); a brewing pressure setting or profile (i.e. extraction pressure profile); a pre-infusion period; a water quantity (i.e. water volume); and a water flow rate; and modify the machine parameters of the espresso coffee machine to coincide with a particular extraction profile that corresponds to a particular filter cup property (pages 12-13), except for a memory module in communication with the machine processor and containing a database of predetermined extraction profiles, each associated with a predetermined set of filter cup properties, and wherein the machine processor is adapted to access the database.
However, Kihara teaches a memory module (1302, 1303) in communication with the machine processor (1301) and containing a database (1309) of predetermined extraction profiles (¶ 0216, 0232), each associated with a predetermined set of filter cup properties (e.g. a predetermined water level, a predetermined air pressure), and wherein the machine processor is adapted to access the database (¶ 0068, 0167, 0205).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of the beverage making apparatus. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Levi in view of Grassia and Kihara before him or her, to include such memory and database of Kihara because the data indicating properties of coffee beans includes breed, producing area, degree of roasting (degree of processing), days from roasting, flavor chart, and extraction profile, for example. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows the information display device to operate and the user to adjust an extraction profile (¶ 0173).
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 KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights