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
Applicant’s Amendment filed on 04/01/2026 has been entered
The objection to the drawing has been withdrawn.
The U.S.C. 35 112(d) rejection has been withdrawn.
The U.S.C. 35 112(b) rejections for the use of “comprising at least one container of coffee powder”, “substantially” and “said radiation comprising a laser light beam” have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11 and 12 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 7 are as previously presented.
Claims 6, 8-10, and 13-18 have been cancelled.
Claims 19-32 have been added.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11, 12, and 19-32 are still pending in this application with claims 1, 12, 19, and 26 being independent.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/01/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The abstract and modified specification were received on 04/01/2026. These are acceptable.
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.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
The delivery group in claims 1,7,19, 24, 26, and 31 with the function being where the heated pressurized water is sent. The examiner could not find a recitation of specific structure within the original disclosure.
The heating device in claims 1, 19, and 26 has the function to heat the water sent to the delivery group. The structure is an electric resistor as shown in figures 1 and 2 as the heating device (6), as that is the universal symbol for a resistor.
The processing and control unit in claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 19, 23, 25, 26, 30, and 32 has the function to process electrical signals and generate a signal indicative of the properties of coffee cream present in the coffee flow exiting the dispensing opening and/or a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in the liquid coffee present in the coffee flow exiting the dispensing opening. The examiner could not find a recitation of specific structure within the original disclosure.
The grain size adjustment device in claim 19 has the function to adjust the grain size of the coffee powder. The examiner could not find a recitation of specific structure within the original disclosure.
The treatment device in claim 26 has the function to treat the water sent to at least one delivery group and can have one or more parameters adjusted by the processing and control unit. The water treatment device can be a filter, such as a reverse osmosis filter or a water softener able to modify the pH of the water, or even a filter configured to integrate both functions. (page 22, Lines 17-21)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 1-5, 7, 12, and 19-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. No specific disclosure can be found for the structure necessary to complete the function of the “delivery group” in claims 1,7,19, 24, 26, and 31, the “processing and control unit” in claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 19, 23, 25, 26, 30, and 32 or the “grain size adjustment device” in claim 19. As such it is unknown what applicant had possession of at the time of filing. Therefore, the disclosure is considered to fail the written description requirement for the subject matter of claims 1-5, 7, 12, and 19-32.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12, and 19-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “delivery group” in claims 1, 7, 19, 24, 26, and 31, “processing and control unit” in claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 19, 23, 25, 26, 30, and 32, and the “grain size adjustment device” in claim 19 invoke 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 delivery group in claims 1, 7, 19, 24, 26, and 31 is never given actual structure of what it is as opposed to what is associated with it. For the purposes of applying prior art the examiner will treat the delivery group as the area where the container of coffee powder is configured to be during normal operating procedure. The processing and control unit in claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 19, 23, 25, 26, 30, and 32 is never given any structure as opposed to a large list of functions that it is capable of. For the purposes of applying prior art the examiner will treat the processing and control unit as any electronic circuits capable of doing the aforementioned functions. The grain size adjustment device in claim 19 is not given any structure anywhere in the specification. For the purposes of applying prior art, examiner will treat the grain size adjustment device as a device capable of changing the fineness or coarseness of the grinding. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De’Longhi et al. (US Publication 2015/0342396) hereafter referred to as De’Longhi in view of Norgia et al. (US Publication 2019/0293543) hereafter referred to as Norgia and Coccia (US Patent 9357871).
Regarding claim 1, De’Longhi teaches a coffee dispensing machine or beverage brewer (1) that comprises a pump (12) an electronic controller (14) that controls the pump (12), a heating element (13), a delivery group (2), a nozzle (18) or dispensing opening. De’Longhi does not teach coffee quality optical sensor adapted to intercept a coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said optical sensor comprising a radiation source adapted to generate a radiation which strikes said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening along an irradiation direction incident to the exit direction of said coffee flow, said optical sensor further comprising at least one front photodiode placed substantially along said irradiation direction on a side opposite to said radiation source with respect to said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said at least one front photodiode generating a first electrical signal depending on the part of the radiation that crosses said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said machine for dispensing coffee further comprising a processing and control unit connected to said optical sensor configured to receive said first electrical signal, said processing and control unit being adapted to process said first electrical signal and to generate a signal indicative of the properties of said coffee cream present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and/or a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in said liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and to use that signal to adjust the operation of a pump and/or heating unit.
Norgia teaches a device for the measuring the properties of a liquid (1) that utilizes an optical sensor (100) comprising a laser source (3) adapted to generate a laser light beam (30) which strikes the liquid flow (7) along the direction of the laser light beam (30) or irradiation direction, with a front (9) photodiode placed along the path of the laser light beam, a processing and control unit (11) connected to the optical sensor (100) to obtain properties of the liquid. Use of the sensing mechanism allows for the measuring of flow rate, presence (size, type, and shape) of particles, and overall characteristics of the fluid (Paragraphs 1 and 8-11) to ensure quality control.
Based on the teaching of Norgia it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify De’Longhi by incorporating an optical sensor, and associated control mechanisms, of Norgia to measure the properties of the dispensed liquid (i.e. the coffee product). Doing so would allow the controller of De’Longhi to monitor for quality control to ensure each drink produced was acceptable.
Coccia teaches a method coffee production including the controlling of the heating unit (20) and a hydraulic variable-flow valve (36), which does the same thing as a pump, using information gained from sensors (21) with the help of a control unit (22) in order to control for variance in the coffee grounds to improve the quality of the coffee (Col. 3 lines 9-29). Coccia utilizes a signal from a sensor to control the operation of a heating unit (20).
As Coccia teaches the controlling the operation of a heating device (20) on the basis of a signal indicative of the properties of the fluid being measured to improve the quality of the coffee, it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Coccia and include the method in controlling the pump and heating element as a result of information gained from the sensors to the modified device of De’Longhi to control for variance in the coffee grounds to improve the quality of the coffee.
Regarding claim 2, because the same sensors (9,15,17) used in Norgia are capable of generating a signal indicative of the quantity of soluble solids present (see paragraph 1 indicating the optical sensor is capable of identifying the presence of suspended particles) in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening are also capable of generating a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in said liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and that the signal proportional to the extraction of coffee is a signal indicative of the quantity of soluble solids or suspended particles present in said liquid coffee it teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, as the radiation source used in Norgia can be a laser source (3), the radiation given off by said laser source is a laser light beam and as photodiodes generate a signal based on how much light is (Inherent) and the amount of light that passes through the liquid (7) is based on the particles present in said liquid as the particles disrupt the light passing through the liquid, it teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, because the optical sensor of Norgia comprises a lateral photodiode (15) generating a second electrical signal placed along a diffusion direction incident to the irradiation direction it teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, as the radiation source used in Norgia can be a laser source (3), the radiation given off by said laser source is a laser light beam and as photodiodes generate a signal based on how much light is (Inherent) and the amount of light that passes through the liquid (7) is based on the particles present in said liquid as the particles disrupt the light passing through the liquid, and as the optical sensor of Norgia comprises a lateral photodiode (15) and a front photodiode (9) which send electrical signals to a connected processing and control unit (11), it teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of De’Longhi as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Stork genannt Wersborg (US Patent Application 2021/0022547) hereafter referred to as Stork.
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of De’Longhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a camera configured to, from above, frame the coffee dispensed in a cup and to generate images and/or videos of the coffee and the camera being connected to the control unit.
Stork teaches a camera (160) which shows a top down or plan view of the coffee in the cup (Figure 1). The camera records a pixel image of a cup placement area and is connected to a control unit (1860) and helps prevent undesired food outcomes ([0022]) like under or over extracted coffee by visually measuring the darkness of the coffee.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Stork to the modified device of De’Longhi in order to improve the ability of the machine to make coffee by helping prevent undesired food outcomes.
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De’Longhi in view of Norgia and Pozzari et al. (US Patent 9101246) hereafter referred to as Pozzari.
Regarding claim 19, De’Longhi teaches a coffee dispensing machine or beverage brewer (1) that comprises a pump (12) an electronic controller (14) that controls the pump (12), a heating element (13), a delivery group (2), a nozzle (18) or dispensing opening. De’Longhi does not teach coffee quality optical sensor adapted to intercept a coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said optical sensor comprising a radiation source adapted to generate a radiation which strikes said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening along an irradiation direction incident to the exit direction of said coffee flow, said optical sensor further comprising at least one front photodiode placed substantially along said irradiation direction on a side opposite to said radiation source with respect to said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said at least one front photodiode generating a first electrical signal depending on the part of the radiation that crosses said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said machine for dispensing coffee further comprising a processing and control unit connected to said optical sensor configured to receive said first electrical signal, said processing and control unit being adapted to process said first electrical signal and to generate a signal indicative of the properties of said coffee cream present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and/or a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in said liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening or a grinding device adapted to grind a quantity of coffee grains to obtain a coffee powder insertable into said container, said grinding device comprising a grain size adjustment device of said coffee powder, said processing and control unit being connected to said grinding device and being configured to adjust the operation of said grinding device on the basis of said signal indicative of the properties of said coffee cream and/or of said signal proportional to the extraction of coffee.
Norgia teaches a device for the measuring the properties of a liquid (1) that utilizes an optical sensor (100) comprising a laser source (3) adapted to generate a laser light beam (30) which strikes the liquid flow (7) along the direction of the laser light beam (30) or irradiation direction, with a front (9) photodiode placed along the path of the laser light beam, a processing and control unit (11) connected to the optical sensor (100) to obtain properties of the liquid. Use of the sensing mechanism allows for the measuring of flow rate, presence (size, type, and shape) of particles, and overall characteristics of the fluid (Paragraphs 1 and 8-11) to ensure quality control.
Based on the teaching of Norgia it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify De’Longhi by incorporating an optical sensor, and associated control mechanisms, of Norgia to measure the properties of the dispensed liquid (i.e. the coffee product). Doing so would allow the controller of De’Longhi to monitor for quality control to ensure each drink produced was acceptable.
Pozzari teaches it is old and well known for a coffee machine to include a grinder (17) to grind coffee beans or coffee grains into ground coffee or coffee powder for use for brewing. Further, Pozzari teaches adding additional elements, such as a coffee grinder, to a coffee dispensing machine allows for a high level of automation to occur (Col. 1, lines 14-17).
The modified device of De’Longhi and Pozzari teach all of the elements of the current invention as stated above, wherein the only difference is between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of combination of elements in a single reference, and that each element performs the same function as it would separately. Because Pozzari teaches it is a benefit to add multiple features, such as a grinder, so a coffee machine to better automate the coffee making process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the modified device of De’Longhi to include any additional coffee producing feature, including a grinder as set forth in Pozzari, as doing so would have achieved the predictable result of better increased utility and automation.
Regarding claim 20, because the same sensors (9,15,17) used in Norgia are capable of generating a signal indicative of the quantity of soluble solids present (see paragraph 1 indicating the optical sensor is capable of identifying the presence of suspended particles) in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening are also capable of generating a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in said liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and that the signal proportional to the extraction of coffee is a signal indicative of the quantity of soluble solids or suspended particles present in said liquid coffee it teaches the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, as the radiation source used in Norgia can be a laser source (3), the radiation given off by said laser source is a laser light beam and as photodiodes generate a signal based on how much light is (Inherent) and the amount of light that passes through the liquid (7) is based on the particles present in said liquid as the particles disrupt the light passing through the liquid, it teaches the limitations of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, because the optical sensor of Norgia comprises a lateral photodiode (15) generating a second electrical signal placed along a diffusion direction incident to the irradiation direction it teaches the limitations of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, as the radiation source used in Norgia can be a laser source (3), the radiation given off by said laser source is a laser light beam and as photodiodes generate a signal based on how much light is (Inherent) and the amount of light that passes through the liquid (7) is based on the particles present in said liquid as the particles disrupt the light passing through the liquid, and as the optical sensor of Norgia comprises a lateral photodiode (15) and a front photodiode (9) which send electrical signals to a connected processing and control unit (11), it teaches the limitations of claim 23.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of De’Longhi as applied to claim 19 above, further in view of Stork.
Regarding claim 25, the modified device of De’Longhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 19, but does not teach a camera configured to, from above, frame the coffee dispensed in a cup and to generate images and/or videos of the coffee and the camera being connected to the control unit.
Stork teaches a camera (160) which shows a top down or plan view of the coffee in the cup (Figure 1). The camera records a pixel image of a cup placement area and is connected to a control unit (1860) and helps prevent undesired food outcomes ([0022]) like under or over extracted coffee by visually measuring the darkness of the coffee.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Stork to the modified device of De’Longhi in order to improve the ability of the machine to make coffee by helping prevent undesired food outcomes.
Claims 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De’Longhi in view of Norgia and Bianchi et al. (US Publication 2021/0315415) hereafter referred to as Bianchi.
Regarding claim 26, De’Longhi teaches a coffee dispensing machine or beverage brewer (1) that comprises a pump (12) an electronic controller (14) that controls the pump (12), a heating element (13), a delivery group (2), a nozzle (18) or dispensing opening. De’Longhi does not teach coffee quality optical sensor adapted to intercept a coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said optical sensor comprising a radiation source adapted to generate a radiation which strikes said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening along an irradiation direction incident to the exit direction of said coffee flow, said optical sensor further comprising at least one front photodiode placed substantially along said irradiation direction on a side opposite to said radiation source with respect to said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said at least one front photodiode generating a first electrical signal depending on the part of the radiation that crosses said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said machine for dispensing coffee further comprising a processing and control unit connected to said optical sensor configured to receive said first electrical signal, said processing and control unit being adapted to process said first electrical signal and to generate a signal indicative of the properties of said coffee cream present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and/or a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in said liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening or a treatment device for the water sent to said at least one delivery group, said processing and control unit being connected to said treatment device and being configured to adjust one or more water treatment parameters on the basis of said signal indicative of the properties of said coffee cream and/or of said signal proportional to the extraction of coffee.
Norgia teaches a device for the measuring the properties of a liquid (1) that utilizes an optical sensor (100) comprising a laser source (3) adapted to generate a laser light beam (30) which strikes the liquid flow (7) along the direction of the laser light beam (30) or irradiation direction, with a front (9) photodiode placed along the path of the laser light beam, a processing and control unit (11) connected to the optical sensor (100) to obtain properties of the liquid. Use of the sensing mechanism allows for the measuring of flow rate, presence (size, type, and shape) of particles, and overall characteristics of the fluid (Paragraphs 1 and 8-11) to ensure quality control.
Based on the teaching of Norgia it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify De’Longhi by incorporating an optical sensor, and associated control mechanisms, of Norgia to measure the properties of the dispensed liquid (i.e. the coffee product). Doing so would allow the controller of De’Longhi to monitor for quality control to ensure each drink produced was acceptable.
Bianchi teaches a coffee machine that includes a device for treating the water (33), a measuring device (37) for measuring the parameters of the water ([0088]), a processing unit (38) that gets the information from the measuring device (37) and a corrector/integrator (36) to correct at least some of the parameters of the water in order to improve the quality of the coffee made with said water (paragraph 2).
As Bianchi teaches the treatment of the water to improve the quality of the coffee, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art would to combine the teaching of Bianchi by adding a device for treating water to the modified device of De’Longhi to improve the quality of the water entering and therefore the quality of the coffee.
Regarding claim 27, because the same sensors (9,15,17) used in Norgia are capable of generating a signal indicative of the quantity of soluble solids present (see paragraph 1 indicating the optical sensor is capable of identifying the presence of suspended particles) in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening are also capable of generating a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in said liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and that the signal proportional to the extraction of coffee is a signal indicative of the quantity of soluble solids or suspended particles present in said liquid coffee it teaches the limitations of claim 27.
Regarding claim 28, as the radiation source used in Norgia can be a laser source (3), the radiation given off by said laser source is a laser light beam and as photodiodes generate a signal based on how much light is (Inherent) and the amount of light that passes through the liquid (7) is based on the particles present in said liquid as the particles disrupt the light passing through the liquid, it teaches the limitations of claim 28.
Regarding claim 29, because the optical sensor of Norgia comprises a lateral photodiode (15) generating a second electrical signal placed along a diffusion direction incident to the irradiation direction it teaches the limitations of claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, as the radiation source used in Norgia can be a laser source (3), the radiation given off by said laser source is a laser light beam and as photodiodes generate a signal based on how much light is (Inherent) and the amount of light that passes through the liquid (7) is based on the particles present in said liquid as the particles disrupt the light passing through the liquid, and as the optical sensor of Norgia comprises a lateral photodiode (15) and a front photodiode (9) which send electrical signals to a connected processing and control unit (11), it teaches the limitations of claim 30.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of De’Longhi as applied to claim 19 above, further in view of Stork.
Regarding claim 32, the modified device of De’Longhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 26, but does not teach a camera configured to, from above, frame the coffee dispensed in a cup and to generate images and/or videos of the coffee and the camera being connected to the control unit.
Stork teaches a camera (160) which shows a top down or plan view of the coffee in the cup (Figure 1). The camera records a pixel image of a cup placement area and is connected to a control unit (1860) and helps prevent undesired food outcomes ([0022]) like under or over extracted coffee by visually measuring the darkness of the coffee.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Stork to the modified device of De’Longhi in order to improve the ability of the machine to make coffee by helping prevent undesired food outcomes.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burrows (US Patent Application 2021/0315411) in view of Norgia and Coccia.
Regarding claim 1, Burrows teaches a coffee dispensing machine (10) that contains a pump (482), a heating element ([0047]), a delivery group or a brewer head (16) which is configured for use with a beverage cartridge or a disposable capsule (32), and a nozzle or dispensing opening (2620).
Burrows does not teach coffee quality optical sensor adapted to intercept a coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said optical sensor comprising a radiation source adapted to generate a radiation which strikes said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening along an irradiation direction incident to the exit direction of said coffee flow, said optical sensor further comprising at least one front photodiode placed substantially along said irradiation direction on a side opposite to said radiation source with respect to said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said at least one front photodiode generating a first electrical signal depending on the part of the radiation that crosses said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said machine for dispensing coffee further comprising a processing and control unit connected to said optical sensor configured to receive said first electrical signal, said processing and control unit being adapted to process said first electrical signal and to generate a signal indicative of the properties of said coffee cream present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and/or a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in said liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening or adjust the operation of said at least one pump and/or of said at least one heating device on the basis of said signal.
Norgia teaches a device for the measuring the properties of a liquid (1) that utilizes an optical sensor (100) comprising a laser source (3) adapted to generate a laser light beam (30) which strikes the liquid flow (7) along the direction of the laser light beam (30) or irradiation direction, with a front (9) photodiode placed along the path of the laser light beam, a processing and control unit (11) connected to the optical sensor (100) to obtain properties of the liquid. Use of the sensing mechanism allows for the measuring of flow rate, presence (size, type, and shape) of particles, and overall characteristics of the fluid (Paragraphs 1 and 8-11) to ensure quality control.
Based on the teaching of Norgia it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify De’Longhi by incorporating an optical sensor, and associated control mechanisms, of Norgia to measure the properties of the dispensed liquid (i.e. the coffee product). Doing so would allow the controller of De’Longhi to monitor for quality control to ensure each drink produced was acceptable.
Coccia teaches a method coffee production including the controlling of the heating unit (20) and a hydraulic variable-flow valve (36), which does the same thing as a pump, using information gained from sensors (21) with the help of a control unit (22) in order to control for variance in the coffee grounds to improve the quality of the coffee (Col. 3 lines 9-29). Coccia utilizes a signal from a sensor to control the operation of a heating unit (20).
As Coccia teaches the controlling the operation of a heating device (20) on the basis of a signal indicative of the properties of the fluid being measured to improve the quality of the coffee, it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Coccia and include the method in controlling the pump and heating element as a result of information gained from the sensors to the modified device of De’Longhi to control for variance in the coffee grounds to improve the quality of the coffee.
Regarding claim 2, because the same sensors (9,15,17) used in Norgia are capable of generating a signal indicative of the quantity of soluble solids present (see paragraph 1 indicating the optical sensor is capable of identifying the presence of suspended particles) in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening are also capable of generating a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in said liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and that the signal proportional to the extraction of coffee is a signal indicative of the quantity of soluble solids or suspended particles present in said liquid coffee it teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, as the radiation source used in Norgia can be a laser source (3), the radiation given off by said laser source is a laser light beam and as photodiodes generate a signal based on how much light is (Inherent) and the amount of light that passes through the liquid (7) is based on the particles present in said liquid as the particles disrupt the light passing through the liquid, it teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, because the optical sensor of Norgia comprises a lateral photodiode (15) generating a second electrical signal placed along a diffusion direction incident to the irradiation direction it teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, as the radiation source used in Norgia can be a laser source (3), the radiation given off by said laser source is a laser light beam and as photodiodes generate a signal based on how much light is (Inherent) and the amount of light that passes through the liquid (7) is based on the particles present in said liquid as the particles disrupt the light passing through the liquid, and as the optical sensor of Norgia comprises a lateral photodiode (15) and a front photodiode (9) which send electrical signals to a connected processing and control unit (11), it teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Burrows, as applied to claim 1, in view of Erba (US Patent Application 2015/0114234)
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Burrows teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, and Burrows teaches a disposable beverage cartridge (32) containing a dose of ground coffee associable with a delivery group (454) to deliver said dose of coffee into a cup (268). The modified device of Burrows does not teach a filter adapted to receive said coffee powder, said filter being adapted to be housed in a filter holder, said filter holder being associable with said at least one delivery group.
Erba teaches a filter holder (4), a filter adapted to receive coffee powder ([0004]) as a filter holder is adapted to hold a filter, the filter holder is associable with the spouts (10 and 11) or delivery group to deliver the dose of coffee, with a dispending opening (12) or outlet being formed in the filter holder (4).
As Burrows teaches a disposable beverage cartridge used to make espresso and Erba teaches a filter holding a dose of coffee used to make espresso, that the components and their functions are both known in the art of coffee making, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one for the other and the results would have been predictable, the disposable beverage cartridge can be replaced with the filter holding coffee.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Burrows as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Stork.
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Burrows teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a camera configured to, from above, frame the coffee dispensed in a cup and to generate images and/or videos of the coffee and the camera being connected to the control unit.
Stork teaches a camera (160) which shows a top down or plan view of the coffee in the cup (Figure 1). The camera records a pixel image of a cup placement area and is connected to a control unit (1860) and helps prevent undesired food outcomes ([0022]) like under or over extracted coffee by visually measuring the darkness of the coffee.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Stork to the modified device of Burrows in order to improve the ability of the machine to make coffee by helping prevent undesired food outcomes.
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burrows in view of Norgia and Pozzari.
Regarding claim 19, Burrows teaches a coffee dispensing machine (10) that contains a pump (482), a heating element ([0047]), a delivery group or a brewer head (16) which is configured for use with a beverage cartridge or a disposable capsule (32), and a nozzle or dispensing opening (2620).
Burrows does not teach coffee quality optical sensor adapted to intercept a coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said optical sensor comprising a radiation source adapted to generate a radiation which strikes said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening along an irradiation direction incident to the exit direction of said coffee flow, said optical sensor further comprising at least one front photodiode placed substantially along said irradiation direction on a side opposite to said radiation source with respect to said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said at least one front photodiode generating a first electrical signal depending on the part of the radiation that crosses said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said machine for dispensing coffee further comprising a processing and control unit connected to said optical sensor configured to receive said first electrical signal, said processing and control unit being adapted to process said first electrical signal and to generate a signal indicative of the properties of said coffee cream present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and/or a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in said liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening or a grinding device adapted to grind a quantity of coffee grains to obtain a coffee powder insertable into said container, said grinding device comprising a grain size adjustment device of said coffee powder, said processing and control unit being connected to said grinding device and being configured to adjust the operation of said grinding device on the basis of said signal indicative of the properties of said coffee cream and/or of said signal proportional to the extraction of coffee.
Norgia teaches a device for the measuring the properties of a liquid (1) that utilizes an optical sensor (100) comprising a laser source (3) adapted to generate a laser light beam (30) which strikes the liquid flow (7) along the direction of the laser light beam (30) or irradiation direction, with a front (9) photodiode placed along the path of the laser light beam, a processing and control unit (11) connected to the optical sensor (100) to obtain properties of the liquid. Use of the sensing mechanism allows for the measuring of flow rate, presence (size, type, and shape) of particles, and overall characteristics of the fluid (Paragraphs 1 and 8-11) to ensure quality control.
Based on the teaching of Norgia it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify Burrows by incorporating an optical sensor, and associated control mechanisms, of Norgia to measure the properties of the dispensed liquid (i.e. the coffee product). Doing so would allow the controller of Burrows to monitor for quality control to ensure each drink produced was acceptable.
Pozzari teaches it is old and well known for a coffee machine to include a grinder (17) to grind coffee beans or coffee grains into ground coffee or coffee powder for use for brewing. Further, Pozzari teaches adding additional elements, such as a coffee grinder, to a coffee dispensing machine allows for a high level of automation to occur (Col. 1, lines 14-17).
The modified device of Burrows and Pozzari teach all of the elements of the current invention as stated above, wherein the only difference is between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of combination of elements in a single reference, and that each element performs the same function as it would separately. Because Pozzari teaches it is a benefit to add multiple features, such as a grinder, so a coffee machine to better automate the coffee making process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the modified device of Burrows to include any additional coffee producing feature, including a grinder as set forth in Pozzari, as doing so would have achieved the predictable result of better increased utility and automation.
Regarding claim 20, because the same sensors (9,15,17) used in Norgia are capable of generating a signal indicative of the quantity of soluble solids present (see paragraph 1 indicating the optical sensor is capable of identifying the presence of suspended particles) in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening are also capable of generating a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in said liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and that the signal proportional to the extraction of coffee is a signal indicative of the quantity of soluble solids or suspended particles present in said liquid coffee it teaches the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, as the radiation source used in Norgia can be a laser source (3), the radiation given off by said laser source is a laser light beam and as photodiodes generate a signal based on how much light is (Inherent) and the amount of light that passes through the liquid (7) is based on the particles present in said liquid as the particles disrupt the light passing through the liquid, it teaches the limitations of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, because the optical sensor of Norgia comprises a lateral photodiode (15) generating a second electrical signal placed along a diffusion direction incident to the irradiation direction it teaches the limitations of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, as the radiation source used in Norgia can be a laser source (3), the radiation given off by said laser source is a laser light beam and as photodiodes generate a signal based on how much light is (Inherent) and the amount of light that passes through the liquid (7) is based on the particles present in said liquid as the particles disrupt the light passing through the liquid, and as the optical sensor of Norgia comprises a lateral photodiode (15) and a front photodiode (9) which send electrical signals to a connected processing and control unit (11), it teaches the limitations of claim 23.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Burrows, as applied to claim 19, in view of Erba.
Regarding claim 24, the modified device of Burrows teaches all of the limitations of claim 19, and Burrows teaches a disposable beverage cartridge (32) containing a dose of ground coffee associable with a delivery group (454) to deliver said dose of coffee into a cup (268). The modified device of Burrows does not teach a filter adapted to receive said coffee powder, said filter being adapted to be housed in a filter holder, said filter holder being associable with said at least one delivery group.
Erba teaches a filter holder (4), a filter adapted to receive coffee powder ([0004]) as a filter holder is adapted to hold a filter, the filter holder is associable with the spouts (10 and 11) or delivery group to deliver the dose of coffee, with a dispending opening (12) or outlet being formed in the filter holder (4).
As Burrows teaches a disposable beverage cartridge used to make espresso and Erba teaches a filter holding a dose of coffee used to make espresso, that the components and their functions are both known in the art of coffee making, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one for the other and the results would have been predictable, the disposable beverage cartridge can be replaced with the filter holding coffee.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Burrows, as applied to claim 19, further in view of Stork.
Regarding claim 25, the modified device of Burrows teaches all of the limitations of claim 19, but does not teach a camera configured to, from above, frame the coffee dispensed in a cup and to generate images and/or videos of the coffee and the camera being connected to the control unit.
Stork teaches a camera (160) which shows a top down or plan view of the coffee in the cup (Figure 1). The camera records a pixel image of a cup placement area and is connected to a control unit (1860) and helps prevent undesired food outcomes ([0022]) like under or over extracted coffee by visually measuring the darkness of the coffee.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Stork to the modified device of Burrows in order to improve the ability of the machine to make coffee by helping prevent undesired food outcomes.
Claims 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burrows in view of Norgia and Bianchi.
Regarding claim 26, Burrows teaches a coffee dispensing machine (10) that contains a pump (482), a heating element ([0047]), a delivery group or a brewer head (16) which is configured for use with a beverage cartridge or a disposable capsule (32), and a nozzle or dispensing opening (2620).
Burrows does not teach coffee quality optical sensor adapted to intercept a coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said optical sensor comprising a radiation source adapted to generate a radiation which strikes said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening along an irradiation direction incident to the exit direction of said coffee flow, said optical sensor further comprising at least one front photodiode placed substantially along said irradiation direction on a side opposite to said radiation source with respect to said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said at least one front photodiode generating a first electrical signal depending on the part of the radiation that crosses said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said machine for dispensing coffee further comprising a processing and control unit connected to said optical sensor configured to receive said first electrical signal, said processing and control unit being adapted to process said first electrical signal and to generate a signal indicative of the properties of said coffee cream present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and/or a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in said liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening or a treatment device for the water sent to said at least one delivery group, said processing and control unit being connected to said treatment device and being configured to adjust one or more water treatment parameters on the basis of said signal indicative of the properties of said coffee cream and/or of said signal proportional to the extraction of coffee.
Norgia teaches a device for the measuring the properties of a liquid (1) that utilizes an optical sensor (100) comprising a laser source (3) adapted to generate a laser light beam (30) which strikes the liquid flow (7) along the direction of the laser light beam (30) or irradiation direction, with a front (9) photodiode placed along the path of the laser light beam, a processing and control unit (11) connected to the optical sensor (100) to obtain properties of the liquid. Use of the sensing mechanism allows for the measuring of flow rate, presence (size, type, and shape) of particles, and overall characteristics of the fluid (Paragraphs 1 and 8-11) to ensure quality control.
Based on the teaching of Norgia it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify Burrows by incorporating an optical sensor, and associated control mechanisms, of Norgia to measure the properties of the dispensed liquid (i.e. the coffee product). Doing so would allow the controller of Burrows to monitor for quality control to ensure each drink produced was acceptable.
Bianchi teaches a coffee machine that includes a device for treating the water (33), a measuring device (37) for measuring the parameters of the water ([0088]), a processing unit (38) that gets the information from the measuring device (37) and a corrector/integrator (36) to correct at least some of the parameters of the water in order to improve the quality of the coffee made with said water (paragraph 2).
As Bianchi teaches the treatment of the water to improve the quality of the coffee, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art would to combine the teaching of Bianchi by adding a device for treating water to the modified device of Burrows to improve the quality of the water entering and therefore the quality of the coffee.
Regarding claim 27, because the same sensors (9,15,17) used in Norgia are capable of generating a signal indicative of the quantity of soluble solids present (see paragraph 1 indicating the optical sensor is capable of identifying the presence of suspended particles) in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening are also capable of generating a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in said liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and that the signal proportional to the extraction of coffee is a signal indicative of the quantity of soluble solids or suspended particles present in said liquid coffee it teaches the limitations of claim 27.
Regarding claim 28, as the radiation source used in Norgia can be a laser source (3), the radiation given off by said laser source is a laser light beam and as photodiodes generate a signal based on how much light is (Inherent) and the amount of light that passes through the liquid (7) is based on the particles present in said liquid as the particles disrupt the light passing through the liquid, it teaches the limitations of claim 28.
Regarding claim 29, because the optical sensor of Norgia comprises a lateral photodiode (15) generating a second electrical signal placed along a diffusion direction incident to the irradiation direction it teaches the limitations of claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, as the radiation source used in Norgia can be a laser source (3), the radiation given off by said laser source is a laser light beam and as photodiodes generate a signal based on how much light is (Inherent) and the amount of light that passes through the liquid (7) is based on the particles present in said liquid as the particles disrupt the light passing through the liquid, and as the optical sensor of Norgia comprises a lateral photodiode (15) and a front photodiode (9) which send electrical signals to a connected processing and control unit (11), it teaches the limitations of claim 30.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Burrows, as applied to claim 26, in view of Erba.
Regarding claim 31, the modified device of Burrows teaches all of the limitations of claim 26, and Burrows teaches a disposable beverage cartridge (32) containing a dose of ground coffee associable with a delivery group (454) to deliver said dose of coffee into a cup (268). The modified device of Burrows does not teach a filter adapted to receive said coffee powder, said filter being adapted to be housed in a filter holder, said filter holder being associable with said at least one delivery group.
Erba teaches a filter holder (4), a filter adapted to receive coffee powder ([0004]) as a filter holder is adapted to hold a filter, the filter holder is associable with the spouts (10 and 11) or delivery group to deliver the dose of coffee, with a dispending opening (12) or outlet being formed in the filter holder (4).
As Burrows teaches a disposable beverage cartridge used to make espresso and Erba teaches a filter holding a dose of coffee used to make espresso, that the components and their functions are both known in the art of coffee making, and that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one for the other and the results would have been predictable, the disposable beverage cartridge can be replaced with the filter holding coffee.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Burrows, as applied to claim 26, further in view of Stork.
Regarding claim 32, the modified device of Burrows teaches all of the limitations of claim 26, but does not teach a camera configured to, from above, frame the coffee dispensed in a cup and to generate images and/or videos of the coffee and the camera being connected to the control unit.
Stork teaches a camera (160) which shows a top down or plan view of the coffee in the cup (Figure 1). The camera records a pixel image of a cup placement area and is connected to a control unit (1860) and helps prevent undesired food outcomes ([0022]) like under or over extracted coffee by visually measuring the darkness of the coffee.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Stork to the modified device of Burrows in order to improve the ability of the machine to make coffee by helping prevent undesired food outcomes.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erba in view of Norgia.
Erba teaches a filter holder (4) associable with a machine for dispensing coffee (1) comprising at least one delivery opening (12) made in said filter holder. It does not teach a coffee quality optical sensor associated with said filter holder in proximity of said dispensing opening, said optical sensor being adapted to intercept the coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said optical sensor comprising a radiation source adapted to generate a radiation which strikes said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening along an irradiation direction incident to the exit direction of said coffee flow, said optical sensor further comprising at least one front photodiode placed substantially along said irradiation direction on a side opposite to said radiation source with respect to said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said at least one front photodiode generating a first electrical signal depending on the part of radiation that crosses said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, said sensorized filter holder further comprising a processing and control unit connected to said optical sensor configured to receive said first electrical signal, said processing and control unit being adapted to process said first electrical signal and to generate a signal indicative of the properties of the coffee cream present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and/or a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in the liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening.
However, Norgia teaches a coffee quality optical sensor (1), said optical sensor (1) being adapted to intercept a flow of liquid (7), said optical sensor (1) comprising a radiation source (3) adapted to generate a radiation (30) which strikes said liquid flow (7) along the direction of the laser light beam (30) or irradiation direction incident to the exit direction of said coffee flow, said optical sensor (1) further comprising at least one front photodiode (9) placed substantially along said direction of the laser light beam (30) or irradiation direction on a side opposite to said radiation source (3) with respect to said liquid flow (7), said at least one front photodiode (9) generating a first electrical signal depending on the part of radiation that crosses said liquid flow (7) along with a processing and control unit (11) connected to the optical sensor (1) configured to receive said first electrical signal, said processing and control unit (15) being adapted to process said first electrical signal and to generate a signal indicative of the properties of said liquid flow (7).
Based on the teaching of Norgia it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify Erba by incorporating an optical sensor, and associated control mechanisms, of Norgia to measure the properties of the dispensed liquid (i.e. the coffee product). Doing so would allow the controller of Erba to monitor for quality control to ensure each drink produced was acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 regarding the “delivery group”, “processing and control device”, and “grain size adjustment device” and the associated 112 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In 35 U.S.C 112(f) “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.” Applicant's arguments are not persuasive because none point to portions of the original disclosure that explicitly sets forth the specific structures applicant had possession of at the time of filing. As such the rejections are maintained.
Applicant's argument filed 04/01/2026 regarding the claim limitation “wherein said first electrical signal depends on the modulation of the power of said laser light beam operated, according to a retro- injection interferometry effect, by the particles present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening” have been fully considered and is persuasive due to how the retro-injection interferometry effect works.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Norgia does not teach “coffee cream” or “liquid coffee” as one of the liquids Norgia teaches measuring the properties of, Norgia teaches measuring liquids, therefore Noriga teaches within the field of interacting with a liquid a device pertinent to the problem of measuring the properties of a liquid. As coffee cream and liquid coffee are liquids and can be measured by Norgia, the device of Norgia teaches a device capable of measuring the properties of coffee cream and liquid coffee and is therefore pertinent to the particular problem and within the field of endeavor.
Regarding the argument that DeLonghi does not teach control of the properties of the dispensed coffee, DeLonghi teaches that the control unit (14) controls, for each infusion cycle, the full loading of the infuser unit (2), the closure of the infusion unit (2), the activation of the pump (12) and of the boiler (13) for the supply of a pre-established quantity of hot water to the infusion unit (2), and the selective opening of just one of the valves (36), (37) ([0058]). Which has an effect on the properties of the coffee brewed during the infusion cycle, therefore controlling the properties of the coffee through controlling the properties of its brewing.
Regarding the argument that it would not have been obvious to apply the apparatus of Norgia to DeLonghi because DeLonghi does not provide for any control of the properties of the dispensed coffee and Norgia does not teach or suggest to apply its apparatus or method to an automatic coffee machine for controlling the properties of the dispensed coffee, it is responded above that DeLonghi does provide for control of the properties of the dispensed coffee by controlling the properties of the brewing of the coffee.
Regarding the argument that Coccia does not teach feedback with any sensor downstream of the dispensing unit or any feedback control not specifically mentioned, One of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton and can perform modifications on their own. Coccia teaches feedback with a sensor and one or ordinary skill in the art could translate that to include feedback with other sensors with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the argument of top of page 21 that the DeLonghi device modified in view of Norgia does not teach a feedback control, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. The rejection is based on Coccia, DeLonghi, and Norgia. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the argument that Pozzari does not teach control of the grinder at all, the device of Pozzari teaches a control central unit (27) that is connected to the grinder (17) as shown in Figure 1.
Regarding the argument that Pozzari does not teach control of the grinder based on the signal, Pozzari teaches that it is known in the art of coffee machines with built in grinders to have a stop function that is performed as a function of a signal indicative of the fact that the grinder is running unloaded (Column 2, Lines 15-18).
In response to applicant's arguments against combining Norgia and De’Longhi, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. The reference is based on Pozzari, Norgia, and De’Longhi. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the argument that one of ordinary skill does not teach using the other sensors for control of the water treatment unit, one of ordinary skill is not an automaton, Bianchi teaches controlling the water treatment unit with feedback with a sensor, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device to be able to take feedback with other sensors with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
The argument regarding the claim 11 rejection is moot due to new grounds of rejection required by amendments.
The argument regarding the claims 1-5 and 10 rejections under Burrows in view of Norgia, is moot due to new grounds of rejection required by amendments.
The argument regarding the claim 7 rejection under Burrows in view of Erba, is moot due to new grounds of rejection required by amendments.
Regarding the argument that Norgia does not teach processing the electrical signals generated by the photodiodes to generate a signal indicative of the properties of said coffee cream present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening and/or a signal proportional to the extraction of coffee in said liquid coffee present in said coffee flow exiting said dispensing opening, Norgia teaches a processing and control unit (11) adapted to process said detected modulated power to obtain properties of the liquid ([0020]), one of ordinary skill is not an automaton and as Norgia teaches obtaining properties of liquids, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device to be able to obtain different properties with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
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 Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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 F 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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights