DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/21/2026, 03/31/2026, and 04/01/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Notification regarding 35 USC § 112f
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 112f:
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.
Claim limitation “a threaded guide configured to provide the linear translation” in claim 1 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “a threaded guide” coupled with functional language “configured to provide the linear translation” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112f limitation: “a threaded guide” is well known in the art, such as a tool comprises thread, or teeth...
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugstar (US 5615601) in view of Giuliano (US 5490447).
Regarding claim 1, Eugstar discloses
A dock system (filter carrier 4, fig.4, arm 7, fig.4) for a capsule (filter 10, fig.1) containing coffee grounds during a brewing process [Col.3, lines 11-12 cited: “…the ground coffee falls directly into a filter 10 placed in the filter carrier 4…”], comprising:
a capsule dock (filter carrier 4, fig.4) configured to receive and hold the capsule (filter 10, fig.1);
a linear positioning stage1 (linear position is a position between grinding position A and brewing position B, fig.1) configured to move the capsule dock (filter carrier 4) so as to linearly translate between a first position (grinding position A, fig.1) under a grinder (coffee grinder 2, fig.1) of a coffee brewer (coffee automat 1), and a second position (brewing position B, fig.1) under a water dispenser (hot water outlet nipple 5, fig.1) of the coffee brewer (coffee automat 1);
a mount (arm 7, fig.4) configured to fix the linear positioning stage (grinding position A) to a housing of the coffee brewer (coffee automat 1, fig.1); and
a controller (control device, fig.5) configured to control the linear positioning stage (linear position) to move the capsule dock (filter carrier 4) to the first position (grinding position A, fig.1) during a grinding operation [Col.3, lines 10-12 cited: “…During the grinding process the ground coffee falls directly into a filter 10 placed in the filter carrier 4…”] and to move the capsule dock (filter carrier 4) to the second position (brewing position B, fig.1) during a water-dispensing operation [Col.3, lines 13-15 cited: “…the filter carrier 4 is shown in full lines in the brewing position B underneath the brewing water outlet 5 of a conventional hot water generator…”].
However, Eugstar does not disclose the linear positioning stage comprising a threaded guide configured to provide the linear translation.
PNG
media_image1.png
475
429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Giuliano discloses a dock system (housing 104, fig.3) comprising a linear positioning stage comprising a threaded guide (rack arm 156A, teeth 258, fig.3) configured to provide the linear translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a capsule dock of Eugstar, by comprising a linear positioning stage comprising a threaded guide, as taught by Giuliano, in order to provide a linear translation smoothly.
Regarding claim 2, Eugstar discloses
a connecting member (stationarily held pin 8, spring 9, fig.4) connecting the capsule dock (filter carrier 4, fig.4) and the linear positioning stage (linear position).
Regarding claim 16, Eugstar discloses
the capsule dock (filter carrier 4, fig.4) comprises a holder with an opening for receiving the capsule [filter carrier 4 has an opening to insert the filter 10, fig.1].
Regarding claim 17, Eugstar discloses
the opening (opening of filter carrier 4, fig.1) is circular and is smaller than at least a portion of a cross section of the capsule (filter 10, fig.1) [bottom opening of filter carrier 4, is smaller than top portion for filter 10, fig.1].
Regarding claim 18, Eugstar discloses
the controller (control device, fig.5) is configured to move the capsule dock (filter carrier 4, fig.4) from the first position (grinding position A, fig.1) to the second position upon (brewing position B, fig.1) a determination that the grinding operation is complete.
Regarding claim 19, Eugstar discloses
determination that the grinding operation is complete is based on time [user can manually operate to perform this function].
Regarding claim 20, Eugstar discloses
the determination that the grinding operation is complete is based on a weight on the capsule dock (filter carrier 4, fig.4) [user can manually operate to perform this function].
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugstar (US 5615601) in view of Giuliano (US 5490447) and further in view of Dayton (US 20210386245 A1).
The modification of Eugstar and Giuliano discloses substantially all the features as set forth above, such as the capsule, the capsule dock, and the controller but does not disclose an integrated force sensor.
Regarding claim 3, Dayton discloses
a coffee brewing system (dispenser 38, fig.5), comprising: a capsule dock (frame of dispenser 38, fig.5) comprises an integrated force sensor (vessel sensor 76, fig.5) [Par.0069 cited: “…vessel sensor 76 can be a capacitive sensor, weight sensor, or other suitable sensor to detect the presence of a ceramic, metal or paper coffee mug …”].
Regarding claim 4, Dayton discloses
the integrated force sensor (vessel sensor 76, fig.5) is configured to measure a weight of the capsule [Par.0069 cited: “…vessel sensor 76 can be a capacitive sensor, weight sensor, or other suitable sensor to detect the presence of a ceramic, metal or paper coffee mug …”].
Regarding claim 5, Dayton discloses
the weight of the capsule is measured (vessel sensor 76, fig.5) in real time during at least one of the grinding operation or the water-dispensing operation [Par.0069 cited: “…vessel sensor 76 can be a capacitive sensor, weight sensor, or other suitable sensor to detect the presence of a ceramic, metal or paper coffee mug …”].
Regarding claim 6, Dayton discloses
the controller is further configured to control at least one of the grinding operation or the water-dispensing operation [Par.0069 cited: “…vessel sensor 76 can be a capacitive sensor, weight sensor, or other suitable sensor to detect the presence of a ceramic, metal or paper coffee mug …”] based on the measured weight (vessel sensor 76, fig.5) of the capsule.
Regarding claim 7, Dayton discloses
the integrated force sensor (vessel sensor 76, fig.5) is configured to detect force applied on a front end of the capsule dock [Par.0069 cited: “…vessel sensor 76 can be a capacitive sensor, weight sensor, or other suitable sensor to detect the presence of a ceramic, metal or paper coffee mug …”] by user.
Regarding claim 8, Dayton discloses
the controller is configured to initiate a brewing process based on the detected pressing force [Par.0069 cited: “…vessel sensor 76 can be a capacitive sensor, weight sensor, or other suitable sensor to detect the presence of a ceramic, metal or paper coffee mug …”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a capsule dock of Eugstar, by comprising an integrated force sensor, as taught by Dayton, in order to measure a weight of the capsule, to measure the weight of the capsule in real time during at least one of the grinding operation or the water-dispensing operation, and to detect force applied on a front end of the capsule dock.
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Eugstar and Giuliano discloses substantially all the features as set forth above, such as the capsule dock but does not disclose an integrated force sensor.
Dayton discloses a coffee brewing system (dispenser 38, fig.5), comprising: a capsule dock (frame of dispenser 38, fig.5) comprises an integrated force sensor (vessel sensor 76, fig.5) [Par.0069 cited: “…vessel sensor 76 can be a capacitive sensor, weight sensor, or other suitable sensor to detect the presence of a ceramic, metal or paper coffee mug …”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a capsule dock of Eugstar, by comprising an integrated force sensor, as taught by Dayton, in order to detect a location of the capsule dock on the linear positioning stage.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugstar (US 5615601) in view of Giuliano (US 5490447) and further in view of Burrows (US 20150327719 A1).
Regarding claim 10, The modification of Eugstar and Giuliano discloses substantially all the features as set forth above, such as the linear positioning stage but does not disclose the linear positioning stage includes a stepper motor.
Burrows discloses a capsule dock (brewer head 16, fig.2) comprises a step motor (motor 52, fig.5).
Regarding claim 11, Burrows discloses
the stepper motor (brewer head 16, fig.2) is configured to provide haptic feedback when a force is applied on a font end of the capsule dock (brewer head 16, fig.2) by a user.
Regarding claim 12, Burrows discloses
the stepper motor (brewer head 16, fig.2) is configured to shake the capsule dock (brewer head 16, fig.2) so as to agitate the coffee grounds in the capsule during the water-dispensing operation [Par.0097 cited: “…motor 52 and/or other means within beverage brewer 10, may spin, rotate, nutate, vibrate, oscillate…”].
Regarding claim 13, Burrows discloses
the stepper motor (brewer head 16, fig.2) is configured to shake the capsule dock (brewer head 16, fig.2) at a preset vibration frequency during the water-dispensing operation [Par.0097 cited: “…motor 52 and/or other means within beverage brewer 10, may spin, rotate, nutate, vibrate, oscillate…”].
Regarding claim 14, Burrows discloses
the stepper motor (brewer head 16, fig.2) is configured to shake the capsule dock (brewer head 16, fig.2) for a preset amount of time during the water-dispensing operation [Par.0097 cited: “…motor 52 and/or other means within beverage brewer 10, may spin, rotate, nutate, vibrate, oscillate…”].
Regarding claim 15, Burrows discloses
the stepper motor (brewer head 16, fig.2) is configured to shake the capsule dock (brewer head 16, fig.2) at preset times during and after a pour of water during the water-dispensing operation [Par.0097 cited: “…motor 52 and/or other means within beverage brewer 10, may spin, rotate, nutate, vibrate, oscillate…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a capsule dock of Eugstar, by comprising a step motor, as taught by Burrows, in order to provide haptic feedback when a force is applied on a font end of the capsule dock; and to shake the capsule dock.
Response to Amendment
With respect to Drawing Objection: applicant’s argument in Remark, filed on 04/09/2026, has been fully considered and it is persuasive, such that the Drawing objection is withdrawn.
With respect to Double Patenting Rejection: applicant’s amended claim(s), filed on 04/09/2026, that overcame the Double Patenting Rejection.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20, filed on 04/09/2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
The newly cited Giuliano reference discloses a dock system (housing 104, fig.3) comprising a linear positioning stage comprising a threaded guide (rack arm 156A, teeth 258, fig.3) configured to provide the linear translation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
04/22/2026
1 Since the claim does not specific define where “a linear positioning stage” is, such that “a linear positioning stage” can be interpreted as the position between “griding position” and “brewing position”
Prosecution Insights