Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on July, 7, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended, Claims 9 and 10 were added, Claims 2-8 are cancelled, and Claims 1, 9-10 remain pending.
The amended claims overcome each and every 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action, and thus are withdrawn.
The amended claims overcome the claim objections presented in the Non-Final Office Action.
In view of the Amendment, the previously indicated grounds of rejection under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn. Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are presented herein.
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.
Claims 1, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihara (WO 2020/031905) (Translated figures below correspond to US 12446725) in view of Eom et al. (US 8051074 B2)
Regarding Claim 1, Kihara discloses A coffee beverage production device for producing a coffee beverage by acquiring recipe information used for a part or all of steps of coffee beverage production and referring to set values of parameters included in the recipe information, [Translated Fig. 15, paras. 115, 121] (Examiner Note: Kihara discloses the storage part (1503) “stores the basic control program, data, and parameters necessary for the operation of the information display device 1203,” and further includes databases “based on review information, comment information, and custom recipe information,” that are loaded into the processor memory (1502) from the server in order to carry out a selected operation. (Para. 115). As recipe information is construed to mean any information necessary to carry out the recipe (operations, ingredients, etc.), Kihara discloses this limitation.) the coffee beverage production device comprising:
a storage part [Storage part 1503, Translated Fig. 15, para. 121] configured to store the set values of the parameters [Para. 115] (Examiner Note: Kihara discloses the storage part (1503) “stores the basic control programs, data, and parameters necessary for the operation of the information display device 1203.” As the parameters are understood as an array of set values based on characteristic information determined by the processor, it is understood to disclose this limitation.) and comments related to the set values [Para. 115] (Examiner Note: Kihara further includes databases “based on review information, comment information, and custom recipe information,” that are loaded into the processor memory (1502) from the server in order to carry out a selected operation.”); and
a display part [Display part 1203, Translated Fig. 15].
Kihara does not disclose a display part configured to display the set values of the parameters stored in the storage part together with the comments related to the set values
wherein display content of each of the comments is restrictable such that only a part of the comment is displayed, and
wherein, when the comment is displayed by the display part, the display part displays, at a portion of the comment of which display content is restricted, an indication that the display content of the portion is restricted. (examiner Note: Although Kihara discloses a display part that displays the set values of parameters and stores the set value and comment information, it does not disclose displaying the comment information, as well as the restrictable display.)
However, Eom teaches a display part configured to display the set values of the parameters stored in the storage part together with the comments related to the set values [Fig. 4] (Examiner Note: As the reference rating score is understood as the set value of parameters, Eom teaches this limitation as the reference rating, along with the comments related to the reference rating are displayed by the display device in Eom.)
wherein display content of each of the comments is restrictable such that only a part of the comment is displayed, [Col. 6 L 32-51] (Examiner Note: Eom discloses a method for controlling the display of comments where a user can automatically strict the display of comments made by a particular user, “may make only part of the comments appear or be displayed according to the rating scores of other users who left those comments (this may be named a “blind” function),” and thus teaches this limitation.) and
wherein, when the comment is displayed by the display part, the display part displays, at a portion of the comment of which display content is restricted, an indication that the display content of the portion is restricted. [Col. 7 L 43-50] (Examiner Note: Eom further teaches that, “the server 200 may enable a comment display restriction part (not shown) to restrict comments that do not satisfy the display permit criteria from being shown on the web page. Such restriction may be implemented by substituting a comment display component constituting the web page with another kind of a guidance display component (e.g., a component showing a guidance phrase, "Display of any comment written by this user is blocked").” As the substituted display comment is understood to provide an indication that the display content of the portion of the comment is restricted, it is understood to teach this limitation.)
Eom is in the field of controlling display of internet comments. Thus, Eom is not in the same field of coffee production devices. However, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of the claimed invention is trying to solve, control of the display content of comments. The MPEP states that a reference that is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention) is considered analogous art, see MPEP2141.01(a). I. As such, Eom is analogous art as it satisfies the "reasonably pertinent" test.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kihara with the teachings of Eom to provide user-selective control of display content. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Eom and Kiahra could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to processing systems controlling display content. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Eom because it allows users to selectively control display content based on their set values, increasing readability and providing user-customization of the display content. Accordingly, Claim 1 is rejected as obvious over Kihara in view of Eom.
Regarding Claim 9, Kihara in view of Eom discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Kihara further discloses wherein the set value of the parameter is settable to be hidden, [Paras. 176-179] (Examiner Note: Kihara discloses that an initial setting screen may display a number of data sets (illustrated in Fig. 28), but as the user selects various characteristic information, the dataset is limited by the user selections such that the screen is updated and hides incompatible characteristic information. As the user selected values of the characteristic information is understood as the set value of the parameter (the parameter being the characteristic level), Kihara is understood to disclose this limitation.)
Kihara does not disclose wherein, even in a case where the set value of the parameter is set to be hidden, the comment related to the set value is displayable.
However, Eom further teaches wherein, even in a case where the set value of the parameter is set to be hidden, the comment related to the set value is displayable. [Col. 8 L 45-51] (Examiner Note: Eom teaches that comments are set to be hidden based off the reference rating set by the user when in blind mode, however, blind mode can be selectively deactivated by the user, such that restricted comments are displayable. As Eom teaches that comments related to the set value (i.e. comments within the user-selected reference rating range) are able to be displayed even when they are “set” to be hidden (outside of the reference range), it is understood to teach this limitation. In other words, when the user is blind mode, the comments below reference range are set to be hidden, but by deactivating blind mode, the comments below the reference range are able to be displayed, and thus teaches this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kihara with the teachings of Eom to allow the user to view hidden comments. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Eom and Kiahra could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to processing systems controlling display content. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Eom because it allows users to view comments that would otherwise be hidden. This allows users to view comments relating to brewing recipes they may have never considered, or at least not within their set value of parameters, allowing them to try different beverage recipes, and see other options. Accordingly, Claim 9 is rejected as obvious over Kihara in view of Eom.
Regarding Claim 10, Kihara in view of Eom discloses all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the comment includes a value related to the corresponding parameter. [Paras. 213-223] (Examiner Note: Kihara discloses that, “the comment information in the display area 1903 may be stored so as to correspond to the comment 4119 in the user information DB 4110.” Kihara further teaches that comment information is analyzed such that, “1301extracts words that can represent an image of coffee based on predetermined rules … and registers the determined characteristics as a column of characteristics in the characteristic information 4140 of the characteristic information DB 4130.” Kihara discloses that the information is put into datasets and calculates the level of determined characteristic for the group of datasets. As the determined characteristics are defined as numerical values, Kihara is understood to teach comments including a value related to the corresponding parameter.)
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 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 John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 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 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.
/J.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
