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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “display ranges of comments … are set,” is unclear. While it is understood to mean that the range of content displayed is set by the user based on comment information stored in the storage part, Applicant is kindly requested to provide more clarity in describing this limitation.
Claim 6 refers to “display of information.” It is unclear whether this is a new type of information displayed or just referring to recipe information. Applicant is kindly requested to keep lexicon of claimed terms consistent for clarity. In the interest of compact prosecution, this is understood to mean recipe information.
Claims 7 and 8 are both refer to restriction beyond a range of restriction, but the limitations “information” (Claim 7) and “recipe information” (Claim 8) are different terms with different scopes, so it is unclear what information is being referred to. Applicant is kindly requested to keep the lexicon of claimed terms consistent for clarity. In the interest of compact prosecution, both claims are understood to refer to recipe information.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(b) Rejections
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), as a claim directed to a product and process. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Where additional limitations amount to the specific actions or functions performed by the user, the claim may be indefinite. Here, the claims are directed to an apparatus, specifically a coffee beverage production device for producing coffee, but Claim 5 recites a limitation relating to a process (“a coffee beverage is not produced…”). As no controller configured to carry out this operation is claimed, this operation must necessarily be performed by the user, and thus indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kihara et al. (WO 2020/031905) (Translated figures below correspond to US 12446725).
Regarding Claim 1, Kihara discloses, A coffee beverage production device [Fig. 1 (1), paras. 10-21] for producing a coffee beverage by acquiring recipe information used for a part or all of steps of coffee beverage production and referring to 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 [Translated Fig. 15 (1303)] configured to store comments related to the parameters. [Para. 121] (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,” 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).)
[AltContent: textbox (Translated Fig. 15)]
PNG
media_image1.png
538
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kihara discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1, and further teaches wherein display ranges of the comments stored in the storage part are set [Translated Figs. 20, 39, para. 134] (Examiner Note: Noting the objection above, this limitation is understood to mean that the range of content displayed is set by the user based on comment information stored in the storage part. Kihara discloses setting information is transmitted to the display based on user selections on the extraction profile (Fig. 20) derived from comment information that determines “the contents of the display areas 2001 to 2007 in Figure 20.” As the range of content displayed is determined by this setting information it is understood to disclose this limitation.)
[AltContent: textbox (Translated Fig. 39)]
PNG
media_image2.png
758
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kihara discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1, and further teaches, wherein the recipe information is acquired from the storage part. [Para. 125] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Kihara discloses the processor retrieves all the information necessary to carry out production of the coffee beverage from the storage part, and thus the retrieval of all information necessary discloses acquiring recipe information.)
Regarding Claim 4, Kihara discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1, and further teaches, wherein the recipe information is subject to restrictions in use. [Translated Fig. 20, para. 139] (Examiner Note: As a restriction in use is understood as any limit on use of an ingredient or operation in producing the beverage, Kihara inherently discloses this limitation, as every recipe inherently contains restrictions in use. Recipes require specific quantities of each ingredient, therefore, restricting the further use of an ingredient in carrying out the instruction. Furthermore, Kihara discloses that the user can set any parameter of the extraction profile (amount of hot water, extraction pressure etc.) therefore, restricting the use of certain ingredients, amounts and operations in producing the beverage.)
[AltContent: textbox (Translated Fig. 20)]
PNG
media_image3.png
682
521
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Kihara discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4, and further teaches, wherein a coffee beverage is not produced using the recipe information with a restriction that is to prohibit production of a coffee beverage. [Translated Fig. 22 (S2203-2208), para. 143] (Examiner Note: This limitation is understood to mean that the coffee device will not make a coffee when it should not make a coffee. Kihara discloses that when the coffee device determines the user is switching properties (i.e. recipe selection is outside of set range) it requests the user if there is a change in characteristics, and then updates the screen (S2208) before awaiting to receive a new operation from the user. Accordingly, when recipe information is outside the range set by the user, it will not produce a beverage, and thus anticipates this limitation.)
[AltContent: textbox (Translated Fig. 22)]
PNG
media_image4.png
707
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Kihara discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4, and further teaches, wherein display of information beyond a range of a restriction on display content among the recipe information with the restriction is restricted. [Translated Fig. 24, paras. 163, 194-198] (Examiner Note: Noting the objection above, this limitation is understood to mean that recipe information outside the display range is not shown on the display. Kihara discloses that once a display range is set, that beans with characteristic profiles outside the set range are not shown on the display, and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 7, Kihara discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4, and further teaches, wherein information beyond a range of a restriction on duplication among the recipe information with the restriction is not duplicated. [Translated Fig. 20, para. 139-40, 168-73, 297] (Examiner Note: This limitation is construed to mean that the coffee device will not duplicate an ingredient/parameter in the recipe when a restriction on duplication is present in the recipe information. As discussed above, Kihara discloses that the extraction profile with characteristics like the amount of beans, hot water, extraction time etc. can be set (i.e. restricted) by the user. As these restrictions on use prevent alteration of the conditions, it prevents duplication of these conditions as well since duplication is a simply a specific quantity of alteration.)
Regarding Claim 8, Kihara discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4, and further teaches, wherein recipe information beyond a range of a restriction on alteration among the recipe information with the restriction is not altered. [Translated Fig. 20, paras. 139-40, 168-73, 297] (Examiner Note: This limitation is construed to mean that the coffee device will not alter an ingredient/parameter in the recipe when a restriction on alteration is present in the recipe information. As discussed above, Kihara discloses that the user can set the extraction profile with restrictions on use prevent alteration of the conditions, and thus discloses this limitation.)
[AltContent: textbox (Translated Fig. 24)]
PNG
media_image5.png
581
507
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Thai et al. (WO 2016/070232) and Suh et al. (US 10558330) both disclose automated coffee production systems with saved user profiles, flavor profile tracking and feedback control that allows for automatic production of a coffee beverage according to the saved information.
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
Prosecution Insights