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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered as follow:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, with respect to the objection to claims 4, 8, and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
The objection to claim 3 is moot because the claim has been cancelled.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 7 are persuasive. “Said value of the quantity of ground coffee” in claim 7 has antecedent basis in “a value of a quantity of ground coffee selected by the user” recited in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. The objection to claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 overcome the objections to “the quality of ground coffee” and “driving grinders,” and those objections have been withdrawn. However, the objection to “a quantity of ground coffee” in the acquire step is maintained, as set forth below. Applicant states that claim 1 was amended in accordance with the examiner’s suggestion edits, but this limitation was not amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, with respect to the interpretation of “electricity measuring device” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The amended limitation “an electricity measuring device configured to measure the mains electricity voltage” continues to meet the three-prong test of MPEP 2181 (I). The term “device” is a generic placeholder, as MPEP 2181 (I)(A) lists “device for” among such terms. It is modified by the functional language “configured to measure the mains electricity voltage.” It is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function, because “electricity measuring” describes the function of the device rather than its structure, and the recitation that the electric motor comprises the device describes its location, not its structure. Applicant’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art could discern “any and all possible structures” is unsupported by evidence and does not establish that the terms have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. Accordingly, the limitation continues to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification, namely a dedicated electronic circuit in communication with the electronic controller (¶ [0048]-[0049]), and equivalents thereof.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Doglioni Majer or Baqueta applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new ground of rejection over Speckbacher in view of Hoare was necessitated by applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 8. To the extent applicant’s arguments remain applicable to the new ground of rejection, they are addressed below.
Regarding applicant’s first argument that no cited reference discloses a first coarse selector for selecting between a single or double dose and a second fine selector for selecting the quantity of ground coffee (Remarks, p. 8), this limitation is taught by Hoare, as set forth in the rejection below.
Regarding applicant’s second argument that the rejection fails to show control of the grinding device using mathematical functions associated with both the coarse and fine selections (Remarks, p. 8), this limitation is taught by Speckbacher in view of Hoare, as set forth in the rejection below.
Applicant further argues that the regulation of the grinder in Speckbacher “does not take into consideration the user selections at the user interface and does not contemplate such a feature” (Remarks, p. 8). This argument is not persuasive. Speckbacher expressly determines the grinding operating time based on the amount of ground material desired for the beverage being prepared: “before the coffee beverage is prepared, the operating time of the grinder... is determined depending on the voltage dependency... The duration of the grinding operation is expediently determined in such a way that the predetermined amount of ground material or the desired amount of ground material... is provided” (Speckbacher (translation), p. 2, lns. 5-10). Moreover, in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145 (IV). The user interface is taught by Hoare, and the rejection relies on the combination of Speckbacher and Hoare.
Regarding applicant’s argument that there is no teaching or suggestion to combine the references (Remarks, p. 8), the rejection below sets forth the reason to combine: to “dispense[] discreet doses according to a user’s preference and control inputs” (Hoare, ¶ [00099]).
Regarding dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9 and 10, applicant argues patentability solely based on dependency from claims 1 and 8 (Remarks, p. 9). These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 8.
Claim Objections
Claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
“a quantity of ground coffee” in line 19 should read “the quantity of ground coffee.”
“via said interface” in lines 16-17 should read “via said user interface” to be consistent with “a user interface” as previously recited in line 7.
Claim 8:
“store mathematical laws and/or tables” in line 15 should read “storing mathematical laws and/or tables” to be consistent with the form of the other recited method steps.
“the electronic controller” should read “an electronic controller,” since there is no prior recitation of an electronic controller in claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation is: “electricity measuring device” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the term “electricity measuring device” in claim 1, the recited function is “configured to measure the mains electricity voltage” (paragraph [0049]). The specification discloses the corresponding structure as including an electricity measuring circuit configured to detect the mains electricity voltage and communicate the detected voltage value to the electronic controller (¶¶ [0048]-[0049]), and equivalents thereof. Claim 5 is also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to its dependency from claim 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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.
The limitation “function (yij) associate to every combination of the coarse selection and the fine selection chosen by the user at the user interface” in claims 1 and 8 is interpreted as a function associated with each combination of the selectable coarse selection values and the selectable fine selection values of the user interface, consistent with ¶¶ [0064] and [0068]-[0069] of the specification. The parenthetical “(yij)” is interpreted as a label identifying the functions and does not further limit the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 2, and 4-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the electric motor comprises an electricity measuring device configured to measure the mains electricity voltage, and an electronic controller configured to:” renders the claim indefinite. As written, the limitation can be read either as the electric motor comprising both the electricity measuring device and the electronic controller, or as the electric motor comprising only the electricity measuring device, with the electronic controller being a separate element of the grinding device. Because the claim reasonably supports more than one interpretation, the scope of the claim is unclear. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the grinding device comprising an electronic controller configured to perform the recited functions, consistent with the specification (¶ [0036]: “The grinding device 2 comprises in a known manner an electronic controller 3”).
Claims 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency from claim 1.
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, 2, and 4-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the electric motor comprises an electricity measuring device configured to measure the mains electricity voltage,” added by the amendment filed 7/22/2026 is not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure describes the measuring means as a component of the grinding device, not of the electric motor (¶ [0012]: “[the grinding device] comprises measuring means for measuring the mains electricity voltage”; ¶ [0048]: “the grinding device 2 comprises means 20 for measuring the mains electricity voltage which powers the electric motor 13”). The measuring means is described as a dedicated circuit in communication with the electronic controller (¶ [0049]: “The means for measuring 20 the mams electricity voltage can be made by a dedicated electronic circuit in communication with the electronic controller 3”). Fig. 1 depicts the measuring means 20 as a separate element positioned adjacent to and in communication with the electronic controller 3, apart from the grinding device 2 and connected to the grinding device 2 only through the electronic controller 3, and Fig. 2 depicts the electronic motor 13 without any measuring means. Although the measuring means measures the voltage which powers the electric motor, the original disclosure does not describe the electric motor as comprising the measuring means. Applicant’s cited support (Remark, p. 6: “paragraphs [0050]-[0059] of the Published Specification”) does not describe this feature. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this office action, or to point out where in the original disclosure support may be found. Alternatively, the Applicant can overcome this rejection by reciting “wherein the grinding device comprises an electricity measuring device.”
Claims 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as well because they depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 2, 4-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speckbacher et al. (EP 3733029) hereinafter Speckbacher, in view of Hoare et al. (US 20130001339 A1) hereinafter Hoare.
Regarding claim 1, Speckbacher teaches, in Fig. 1,
a grinding device (annotated Fig. 1: “grinding device”; Speckbacher (translation), p. 4, lns. 13-15: “a grinder connection 4 is attached, via which the grinder 3 is electrically supplied during operation, the electrical supply of the grinder 3 taking place via the mains voltage,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a combination of a grinder 3 and a grinder connection 4 as corresponding to the claimed “grinding device”) for grinding coffee beans, comprising:
grinders (3, “grinder”),
an electric motor supplied by mains electricity voltage and operatively connected to drive the grinders (Speckbacher (translation), p. 1, ln. 23: “a coffee machine with an electrically operated grinder”; p. 4, lns. 14-15: “the grinder 3 is electrically supplied during operation, the electrical supply of the grinder 3 taking place via the mains voltage”; the examiner interprets the electrically operated grinder 3 as inherently including an electric motor supplied by mains electricity voltage and operatively connected to drive the grinder), and
wherein the electric motor comprises an electricity measuring device (15, measuring device) configured to measure the mains electricity voltage (Speckbacher (translation), p. 4, ln. 31: “a measuring device 15 … measures the electrical voltage applied to the grinder 3”; p. 3, lns. 13-14: “The coffee machine preferably has a corresponding measuring device to determine the electrical voltage applied to the grinder. The measuring device has a voltmeter”; the examiner interprets the electric motor of the electrically operated grinder 3, together with the measuring device 15 which measures the voltage applied to it, as corresponding to the claimed electric motor comprising an electricity measuring device. Alternatively, to the extent Speckbacher is not considered to teach the measuring device 15 as part of the electric motor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the measuring device 15 and the electric motor of the grinder 3 as a one piece construction, since the court held "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)) and
an electronic controller (14, “control device”; interpreted as an element of the grinding device, see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above) configured to:
associate, for each value of a selectable quantity of ground coffee (Speckbacher (translation), p.2, ln. 9: “desired amount of ground material”), a series of grinding time values (p. 4, ln. 41: “predetermined duration”) with a series of corresponding values of the mains electricity voltage (p. 4, lns. 14-15: “mains voltage”) (p. 2, ins. 3-5: “a dependency between the electrical voltage applied to the grinder and the amount of ground material is first determined in a preliminary operation … and stored as a voltage dependency; p. 4, lns. 40-43: “[f]or a specific number of different voltages, an associated amount of ground material is determined by applying the respective voltage to the grinder 3 for a predetermined duration and operating the grinder 3. This results in a function 20, illustrated by dots, which reproduces the dependence of the grinding quantity on the applied voltage”; p. 4, lns. 45-49: “the dependence of the amount of ground material on the applied voltage is stored as a voltage dependency. … a linear relationship between the voltage and the grinding amount is assumed and the voltage dependency is then determined and stored”; the examiner interprets Speckbacher as teaching associating grinding operating time with corresponding mains electricity voltage values for producing predetermined quantities of ground coffee);
acquire a value of a quantity of ground coffee selected by the user (“desired amount of ground material“) (Speckbacher (translation), p. 1, lns. 15-16: “a predetermined amount of coffee is provided in coffee machines for preparing a predetermined coffee beverage”; p. 2, lns. 9-11: “the predetermined amount of ground material or the desired amount of ground material for the coffee beverage currently to be prepared is provided”; the examiner interprets Speckbacher as teaching acquiring a quantity of ground of coffee for preparation of a coffee beverage);
detect by said electricity measuring device (15) a mains electricity voltage value (“electrical voltage”; Speckbacher (translation), p. 4, ln. 31: “a measuring device 15 … measures the electrical voltage applied to the grinder 3”);
for the acquired value of a quantity of ground coffee selected by the user (“desired amount of ground material”), set the grinding time value (Speckbacher (translation), p. 2, ln. 6: “operating time”) corresponding to the detected mains electricity voltage value (“electrical voltage”); and drive the grinders (3) for the set grinding time value (“operating time”) (p. 2, ln. 5-10: “before the coffee beverage is prepared, the operating time of the grinder … is determined depending on the voltage dependency … The duration of the grinding operation is expediently determined in such a way that the predetermined amount of ground material or the desired amount of ground material … is provided”; p. 4, ln. 56-p. 5, ln. 1: “the operating time of the grinder 3 … is determined … to provide a predetermined amount of grist. When determining this grinding operating time, the voltage dependency, the voltage difference and the nominal voltage are taken into account”; the examiner interprets Speckbacher as teaching setting a grinding operation time corresponding to a detected mains electricity voltage value for providing a desired quantity of ground coffee); and
store mathematical laws and/or tables in a memory of the electronic controller (14, “control device”) (Speckbacher (translation), p. 2, lns. 5-7: “before the coffee beverage is prepared, the operating time of the grinder ... is determined depending on the voltage dependency”; the examiner interprets the control device 14, which determines the operating time depending on the stored voltage dependency, as storing the voltage dependency in its memory; the voltage dependency is construed as being the claimed “mathematical laws”), the mathematical laws and/or tables having been determined experimentally (“function 20”; p. 2, lns. 4-5: “determined in a preliminary operation ... and stored as a voltage dependency”) and show an association for each value of the selectable quantity of ground coffee of said series of grinding time values with said series of corresponding values of the mains electricity voltage (p. 4, lns. 45-46: “the dependence of the amount of ground material on the applied voltage is stored as a voltage dependency”).
PNG
media_image1.png
275
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Speckbacher, annotated
Regarding claim 1, Speckbacher does not explicitly teach
a hopper configured to hold the coffee beans,
a user interface configured to receive user selection of a quantity of ground coffee in a range of values of selectable quantities of coffee powder,
wherein said user interface comprises a first selector including a coarse selection discriminating whether one or two doses of ground coffee is dispensed, and a second selector including a fine selection indicating the quantity of ground coffee selected by the user,
acquiring a value of a quantity of ground coffee selected by the user via said interface, and
wherein the mathematical laws and/or tables comprise functions (yij) associated to every combination of the coarse selection and the fine selection chosen by the user at the user interface.
However, Hoare teaches, in Fig. 1, a grinding device (¶ [0044]: “an electrical, motorized coffee grinder 1”) for grinding coffee beans, comprising
a hopper (11, “hopper”) configured to hold the coffee beans (¶ [0044]: “an electrical, motorised coffee grinder 1 comprises a base 10 and its hopper 11”),
a user interface (14, “front panel”) configured to receive user selection of a quantity of ground coffee in a range of values of selectable quantities of coffee powder (¶ [0044]: “A front panel or surface 14 of the head 13 features various user controls including ... a discharge amount adjustment rotating knob 15, a push button or other user control for choosing discreet preset discharge amounts 16”),
wherein said user interface comprises a first selector (16, “preset amount button”) including a coarse selection discriminating whether one or two doses of ground coffee is dispensed (¶ [0050]: “the numeric display 33 will only display a "one shot" or "two shots" icon... The user can use the present switch 16 to select between one or two shots”), and a second selector (15, “discharge amount adjustment rotating knob”) including a fine selection indicating the quantity of ground coffee selected by the user (¶ [0045]: “the fine adjustment to the selected dose (as input by the user) using the amount adjustment control 15... indicating to what extent the user has trimmed or requested more or less discharge per dose”),
acquiring a value of a quantity of ground coffee selected by the user via said interface (14, “front panel”; ¶ [0044]: “A front panel or surface 14 of the head 13 features various user controls... The preset amount button 16 allows the user to choose an amount of coffee grinds to discharge”), and
wherein the mathematical laws and/or tables (Fig. 6: 94, “look up table”) comprise functions (yij) associated to every combination of the coarse selection and the fine selection chosen by the user at the user interface (¶ [0054]: “The look up table contains stored values of time 95 that correspond to a given user requested dose 96 and a given user selected dose adjustment value 97,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a stored grinding time value for each combination of a user requested dose 96, selected with the first selector 16 between one or two shots ([0050]), and a user selected dose adjustment value 97, selected with the second selector 15, as corresponding to the claimed “functions associated to every combination of the coarse selection and the fine selection”).
Speckbacher and Hoare are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of coffee grinding devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the grinding device of Speckbacher to include the hopper, the user interface having the coarse selector and the fine selector, and the functions associated to every combination of the coarse and fine selections as taught by Hoare, in order to “dispense[] discreet doses according to a user's preference and control inputs” (Hoare, ¶ [0009]), thereby applying the voltage dependency of Speckbacher to every combination of the coarse selection and the fine selection, such that each function (yij) associates the grinding time with mains electricity voltage.
PNG
media_image2.png
669
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Hoare
PNG
media_image3.png
487
729
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Hoare
Regarding claim 8, Speckbacher discloses, in Fig. 1,
a method (“method”; Speckbacher (translation), abstract: “a method for operating a coffee machine … which has an electrically operated grinder”) for controlling a grinding device (annotated Fig. 1: “grinding device”; Speckbacher (translation), p. 4, lns. 13-15: “a grinder connection 4 is attached, via which the grinder 3 is electrically supplied during operation, the electrical supply of the grinder 3 taking place via the mains voltage,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a combination of a grinder 3 and a grinder connection 4 as corresponding to the claimed “grinding device”) for grinding coffee beans having grinders (3) that are drivable by an electric motor supplied by a mains electricity voltage (Speckbacher (translation), p. 1, ln. 23: “a coffee machine with an electrically operated grinder”; p. 4, lns. 14-15: “the grinder 3 is electrically supplied during operation, the electrical supply of the grinder 3 taking place via the mains voltage”; the examiner interprets the electrically operated grinder 3 as inherently including an electric motor supplied by mains electricity voltage for driving the grinder), the method comprising the steps of:
associating, for each value of a selectable quantity of ground coffee by a user (Speckbacher (translation), p.2, ln. 9: “desired amount of ground material”), a series of grinding time values (p. 4, ln. 41: “predetermined duration”) with a series of corresponding values of the mains electricity voltage (p. 4, lns. 14-15: “mains voltage”) (p. 2, ins. 3-5: “[a] dependency between the electrical voltage applied to the grinder and the amount of ground material is first determined in a preliminary operation … and stored as a voltage dependency; p. 4, lns. 40-43: “[f]or a specific number of different voltages, an associated amount of ground material is determined by applying the respective voltage to the grinder 3 for a predetermined duration and operating the grinder 3. This results in a function 20, illustrated by dots, which reproduces the dependence of the grinding quantity on the applied voltage”; p. 4, lns. 45-49: “the dependence of the amount of ground material on the applied voltage is stored as a voltage dependency. … a linear relationship between the voltage and the grinding amount is assumed and the voltage dependency is then determined and stored”; the examiner interprets Speckbacher as teaching associating grinding operating time with corresponding mains electricity voltage values for producing user-selected predetermined quantities of ground coffee);
acquiring a value of a quantity of ground coffee selected by the user (“desired amount of ground material“) (Speckbacher (translation), p. 1, lns. 15-16: “a predetermined amount of coffee is provided in coffee machines for preparing a predetermined coffee beverage”; p. 2, lns. 9-11: “the predetermined amount of ground material or the desired amount of ground material for the coffee beverage currently to be prepared is provided”; the examiner interprets the desired amount of ground material for the coffee beverage currently to be prepared as corresponding to a quantity of ground coffee selected by the user for preparation of the coffee beverage);
detecting a mains electricity voltage value (“electrical voltage”; Speckbacher (translation), p. 4, ln. 31: “a measuring device 15 … measures the electrical voltage applied to the grinder 3”);
for the acquired value of a quantity selected by the user of ground coffee (“desired amount of ground material”), setting the grinding time value (Speckbacher (translation), p. 2, ln. 6: “operating time”) corresponding to the detected mains electricity voltage value (“electrical voltage”); and driving the grinders for the set grinding time value (“operating time”) (p. 2, ln. 5-10: “before the coffee beverage is prepared, the operating time of the grinder … is determined depending on the voltage dependency … The duration of the grinding operation is expediently determined in such a way that the predetermined amount of ground material or the desired amount of ground material … is provided”; p. 4, ln. 56-p. 5, ln. 1: “the operating time of the grinder 3 … is determined … to provide a predetermined amount of grist. When determining this grinding operating time, the voltage dependency, the voltage difference and the nominal voltage are taken into account”; the examiner interprets Speckbacher as teaching setting a grinding operation time corresponding to a detected mains electricity voltage value for providing a user-selected desired quantity of ground coffee); and
store mathematical laws and/or tables in a memory of the electronic controller (14, “control device”) (Speckbacher (translation), p. 2, lns. 5-7: “before the coffee beverage is prepared, the operating time of the grinder ... is determined depending on the voltage dependency”; the examiner interprets the control device 14, which determines the operating time depending on the stored voltage dependency, as storing the voltage dependency in its memory; the voltage dependency is construed as being the claimed “mathematical laws”), the mathematical laws and/or tables having been determined experimentally (“function 20”; p. 2, lns. 4-5: “determined in a preliminary operation ... and stored as a voltage dependency”) and show an association for each value of the selectable quantity of ground coffee of said series of grinding time values with said series of corresponding values of the mains electricity voltage (p. 4, lns. 45-46: “the dependence of the amount of ground material on the applied voltage is stored as a voltage dependency”).
Regarding claim 2, Speckbacher in view of Hoare teaches the grinding device (Speckbacher: “grinding device”) for grinding coffee beans according to claim 1, wherein said electronic controller (Speckbacher: 14) is configured to detect the mains electricity voltage (“electrical voltage”; Speckbacher (translation), p. 4, ln. 31: “a measuring device 15 … measures the electrical voltage applied to the grinder 3”) before the grinders are driven (Speckbacher (translation), p. 2, ln. 5-7: “before the coffee beverage is prepared, the operating time of the grinder … is determined depending on the voltage dependency”; p. 4, ln. 31: “a measuring device 15 … measures the electrical voltage applied to the grinder 3”; the examiner interprets Speckbacher as teaching determining the applied voltage prior to operation of the grinder).
Regarding claim 4, Speckbacher in view of Hoare teaches the grinding device (Speckbacher: “grinding device”) for grinding coffee beans according to claim 1, wherein said association defines an inverse correlation between the grinding time and the mains electricity voltage (Speckbacher (translation), p. 2, lns. 28-29: “the electrical voltage applied to the grinder during operation can be … compensated for by the adjusted grinding operating time”; p. 4, lns. 35-46: “a dependency between the electrical voltage applied to the grinder 3 and the amount of ground material provided by the grinder 3 is … determined. … For a specific number of different voltages, as associated amount of ground material is determined by applying the respective voltage to the grinder 3 … result[ing] in a function 20 … the dependence of the amount of ground material on the applied voltage is stored as a voltage dependency”; Speckbacher teaches maintaining a predetermined amount of ground material while compensating for voltage changes by adjusting grinding operating time, which the examiner interprets as teaching that reduced electrical voltage necessarily requires increased grinding time, when the amount of ground coffee is held constant, thereby defining an inverse correlation between grinding time and mains electricity voltage).
Regarding claim 5, Speckbacher in view of Hoare teaches the grinding device (Speckbacher: “grinding device”) for grinding coffee beans according to claim 1, wherein said electricity measuring device (Speckbacher: 15) measuring the mains electricity voltage (Speckbacher: “electrical voltage”) comprises a dedicated electronic circuit in communication with said electronic controller (Speckbacher: 14) (Speckbacher (translation), p. 4, lns. 30-32: “The coffee machine … has a measuring device 15 which measures the electrical voltage applied to the grinder 3 and is also connected in a communicating manner to the control device 14,” which the examiner interprets as the communication between the measuring device and the controller via a dedicated electronic circuit).
Regarding claim 6, Speckbacher in view of Hoare teaches, in Fig. 1 of Speckbacher, a coffee machine (Speckbacher: 1. “coffee machine”) comprising the integrates a grinding device according to claim 1 (Speckbacher (translation), p. 4, lns. 13-15, and annotated Fig. 1: “grinding device”; the examiner interprets a grinding device as annotated in Fig. 1 as corresponding to the claimed grinding device according to claim 1, including a hopper, grinders, a user interface having the first and second selectors, an electric motor, an electricity measuring device, and an electronic controller as taught by Speckbacher in view of Hoare, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Speckbacher does not explicitly teach
acquiring the value of the quantity of ground coffee selected by the user at a user interface, wherein said user interface comprises a first selector including a coarse selection discriminating whether one or two does of ground coffee is dispensed, and a second selector including a fine selection indicating the quantity of ground coffee selected by the user; and
wherein the mathematical laws and/or tables comprise functions (yij) associated to every combination of the coarse selection and the fine selection chosen by the user at the user interface.
However, Hoare teaches, in Fig. 1, a method of controlling a coffee grinder (¶ [0044]: “an electrical, motorized coffee grinder 1”), comprising
acquiring a value of the quantity of ground coffee selected by the user at a user interface (14, “front panel”; ¶ [0044]: “A front panel or surface 14 of the head 13 features various user controls... The preset amount button 16 allows the user to choose an amount of coffee grinds to discharge”), wherein said user interface comprises a first selector (16, “preset amount button”) including a coarse selection discriminating whether one or two dose of ground coffee is dispensed (¶ [0050]: “the numeric display 33 will only display a "one shot" or "two shots" icon... The user can use the present switch 16 to select between one or two shots”), and a second selector (15, “discharge amount adjustment rotating knob”) including a fine selection indicating the quantity of ground coffee selected by the user (¶ [0045]: “the fine adjustment to the selected dose (as input by the user) using the amount adjustment control 15... indicating to what extent the user has trimmed or requested more or less discharge per dose”); and
wherein the mathematical laws and/or tables (Fig. 6: 94, “look up table”) comprise functions (yij) associated to every combination of the coarse selection and the fine selection chosen by the user at the user interface (¶ [0054]: “The look up table contains stored values of time 95 that correspond to a given user requested dose 96 and a given user selected dose adjustment value 97,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a stored grinding time value for each combination of a user requested dose 96, selected with the first selector 16 between one or two shots ([0050]), and a user selected dose adjustment value 97, selected with the second selector 15, as corresponding to the claimed “functions associated to every combination of the coarse selection and the fine selection”).
Speckbacher and Hoare are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of coffee grinding devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Speckbacher to include the coarse selector, the fine selector, and the functions associated to every combination of the coarse and fine selections as taught by Hoare, in order to “dispense[] discreet doses according to a user's preference and control inputs” (Hoare, ¶ [0009]), thereby applying the voltage dependency of Speckbacher to every combination of the coarse selection and the fine selection, such that each function (yij) associates the grinding time with mains electricity voltage.
Regarding claim 9, Speckbacher in view of Hoare discloses, in Fig. 1 of Speckbacher, the method (Speckbacher: “method”) for controlling a grinding device (Speckbacher: “grinding device”) for grinding coffee beans according to claim 8, wherein said mains electricity voltage value (Speckbacher: “electrical voltage”) is detected (Speckbacher (translation), p. 4, ln. 31: “a measuring device 15 … measures the electrical voltage applied to the grinder 3”) before driving the grinders (Speckbacher (translation), p. 2, ln. 5-7: “before the coffee beverage is prepared, the operating time of the grinder … is determined depending on the voltage dependency”; p. 4, ln. 31: “a measuring device 15 … measures the electrical voltage applied to the grinder 3”; the examiner interprets Speckbacher as teaching determining the applied voltage prior to operation of the grinder).
Regarding claim 10, Speckbacher in view of Hoare teaches the method (“method”; Speckbacher (translation), abstract: “a method for operating a coffee machine … which has an electrically operated grinder”) for controlling a grinding device for grinding coffee beans according to claim 8,
wherein each value of a selectable quantity of ground coffee is determined by the combined selection of the values of parameters such as granulometry, origin of the coffee, degree of roasting of the coffee beans, mechanical and/or electric tolerances of the grinding device (Hoare, ¶ [0024]: “the user control enables the user to select grind preferences, including... grind quantity; and grind size”; ¶ [0044]: “grinding time and grinding type are related to the discharge amount in accordance with a look up table”; ¶ [0054]: “the grind index line is broken down into a plurality of ranges... Each range is associated with a look up table 94 stored in the grinder's microprocessor”; the examiner interprets the selectable quantity of ground coffee of Hoare, determined by the combined selection of the grind size range and the requested dose and dose adjustment values, as each value of a selectable quantity of ground coffee being determined by the combined selection of values of parameters including granulometry, the grind size of Hoare corresponding to the claimed granulometry (see instant specification, ¶ [0056], describing the particle size of the ground coffee; Hoare, ¶ [0044]: “The spacing between the upper burr and the lower burr determines the grind size”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Speckbacher to determine each value of the selectable quantity of ground coffee by the combined selection of grind size and dose as taught by Hoare, in order to accommodate users who “will require a variety of coffee grinds, in a variety of quantities” (Hoare, ¶ [0005]), thereby determining the grinding time for each user-selected quantity of ground coffee in view of the granulometry of the coffee.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speckbacher et al. (EP 3733029) hereinafter Speckbacher, in view of Hoare et al. (US 20130001339 A1) hereinafter Hoare, and further in view of O’Loughlin et al. (AU 2012200582) hereinafter O’Loughlin.
Regarding claim 7, Speckbacher in view of Hoare teaches the coffee machine (Speckbacher: 1) according to claim 6, including the interface (Hoare: 14, “front panel”), but does not explicitly teach the coffee machine with a filter holder provided with an interchangeable filter configured to contain a single or double dose of ground coffee, wherein said interface is configured to receive a selection of the filter in combination with said value of the quantity of ground coffee.
However, O’Loughlin teaches, in Fig. 1, a coffee machine (100, “espresso machine”) with
a filter holder (150, “filter assembly”) provided with an interchangeable filter (154, “single filter”; 156, “double filter”) configured to contain a single or double dose of ground coffee (O’Loughlin (translation), p. 2, lns. 23-25: “The filter assembly 150 is used with removable filter baskets of different sizes … a single filter 154 for one shot of espresso or a double filter 156 for two shots of espresso”),
wherein said interface (130, “control panel” including a display 132 and push buttons 134) is configured to receive a selection of the filter in combination with said value of the quantity of ground coffee (O’Loughlin (translation), p. 2, lns. 60-64: “the user controls include … a single cup button … to prepare one cup of coffee; a two cup button … to prepare two cups of coffee,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the selectable single-cup and two-cup controls used with corresponding removable filter baskets).
Speckbacher, Hoare and O’Loughlin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of coffee brewing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate interchangeable single- and double-dose filter arrangements with corresponding user-selectable beverage quantity controls as taught by O’Loughlin into the coffee machine of Speckbacher and Hoare, for the purpose of “suppl[ing] [appropriate amount of] water to prepare [a desired number of] cups of coffee” (O’Loughlin (translation), p. 2, ln. 63), in order to prepare differing quantities of coffee according to user selection, thereby predictably improving beverage flexibility and user customization.
PNG
media_image4.png
481
850
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of O’Loughlin
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 JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
