DETAILED ACTION
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 09/18/2026 has been entered and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new rejection has been made over McLaughlin (US 20110212229 A1) in view of Kuempel (US 20140314921 A1). A full rejection can be found below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin (US 20110212229 A1) in view of Kuempel (US 20140314921 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McLaughlin (US 20110212229 A1) teaches a coffee machine (Figure 8, brewing system 100), comprising:
a water supply (Figure 8, water source);
a water heater to heat water from the water supply (Paragraphs 32-33, water heater/reservoir which heats water from the water heater such as to achieve hot water);
a brewing chamber to receive coffee grinds and brewing coffee using the heated water delivered (Paragraph 33, brew group 130 comprising a cylindrical brewing chamber 132 positioned to receive coffee grounds from the grinder assembly 120 and water from the water reservoir 114; Paragraph 46, brewing occurs within the brewing chamber 132 of the brew group 130);
a sensor arrangement to measure operating characteristics of the coffee machine during preparation of a coffee beverage (Paragraphs 57-60, sensor array 200 which measures properties of the brewed liquid as the brewed liquid flows towards the dispensing container 90; Paragraph 57, location of the sensor array 200 is not limited the path downstream of the brew group);
a user interface to input user commands (Paragraph 71, user may input a desired beverage from a control panel 106); and
a controller (controller 210),
wherein the user interface is adapted to receive a user test command to determine suitable operating settings associated with a bean type or bean characteristics (Paragraph 30, beverage selection panel may give users the option to select a parameter of the brewed beverage; Paragraph 67, data from the sensing array 200 is used to identify the blend of coffee being used which is used to customize and optimize the brewing parameters for a particular blend coffee blend for subsequent brewing cycles), and wherein the controller is adapted, in response to the user test command, to perform a series of one or more test brewing cycles for the coffee beverage (Paragraph 44, operation of the components of the brewing system are automatically controlled by the controller 110 in response to the user entering a specific beverage request) to measure the operating characteristics using the sensor arrangement (Paragraphs 57-58, sensing array 200 measures and provides specific data regarding qualities of the brewed liquid that may be used to monitor the quality of the liquid) and thereby derive a set of suitable operating settings associated with the bean type or bean characteristics (Paragraph 67, data from the sensing array 200 is used to identify the blend of coffee being used which is used to customize and optimize the brewing parameters for a particular blend coffee blend for subsequent brewing cycles).
McLaughlin fails to teach:
a pump to pump the heated water;
perform a series of one or more test brewing cycles for the coffee beverage which is not intended for consumption to measure the operating characteristics using the sensor arrangement and thereby derive a set of suitable operating settings associated with the bean type or bean characteristics.
Kuempel (US 20140314921 A1) teaches a method for brewing coffee, comprising:
a water supply (water reservoir 120);
a water heater to heat water from the water supply (Paragraph 17, boiler 130 that heats water received from the reservoir 120);
a pump to pump the heated water (Paragraph 55, pump 150 to dispense a volume of heated
water in the boiler into the brew chamber);
perform a series of one or more test brewing cycles for the coffee beverage which is not intended for consumption to measure the operating characteristics using the sensor arrangement and thereby derive a set of suitable operating settings associated with the bean type or bean characteristics (Paragraph 82, roaster brews test cups of coffee on a master coffee brewing machines which records brewing parameters implemented by the roaster during the tests wherein the roaster selects a preferred or favorite test cup such that a recipe for that particular coffee bean based on the set of parameters recorded for the selected test cup is generated).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McLaughlin with Kuempel and have a heater heat the water from the water source as well as have a pump deliver the heater water. This would have been done to heat and deliver the water from the water source to the brewing chamber (Kuempel Paragraph 17).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McLaughlin with Kuempel and perform a series of test brewing cycles which are not intended for consumption to measure the operating characteristics and derive a recipe associated with the bean type or bean characteristic. This would have been done to generate a recipe for a particular coffee bean based on the set of parameters recorded for the desired test cup (Kuempel Paragraph 82).
The Office notes that it is well known in the art that determining the amount of soluble within a brewed beverage, such as by a sensor array (as taught by Kuempel Paragraph 63), is a more objective method of determining the characteristics of coffee than by taste as evidence by Paragraph 6 of Rahn (US 20050103202 A1). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to have had the test cups be intended for testing by means of the sensor array and not consumption.
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having the controller automatically begin a test command instead of having a user manually begin testing is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, McLaughlin as modified teaches the coffee machine of claim 1.
Kuempel further teaches:
the sensor arrangement is configured to sense a flow resistance or flow rate of the heated water through the coffee grinds in the brewing chamber (Paragraph 66, flow sensor and pump monitors a volume of heated water dispensed into the brew chamber and controls the pump accordingly; The Office notes that Page 9 Lines 24-28 of applicant’s specification teaches that a flow meter measuring flow from a pump sufficiently measures the flow rate through the coffee grinds).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McLaughlin with Kuempel and have the sensor array further comprise a flow sensor and pump monitor a volume of heated water. This would have been done to control the pump to deliver the desired water volume (Kuempel Paragraph 55) especially as one parameter which is controlled of modified, to provide the optimal strength and extraction targets which are dependent upon the particular blend or brand of coffee, includes the coffee to water ratio (McLaughlin Paragraphs 30 and 55).
The Office further notes that it is known in the art that controlling the flow of water induced by the pump when detecting considerable resistance in the flow of water through the coffee grounds is well known in the art as evidenced by DE MANGO (IT TO20120447 A1).
Regarding claim 3, McLaughlin as modified teaches the coffee machine of claim 1, wherein:
the suitable operating settings comprise water pressure (water pressure; Paragraphs 46-47 and 55, water pressure is an adjustable parameter maintained at a desired value to optimize brewing quality and/or speed based on a particular blend or brand of coffee) or water flow rate to be delivered by the pump
Kuempel further teaches:
the suitable operating settings comprise water pressure (water pressure; Paragraph 29, recipe includes brewing pressure) or water flow rate to be delivered by the pump (water flow rate; Paragraph 66, flow sensor and pump monitors a volume of heated water dispensed into the brew chamber and controls the pump accordingly; Paragraph 82, roaster can brew test cups of coffee which can record brewing parameters implemented by the roaster during the test; Paragraph 76, brew parameters include volume of heating water, final brew volume, and/or ratio of water to grounds specified in the recipe which all relate at least partially to the flow rate delivered by the pump; Paragraph 53, parameters also include adding water at a specified interval and flow rate).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McLaughlin with Kuempel and suitable operating settings comprise a flow sensor and a pump to monitor the water flow rate and pressure. This would have been done to control the pump to deliver the desired water volume (Kuempel Paragraph 55) to provide the optimal strength and extraction targets which are dependent upon the particular blend or brand of coffee (McLaughlin Paragraph 55).
The Office further notes that it is known in the art that controlling the flow of water induced by the pump when detecting considerable resistance in the flow of water through the coffee grounds is well known in the art as evidenced by DE MANGO (IT TO20120447 A1).
Regarding claim 4, McLaughlin as modified teaches the coffee machine of claim 1, wherein:
a bean grinder (Paragraph 32, grinder assembly 120 comprises two grinders 122 and 124), wherein the brewing chamber is configured to receive the coffee grinds from the bean grinder (Paragraph 33, brew group 130 receives brewable product from the grinding assembly 120).
Regarding claim 6, McLaughlin as modified teaches the coffee machine of claim 1, wherein:
the suitable operating settings comprise a grind size (grind size; Paragraph 55, the strength and extraction of a brewed beverage may be controlled or modified through different parameters in the brewing process including grind size) and/or bean grind time (grind time; Paragraph 62, controller uses the data to adjust one or more brewing parameters to achieve a desired and consistent brew quality including grind time).
Kuempel further teaches:
the suitable operating settings comprise a grind size (grind size; Paragraph 35, the coffee roaster can define, refine, or tweak a brew recipe specific to the roast batch such as a grind profile or grind size) and/or bean grind time.
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McLaughlin with Kuempel and suitable operating settings comprise a grind size. This would have been done refine a brew recipe specific to the roast batch (Kuempel Paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 7, McLaughlin as modified teaches the coffee machine of claim 1, wherein:
a tamping system to apply pressure to the coffee grinds in the brewing chamber (Paragraph 46-47, water pressure within the brewing chamber is maintained at a certain value by moving a lower piston assembly 150 and an upper piston assembly 140; Paragraph 46, pressure from water is applied to coffee within the brewing chamber; Paragraph 33, brew group 130 receives brewable product from the grinding assembly 120).
Regarding claim 8, McLaughlin as modified teaches the coffee machine of claim 7.
Kuempel further teaches:
the sensor arrangement is configured to sense a tamping force or tamping stroke applied by the tamping system (tamping stroke; Paragraph 74, linear or arcuate sensor is used to track to the position of the plunger and to guide displacement of the plunger).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McLaughlin with Kuempel and have the sensor arrangement detect a tamping stroke. This would have been done to assist the user during manual displacement of the plunger (Kuempel Paragraph 74).
The Office further notes that adjusting the tamping degree for tamping ground coffee based on a selected recipe is known in the art as evidenced by ABBIATI (US 20190357720 A1).
Regarding claim 9, McLaughlin as modified teaches the coffee machine of claim 8.
Kuempel further teaches:
the suitable operating settings comprise the tamping force or the tamping stroke applied by the tamping system (Paragraph 136, processor 290 can control the user interface to displace a guide to aid the user in maintaining a proper pressure specified in the selected brew recipe within the brew chamber by applying torque to the lever).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 8.
The Office further notes that adjusting the tamping degree for tamping ground coffee based on a selected recipe is known in the art as evidenced by ABBIATI (US 20190357720 A1).
Regarding claim 10, McLaughlin as modified teaches the coffee machine of claim 1, wherein:
the controller is further adapted to determine the bean type or bean characteristics from the measured operating characteristics (Paragraph 67, data from the sensing array 200 may be used to distinguish between different coffee bean species and to identify specific types of coffee)
Regarding claim 11, McLaughlin as modified teaches the coffee machine of claim 1, wherein:
the controller is further adapted to:
configure the coffee machine to the set of suitable operating settings automatically after the one or more test brewing cycles (Paragraph 58, data from the sensing array 200 provides feedback that may be used to initially configure particular settings of the system 100, and/or to monitor each brew to provide feedback that may be used to adjust brew parameters to maintain optimal product quality); and/or
output to a user the set of suitable operating settings to enable the user to adjust the suitable operating settings of the coffee machine (Paragraph 80, brewing system 100 provides a means for transmitting results from the sensor array 200 to alert the user if maintenance is required; Paragraph 71, taste profile of the coffee can be adjusted by the user adjusting parameters of the coffee).
Kuempel further teaches:
the controller is further adapted to:
configure the coffee machine to the set of suitable operating settings automatically after the one or more test brewing cycles (Paragraph 87, recipe for the particular coffee bean is transmitted to identified coffee brewing machines after the favorite test cup is selected from the one or more test brewing cycles; one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have configured the master coffee machine to have used to recipe); and/or
output to a user the set of suitable operating settings to enable the user to adjust the suitable operating settings of the coffee machine (Paragraph 94, recipe is generated along with manually selected or entered brew parameters for the coffee bean; Paragraph 59, recipe can be manipulated according to user inputs to brew the coffee bean)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin (US 20110212229 A1) in view of Kuempel (US 20140314921 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Muheim (US 20190301924 A1).
Regarding claim 5, McLaughlin as modified teaches the coffee machine of claim 4, wherein:
bean grind time is adjusted (Paragraph 12, grinder time is adjusted to adjust the amount of brewable product received into the brewing chamber)
McLaughlin as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the sensor arrangement is configured to sense at least one of:
characteristics of energy supply to the bean grinder; and
bean grind time.
Muheim (US 20190301924 A1) teaches a weighing assembly for ground coffee, wherein:
the sensor arrangement is configured to sense at least one of:
characteristics of energy supply to the bean grinder; and
bean grind time (bean grind time; Paragraphs 16-20 and 57-62, grinding time is measured and a new grinding time will be calculated and applied if the measured amount of weight of coffee is not within a tolerance range).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McLaughlin with McLaughlin and have grind time be measured. This would have been done to update a new grinding time to suitable for obtaining the desired weight of the coffee dose for the selected drink (Muheim Paragraph 57).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin (US 20110212229 A1) in view of Kuempel (US 20140314921 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TORIZU (US 20240008675 A1).
Regarding claim 12, McLaughlin as modified teaches the coffee machine of claim 1.
Kuempel fails to teach:
a waste water bin, and a discharge system to discharge results of the one or more test brewing cycles to the waste water bin.
TORIZU (US 20240008675 A1) teaches a coffee beverage production device, wherein:
a waste water bin (waste tank T), and a discharge system to discharge results of the one or more test brewing cycles to the waste water bin (Paragraph 156, switching unit 10 feeds liquid from the extraction container 9 to the waste tank T; Figure 11 Paragraph 246, discharge process S4 occurs as part of the brewing cycles wherein the extraction container is cleaned and the water inside the extraction container is discharged to the water tank together with a residue of the ground beans).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McLaughlin with TORIZU and have a waste water bin as well as a discharge system. This would have been done to facilitate cleaning of the extraction chamber (TORIZU Paragraph 246).
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 FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
