DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/28/26 and 6/2/26 was filed after the mailing date of the last Office action on 3/9/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendments to the specification and claims have overcome the objection to the specification and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 of claims 9-15 set forth in the last Office action mailed on 3/9/26. Applicant arguments on page 11, paragraph 3 of the Remarks in regards to the rejection of claim 7 reciting “in such a way that” and the rejection of claim 8 reciting “smaller” under 35 U.S.C. 112 are persuasive and the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Status
Claims 1-21, and 23-26 are pending, with claims 1-21, and 23 being examined, claim 22 is newly canceled, and claims 24-26 were previously withdrawn. Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitations and features of canceled claim 22 of “wherein the fully automatic coffee machine has a bypass line starting from a hot water boiler to a dispensing unit (19) with one or more control elements, wherein a dispensing of hot water takes place to achieve a predetermined coffee volume.”, and to include the new limitations of “simultaneously with the brewing process and/or the dispensing of coffee from the brewing unit,” which were not included in claim 22 of the previous examined claims dated 7/19/23.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, page 5, line 4, “dispensing unit (19)” should read “dispensing unit (10)” as disclosed on page 12, lines 12-17, and Figs.1a-1c.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11, 14-21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugster [DE 202016008296 U1] in view of Sonnek et al. [WO2019204759A1], hereinafter Sonnek.
Regarding claim 1, Eugster teaches a method for making a coffee beverage with a filter-coffee taste by means of a fully automatic coffee machine, wherein the fully automatic coffee machine has at least one brewing unit with a brewing chamber (brewing chamber 1) [0001] and has a plunger (piston 5) [0042], which is movable (adjustable) in the brewing chamber for setting a brewing chamber volume [0018], wherein the method comprises the following steps:
filling the brewing chamber with ground coffee [0041]; and
feeding water into the brewing chamber [0042], for the purpose of extraction in the course of a brewing process.
While Eugster does not explicitly recite the brewing chamber volume is greater than a volume of the ground coffee specifically in a loosely filled state in the brewing chamber, Eugster teaches an alternative embodiment in which the ground coffee is pressed (i.e., tamped or compacted state) into the brewing chamber beforehand. Therefore, Eugster teaches an embodiment wherein at least the plunger is arranged during at least one brewing phase of the brewing process in a position in which a brewing chamber volume is greater than a volume of the ground coffee in a loosely filled state in the brewing chamber after the filling according to step a has taken place [0019, 0046].
Eugster teaches wherein the brewing process comprises a number of brewing phases (I, II, III) in which water is made to pass through the ground coffee with different flow rates relative to the brewing phases (I, II, III) [0033, 0047-0048, Fig.2, Fig.6], and
wherein a change between the brewing phases (I,II, Ill) is performed by determining a physical variable in the form of amount and/or volume of water supplied (different average brewing water volume flow depending on a sensor signal of a flow meter [Abstract, 0001]) and/or amount of coffee removed (and/or different sub-phase brewing water quantity and/or by a different sub-phase time duration, which would remove different amounts of coffee, i.e., different extract volumes) [0049].
Eugster does not teach wherein the fully automatic coffee machine has a bypass line starting from a hot water boiler to a dispensing unit with one or more control elements, wherein a dispensing of hot water takes place simultaneously with the brewing process and/or the dispensing of coffee from the brewing unit, to achieve a predetermined coffee volume.
Sonnek teaches a method for producing a brewed beverage using a brewing apparatus of a brewing machine to reduce the time (as disclosed on page 12, lines 16-23 of the instant specification) to produce a brewed beverage through a sequence of steps [Sonnek, abstract]. The method provides a coffee machine having a bypass line (heated water bypass line 130 directly connected to heated water dispensing line 100 [Sonnek, 0036; Fig.1]) starting from a hot water boiler (heated water dispensing line 100 starting from tank/boiler 3 or 74 of the heated water tank assembly 62 comprising tanks 70, 72, 74, with heating devices 76, 78, 80 [Sonnek, 0033; Fig.1], which are equivalent to the claimed hot water boiler) to a dispensing unit (dispense line 122, dispense valve 123, dispense valve 124 coupled to controller 44, and dispense nozzle 126 [Sonnek, 0035; Fig.1]) with one or more control elements (controller 44, controllable hot water bypass valve 132 controlled by the controller 44 [Sonnek, 0035-0036; Fig.1]), wherein a dispensing of hot water takes place simultaneously with the brewing process and/or the dispensing of coffee from the brewing unit (the heated water dispensing line 100 and coffee dispensing lines 122/128 a heated water bypass line 130 and controllable hot water bypass valve 132 are provided to provide heated bypass water. The bypass line 130 and coffee dispensing lines 122/128 are brought together at the dispensing nozzle 126 for combination with the dispensed coffee [Sonnek, 0036; Fig.1], therefore equivalent to dispensing of hot water takes place simultaneously with the brewing process and/or the dispensing of coffee from the brewing unit as claimed), to achieve a predetermined coffee volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a bypass line starting from a hot water boiler to a dispensing unit with one or more control elements, wherein a dispensing of hot water takes place simultaneously with the brewing process and/or the dispensing of coffee from the brewing unit as taught by Sonnek, into the method of Eugster, because Sonnek teaches that this would provide for the mixing of the bypass heated water with the brewed and/or dispensed coffee at the dispensing point so that there is no appearance of separate flow paths to the consumer receiving their beverage at a container or cup [Sonnek, 0036; Fig.1].
Regarding claim 2, Eugster teaches wherein the a change of the brewing phases (I, II, III) is adjusted by detecting the supplied amount of water by taking into account a supplied amount of ground coffee [0021, 0033, 0047-0048, Fig.2, Fig.6], (if the amount of coffee is matched to the initial brewing chamber volume before the brewing water is introduced, increasing brewing water flow during a brewing phase which may be divided into three phases with different volume flow).
Regarding claim 3, Eugster teaches wherein the change of the brewing phases (I, II, III) is performed by detecting measured values by a measuring sensor (flow meter), wherein the measuring sensor is arranged downstream of the brewing unit in terms of flow [0001].
Regarding claims 4-5, Eugster teaches wherein the water flows through the ground coffee during the at least one brewing phase without exerting a mechanical contact pressure on the ground coffee [0019] that is further compressive (compressed after the brewing water is introduced) compared to the loosely filled state, and wherein the ground coffee is substantially present in an uncompacted manner in the loosely filled state at the start of step b [0021].
Regarding claim 7, Eugster teaches wherein at the beginning of step b only the ground coffee is arranged inside the brewing chamber [0018], (since the coffee grounds are collected directly in the brewing chamber from an integrated grinder and in some embodiments the dry coffee grounds may be compressed, therefore dry coffee grounds in the brewing chamber reads on the claimed “at the beginning of step b only the ground coffee is arranged inside the brewing chamber”).
Regarding claim 8, Eugster teaches wherein the brewing process comprises a first brewing phase (I), a second brewing phase (II), and a third brewing phase (III) [0052]. With regards to the terms “first, second, and third” flow rates, given that each flow rate used in each stage I, II, and III of Eugster are different flow rates (i.e., 200, 120, 150 ml/min respectively), under the broadest reasonable interpretation Eugster teaches a first, second, and third flow rate [0052]. With regards to the second flow rate is “smaller” than the first and/or the third flow rate, Eugster teaches a second flow rate of 120 ml/min, a first flow rate of 200 ml/min, and a third flow rate of 150 ml/min [0052]. Furthermore, a skilled artisan would recognize the selection or designation of a first, second and/or third flow rates to different flow rate volumes accordingly based on the desired extraction profile (i.e., higher/lower flowrate at the initial, during, final stages).
Regarding claim 9, Eugster teaches wherein the flow rate for at least one brewing phase of the brewing process is less than 10 ml/s (120 ml/min= 2 ml/s) [0052].
Regarding claim 11, see claim 8 discussion above, where a skilled artisan would recognize the selection or designation of a first, second and/or third flow rates to different flow rate volumes accordingly based on the desired extraction profile (i.e., higher/lower flowrate at the initial, during, final stages), and further Eugster teaches wherein the flow rate for at least the second brewing phase (II) of the brewing process is 2-5 ml/s (120 ml/min= 2 ml/s) [0052].
Regarding claim 14, Eugster teaches wherein the plunger performs, prior to step b, a shaping process of a bulk of the ground coffee, so that the volume of the brewing chamber is reduced during the shaping process [0021], since the brewing piston in Eugster (optionally) may be adjusted to exert no or a slight compact pressure on the dry coffee grounds inside the brewing chamber, therefore reducing the volume of the brewing chamber as it moves in the direction of the ground coffee.
Regarding claim 15, Eugster teaches wherein prior to the brewing process, the plunger is returned to a first position so that the volume of the brewing chamber expands again [0046], since an electromotive adjustment drive assigned to the brewing piston may adjust the position of the piston inside the brewing chamber (pressing the ground coffee) and moving back to the initial position, increasing the volume of the brewing chamber before the supply of the brewing water for the brewing process.
Regarding claim 16, Eugster teaches the piston moving from a starting position (first position) to a second position (compressing ground coffee) and back to the first position increasing the volume of the brewing chamber as discussed above in claim 15, and while Eugster does not explicitly recites the piston remains in the first position during the entire brewing process, it would have been reasonable to expect that Eugster would also provide for the piston remaining in the first position during the entire process as claimed, since the adjusting of the piston increase/decrease the volume of the brewing chamber in order to supply a larger/smaller brewing water volume, and since the method is also additionally capable of performing the brewing process with the same (identical) brewing water volume flow during at least one brewing profile [Eugster, 0015], explicitly teaching using the same volume of brewing water, therefore implicitly teaching leaving the piston at the first position during the entire brewing process.
Regarding claim 17, Eugster teaches wherein the plunger can be adjusted to a second position in which it the plunger rests on the ground coffee along an end face without exerting a contact pressure on the ground coffee during the shaping process, since the brewing piston in Eugster (optionally) may be adjusted to exert no or a slight compact pressure on the dry coffee grounds inside the brewing chamber, therefore reducing the volume of the brewing chamber as it moves in the direction of the ground coffee [0021].
Regarding claim 18, Eugster teaches wherein the plunger in the first position, is present in a maximally extended position, limited by a structural design of the brewing unit, the piston moving from a starting position (first position, maximally extended position) to a second position (compressing ground coffee) and back to the first position (maximally extended position) increasing the volume of the brewing chamber as discussed above in claim 15, and since the brewing chamber is axially delimited by the brewing piston [0018].
Regarding claim 19, Eugster teaches wherein the fully automatic coffee machine has a filter (filter cake) as part of the brewing unit [0018].
Regarding claim 20, Eugster teaches wherein a brewing pressure during the brewing process is less than 4 bar (2 bar during the pre-infusion phase) [0019].
Regarding claim 21, Eugster teaches the brewing chamber is closed during the brewing process except for an inlet for hot water and/or an outlet for coffee, since in the brewing position, the brewing cylinder is adjusted in the direction of the brewing piston, thus closing the brewing chamber, and after a predetermined volume of brewing water has been reached in the brewing chamber a valve is opened and coffee flow into an outlet [0042].
Regarding claim 23, Eugster teaches wherein a stepwise adjustment of a flow rate is performed during the brewing process to alternate between two brewing phases, since at least two selectable brewing profiles can be selected by corresponding desired specification or parameterization to the effect that the order of partial phases of the respective brewing profile varies from one another with different brewing water volume flows, (i.e., volume flow b) is reversed or swapped. For example, a preceding first partial phase of a first brewing profile has a brewing water volume flow of (a ml/min) and a later, subsequent or second partial phase of the first brewing profile of a brewing water volume flow of (b ml/min), while in the second brewing profile the preceding first partial phase has a brewing water volume flow of (b ml/min) and a later, second, or third, etc. subphase has a brewing water flow rate of (a ml/min) or (c ml/min), where flow rates (a, b, and c ml/min) are different [0015].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugster [DE 202016008296 U1] in view of Sonnek [WO2019204759A1] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martin et al. [US 20090293733 A1], hereinafter Martin.
Regarding claim 6, modified Eugster teaches the method discussed above in claim 1 rejection and further teaches that the method includes a brewing chamber whose volume can be changed, adjusted or increased by a pressing action of a piston [0018], at the beginning of step b (feeding water into brewing chamber step) [Eugster, 0021], but does not explicitly teach the brewing chamber volume at the beginning of step b is at least 50% larger than the volume of the ground coffee in the loosely filled state.
Martin teaches a method for making a coffee beverage [Abstract], wherein the method provide means to meter a quantity of ground coffee into the brew chamber, and the filter coffee brewing position to which the piston is movable is such as to provide a volume in the brewing chamber that is at least 50% larger than the volume of the ground coffee in the loosely (uncompacted) filled state [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a brewing chamber volume at the beginning of step b is at least 50% larger than the volume of the ground coffee in the loosely filled state as taught by Martin, into the method of modified Eugster, since Eugster already teaches increasing the volume of the brewing chamber at the beginning of step b but simply did not mention the specific value of 50%, and further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a brewing chamber volume at the beginning of step b is at least 50% larger than the volume of the ground coffee in the loosely filled state, because Martin teaches that this will allow for preparation of different drink volumes, amounts or size as the required quantity of water for a cup of coffee has been supplied, or nearly all the required quantity has been supplied [Martin, 0022].
Claim(s) 10, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugster [DE 202016008296 U1] in view of Sonnek [WO2019204759A1] as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Tibbe [WO 2020126755 A1], and evidenced by Schnelle et al. [US 20200093321 A1], hereinafter Schnelle (for claims 10 and 12).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, see claim 8 discussion above, where Eugster teaches the brewing process comprises a first brewing phase (I), a second brewing phase (II), and a third brewing phase (III), wherein each brewing phase having a different flow rate of a first, second, and third, see claim 9 discussion above regarding the flow rate for at least one brewing phase of the brewing process being less than 10 ml/s), and flow rates (i.e., 200, 120, 150 ml/min respectively), thus teaching flow rates in the range of from 120-200 ml/min or 2-3.3 ml/s [Eugster, 0052].
Eugster is silent regarding the flow rate for at least the first brewing phase (I) of the brewing process being 5-10 ml/s as required by claim 10, and the flow rate for at least the third brewing phase (III) of the brewing process being 10-15 ml/s as required by claim 12.
Tibbe teaches a coffee machine and method for making coffee beverages [Abstract], wherein the method provides a flow rate in the range of from 3-5 ml/s [p.12, l.19-22], and may also provide for a flow rate of around 15 ml/s [p.12, l.24-25], which are flow rates within the claimed flow rate values of 5-10 ml/s for flow rate of claim 10, and 10-15 ml/s for flow rate of claim 12.
Furthermore;
Schnelle (relied upon as evidence) directed to a coffee machine and methods for preparing brewed beverages such as coffee [Schnelle, Abstract, 0006], disclose that for larger drinks such as a large coffee with 200 ml of water, a flow rate of 10 ml/s may be selected [Schnelle, 0028], and that the flow rate is determined by the type of beverage (i.e., standard coffee, espresso, cappuccino, americano or other coffee types) [Schnelle, 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a flow rate for at least the first brewing phase (I) of the brewing process of 5-10 ml/s and a flow rate for at least the third brewing phase (III) of the brewing process of 10-15 ml/s as taught by Tibbe, into the method of modified Eugster, because Eugster already teaches variations in flow rate and does not teach a flow rate upper or lower limit. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a flow rate for at least the first brewing phase (I) of the brewing process of 5-10 ml/s and a flow rate for at least the third brewing phase (III) of the brewing process of 10-15 ml/s as taught by Tibbe, because Tibbe teaches that using the different flow rates of 5 ml/s and 15 ml/s would allow for production of different coffee beverages such as espresso and filter coffee (also referred to as drip filter coffee) [Tibbe, p.12, l.11-25], and lastly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed flow rates, because the said claimed flow rates would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to the ratios of ingredients being used during extraction (water, coffee grounds), and/or the desired taste of the final beverage coffee product, and/or the desired type of coffee beverage (i.e., standard coffee, espresso, cappuccino, americano or other coffee types), size or volume of the coffee beverage desired by the consumer as evidenced by Schnelle [Schnelle, 0028].
Regarding claim 13, modified Eugster teaches the method according to claim 1 discussed above, and further teaches wherein the fully automatic coffee machine comprises a coffee grinder [0018, claim 9], wherein the method comprises grinding coffee beans [0014, 0018, claim 9].
Eugster does not explicitly recites grinding coffee beans specifically for filter coffee.
Tibbe teaches the coffee machine and method for making coffee beverages discussed above, wherein the coffee machine comprises a coffee grinder [p.4, l.11-12], and is suitable for producing ground coffee specifically for drip filter coffee [p.4, l.11-14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a coffee grinder that is capable of grinding coffee beans for filter coffee as taught by Tibbe, into the method of modified Eugster, since Eugster already teaches the fully automatic coffee machine comprises a coffee grinder, but simply did not mention grinding coffee beans specifically for filter coffee. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to grind coffee beans for filter coffee as taught by Tibbe, because Tibbe teaches that this will allow added functionality into a brewed beverage making method where the fully automatic coffee machine can prepare not only espresso type coffee beverages (which uses fine coffee grind size) but also real drip filter coffee (uses coarse coffee grind size) made from freshly ground beans [p.4, l.11-14].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21, and 23 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.
The rejection has been amended in view of Applicant amendment of claim 1 requiring the new limitations of “simultaneously with the brewing process and/or the dispensing of coffee from the brewing unit,” for the dispensing of hot water with the brewing process and/or the dispensing of coffee from the brewing unit. The new rejection of record is over Eugster [DE 202016008296 U1], (which was relied upon for the rejection set forth in the last Office action) in view of Sonnek et al. [WO2019204759A1], hereinafter Sonnek, which is the new prior art of record relied upon for the new limitations as discussed above.
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 LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights