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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under PCT Rule 11.13(b) because Figs. 1-7, 9 and 12 contain cross-sections indicated by solid black shading rather than oblique hatching. Corrected drawings are required in which cross-sections are indicated by oblique hatching which does not impede the clear reading of reference signs and leading lines.
The drawings are objected to under PCT Rule 11.13(e) because reference numerals appearing in the drawings are enclosed in circles. Corrected drawings are required in which all numbers, letters and reference lines are simple and clear, without brackets, circles or inverted commas used in association with numbers and letters.
Specification
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/SE2022/050074 and of the Swedish patent application SE2150367-7 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 1/26/2022, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 9/12/2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ [0121],
“the distributor’s axel” (2 places) should read “the distributor’s axle”;
“the handle I pressed down” should read “the handle is pressed down”; and
“distributer” (3 places) should read “distributor”.
In ¶ [0134], “bodyholder” should read “body holder.”
In ¶ [0143], “distributer” should read “distributor”.
In ¶¶ [0116] and [0144], “claims 7-9” have been cancelled to be replaced by “claims 21-23.”
In ¶ [0115], “claim 2” has been cancelled to be replaced by “claim 16.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 23 and 25-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 23, “the into the compartment” should read “into the compartment.”
In claims 25 and 26, “according claim 15” should read “according to claim 15.”
in claim 27, “wherein in the liquid” should read “wherein the liquid.”
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(s) is/are:
“locking device” in claim 19; and
“adjusting device” in claims 21-23.
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 “locking device” in claim 19, the generic term “device” is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The recited function is releasably locking the distributor and tamper when the tamper reaches a designated lowest position representing the desired level of tamping of the ground beverage-making substances. The corresponding structure includes button 301, square shape 302, lacking surface 303, hole 401, button 1301, button frame 1302, actuating rod 1303, axle 1304, locking device attachment 1305, and associated locking components described in ¶¶ [0120] and [0125], and shown in Fig. 13, together with equivalents thereof.
Regarding the term “adjusting device” in claim 21, the generic term “device” is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The recited function is adjusting how hard the tamper tamps the ground beverage-making substance held in the compartment. The corresponding structure includes threaded surface 102, threaded surface 703, body holder 7, lower catch 33, rod 34, body holder 35, and the adjustment mechanisms described in ¶¶ [0116], [0127]-[0129], and [0144], together with equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) a function without reciting sufficient structure, materials, or acts for performing the entire claimed function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“driving means” in claim 15; and
“contacting means” in claim 18.
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 only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the term “driving means” in claim 15, the recited function is driving the rotation of the distributor and tamping movement and pressing of the tamper. The corresponding structure is disclosed, for example, in ¶¶ [0121] and [0134], including a handle (Figs. 1-9: 4) for manual operation, an actuator (Fig. 13: 1301-1306) for actuating the locking mechanism and driving rotation, a motor as described in ¶ [0134] and shown in Fig. 12, and a driving axle as shown in Fig. 12 for powered and automated embodiments, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the term “contacting means” in claim 18, the recited function is contacting the compartment containing the ground, beverage-making substance. The corresponding structure is disclosed, for example, in ¶ [0130], including contacting means 104 formed by the lower edge of body 1 having a radius matching that of the portafilter, groove-and-abutment arrangements between the contacting means and the portafilter, releasable fastening devices for establishing contact between the portafilter and the device, and equivalents thereof.
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 recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 15-28 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.
Claim 15 is indefinite because the phrase “such as a motor, a handle or an actuator” in line 13 is exemplary language that renders it unclear whether these examples are intended to limit the scope of “driving means” or are merely illustrative, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 is indefinite because the limitation “configured to be brought into contact with the ground beverage-making substance from the same direction, preferably from above” in lines 19-20 renders it unclear whether “from above” is a required limitation of the claim or merely an optional preference, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claims 16-27 are also rejected for the same reason due to their dependency from claim 15.
Claim 16 is indefinite because the limitation “preferably horizontal” in line 3 renders it unclear whether “horizontal” is a required limitation of the claim or merely an optional preference, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 16 is indefinite because the term “essentially” in “essentially an even surface” is a term of degree that is not defined in the specification with sufficient clarity to inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the claim, rendering the intended scope of the claim unclear.
Claim 20 is indefinite because the limitation “easily be reached” in line 4 is subjective and depends on the size and dexterity of an individual human hand, which can vary from person to person, without sufficient guidance in the specification to determine the scope of the claim.
Claim 20 is indefinite because the term “suitable for human grip” in line 5 is subjective and depends on the size of an individual human hand, which can vary from person to person, without sufficient guidance in the specification to determine the scope of the claim.
Claim 25 recites “the one or more driving means” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 is indefinite because the preamble recites “the device according to claim 15” suggesting a further limitation of the device, but the wherein clause “the device is part of a larger machine that also grinds the ground, beverage making substance and/or passes liquid under pressure through the ground, beverage-making substance” describes a context in which the device is used rather than further limiting the structure of the device itself, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. Applicant may consider amending claim 26 to an independent claim that incorporates the device limitations of claim 15.
Claim 28 is indefinite because the term “particularly express” in line 1 is exemplary language that renders it unclear whether “espresso” is a required limitation of the claim or merely illustrative, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 28 is indefinite because the limitation “such as a filter, portafilter or strainer” in line 3 is exemplary language that renders it unclear whether these examples are intended to limit the scope of the claim or are merely illustrative, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 28 is further indefinite because the limitation “preferably downwards” in line 8 renders it unclear whether “downwards” is a required limitation of the claim or merely an optional preference, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 28 is further indefinite because the limitation “preferably from above” in line 17 renders it unclear whether “from above” is a required limitation of the claim or merely an optional preference, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 15, 18-19 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia et al. (WO 2014165905) hereinafter Grassia, in view of Gillaspie (US 20120048120).
Regarding claim 15, Grassia discloses
a device (Fig. 12: 150, “espresso coffee machine”) for distributing and tamping (Grassia (translation), p. 12, ln. 50: “distribute coffee grounds within the portafilter, using the motorized temper augur”) a ground, beverage making substance, particularly coffee (“coffee grounds”), held in a compartment such as a filter, portafilter or strainer (Fig. 19: 200, “portafilter”), as part of a process for making a beverage, particularly espresso (“espresso”) by, subsequently to distributing and tamping (p. 12, ln. 50), passing liquid under pressure through the ground beverage-making substance (“coffee grounds”), held in the compartment (200) (the preamble language reciting that the device is used “as part of a process for making a beverage” and that liquid is subsequently passed under pressure through the ground beverage-making substance is considered an intended use of the claimed device and does not further limit the structure of the claimed device. MPEP 2111.02(I)), the device (310) comprising:
a tamper (Fig. 26: 285: “augur fan”) for tamping the ground, beverage-making substance (“coffee grounds”) by moving the tamper (285) in a tamping direction, preferably downwards, and applying pressure on the ground, beverage- making substance (“coffee grounds”) (Grassia (translation), p. 5, lns. 15-16: “A tamping augur comprises a rotating augur fan that fits within or otherwise cooperates with the filter basket of a portafilter. The augur fan of the tamping augur rotates within the filter basket to both compress the ground coffee in the filter basket and create a uniform upper surface”; p. 12, lns. 27-29: “When the level of coffee grinds rises within the portafilter, the grind will overcome the effect of the spring 288 and restore the augur fan to the horizontal or perpendicular condition … Thus, the tamping and polishing process will be completed with the fan in a stable perpendicular orientation relative to the shaft 253”; the examiner interprets the compression of the ground coffee by the augur fan 285 during the tamping process as teaching tamping by applying pressure on the ground beverage-making substance in a tamping direction); and
at least one driving means, such as a motor (Fig. 21: 251, “electric motor”), a handle or an actuator, for driving the rotation of the distributor (pivoting augur assembly) and tamping movement and pressing of the tamper (285) (Grassia (translation), p. 12, lns. 1-2: “a motorised tamping augur 250 has an electric motor 251 that drives a power train or gearing assembly 252 which in turn drives the shaft 253 to which the augur fan is directly or indirectly affixed”; p. 12, lns. 40-41: “The augur is driven by a DC motor”),
wherein the tamper (285) is mounted on shaft (253) on a central axis (Fig. 21) and configured to be brought into contact with the ground, beverage-making substance (“coffee grounds”) from the same direction, preferably from above (p. 12, ln. 40: “Ground coffee is dispensed 316 above the tamper augur's fan”; p. 5, lns. 15-16: “The augur fan of the tamping augur rotates within the filter basket to both compress the ground coffee in the filter basket and create a uniform upper surface”; Fig. 21; the examiner interprets the augur fan operating within the portafilter beneath the dispensed coffee grounds as teaching contact with the coffee grounds from above), during normal operation (p. 5, lns. 15-16; p. 12, ln. 52; the examiner interprets these disclosures as describing the normal operating condition of the device).
Grassia does not explicitly discloses
a distributor for evenly distributing the ground, beverage-making substance in the compartment by rotation of the distributor when in contact with the ground, beverage-making substance,
tamping the ground, beverage-making substance by the tamper is subsequent to evenly distributing the ground, beverage-making substance by a distributor,
wherein the tamper and the distributor are directly or indirectly attached to one another in an operative state and that in the operative state the tamper and the distributor are concentrically arranged.
However, Gillaspie discloses, in Fig. 2, a device for evenly distributing ground coffee in a portafilter basket prior to tamping (¶ [0031]: “a device incorporating a disk with tines to stir espresso ground coffee in an espresso portafilter basket to create a more even distribution of the grounds after dosing and prior to tamping”), the device comprising,
a distributor (9, “stirring disk”) for evenly distributing the ground, beverage-making substance (¶ [0031]: “ground coffee”) in the compartment (11, “filter basket”) by rotation of the distributor (9) when in contact with the ground, beverage-making substance (“ground coffee”) (¶ [0031]; ¶ [0044]: “The Stirring Disk is rotated so the tines can gently stir the ground coffee in the filter basket”; the examiner interprets the rotating stirring disk 9 with tines as corresponding to the distributor in contact with the ground, beverage-making substance),
tamping the ground, beverage-making substance (“ground coffee”) by the tamper is subsequent to evenly distributing the ground, beverage-making substance (“ground coffee”) by a distributor (9) (¶ [0031]: “a more even distribution of the grounds … prior to tamping”),
wherein the tamper and the distributor (9) are directly or indirectly attached to one another in an operative state and that in the operative state the tamper and the distributor are concentrically arranged (Grassia Fig. 21 shows augur fan 285 mounted on shaft 235 on a central axis; Fig. 2 of Gillaspie shows a worm gear assembly 4 is mounted on a centrally positioned axle, and driven by a driving means, such as a motor 5; ¶ [0032]: “Clark’s Pre-Tamp can be … electrically operated, and it can be … attached to or incorporated into other devices used in the preparation of espresso coffee”; ¶ [0102]: “The invention could be incorporated into a tamper”; ¶ [0103]: “The invention could be incorporated into a machine that accomplished all four tasks: grinding, dosing, distributing and tamping”; the examiner interprets the central axis mounting of Grassia’s augur fan 285 on shaft 253 and Gillaspie’s centrally positioned worm gear assembly 8, in combination, as teaching the tamper and distributor concentrically arranged in the operative state).
Grassia and Gillaspie are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a device to prepare coffee. 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 Gillaspie’s rotating distributor into Grassia’s tamping device in order to “evenly distribute the grounds in the filter basket employing the stirring disk [prior to] tamp[ing].” Gillaspie, ¶ [0102].
PNG
media_image1.png
565
411
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 12 of Grassia
PNG
media_image2.png
592
914
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 19, 21, 23 and 26 of Grassia
PNG
media_image3.png
651
404
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Gillaspie
Regarding claim 18, Grassia in view of Gillaspie teaches the device (Grassia: 150) according to claim 15, wherein the device (Grassia: 150) further comprises contacting means (Grassia: 201, 220) for contacting the compartment (Grassia: 200) containing the ground, beverage making substance (Grassia: “coffee grounds”) (Grassia (translation), p. 3, lns. 22-23: “the portafilter 200 has just been fully elevated into position with the underside of the fill head”; p. 11, ln. 36: “the portafilter 200 is inserted into the collar 220”; p. 11, lns. 3-4: “The fill head 201 receives ground coffee from the grinder and … contains and orients the rotating tamping augur”; the examiner interprets the fill head 201 and collar 220 that physically engage and position the portafilter 200 during filling and tamping operations, as teaching contacting means for contacting the compartment containing the ground beverage-making substance).
Regarding claim 19, Grassia in view of Gillaspie teaches
the device (Grassia: 150) according to claim 15, wherein the device (Grassia: 150) further comprises a locking device (Fig. 24: 288, “compression spring”; 290, “tilt limiting screw”) that releasably locks the distributor (Gillaspie: 9, “stirring disk”) and tamper (Grassia: 285, “augur fan”) when the tamper (Grassia: 285) reaches a designated lowest position representing the desired level of tamping of the ground, beverage making substance (“coffee grounds”) (Grassia (translation), p. 12, lns. 27-30: “When the level of coffee grinds rises within the portafilter, the grind will overcome the effect of the spring 288 and restore the augur fan to the horizontal or perpendicular condition shown in Figure 24. Thus, the tamping and polishing process will be completed with the fan in a stable perpendicular orientation relative to the shaft 253. The amount of tilt or wobble of the fan 285 relative to the shaft 253 can be limited or adjustably limited by an abutment or vertical adjustment feature or screw 290”; the examiner interprets the compression spring 288 and the tilt limiting screw 290, as corresponding to the claimed locking device because these structures cooperate to stop and hold the tamper 285 in a stable perpendicular orientation at the designated lowest position representing the desired level of tamping of the ground beverage-making substance, and as the tamper 285 and distributor 9 are directly or indirectly attached to one another and concentrically arranged in the operative state per claim 15, the locking of the tamper 285 at the designated lowest position necessarily locks the distributor 9 therewith).
PNG
media_image4.png
145
207
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 24 of Grassia
Regarding claim 21, Grassia in view of Gillaspie teaches the device according (Grassia: 150) to claim 15, wherein the device (Grassia: 150) further comprises an adjusting device configured to adjust how hard the tamper tamps the ground, beverage making substance (Grassia: “coffee ground”) held in the compartment (Grassia: 200) (Grassia (translation), p. 2, lns. 25-27: “a height adjustment mechanism for the augur fan … user preferences regarding the compaction height of a dose and portafilter may be user adjusted”; p. 12, lns. 2-3: “the vertical location or vertical height of the [augur] fan 254 is manually adjustable”; p. 12, lns. 10-11: “the augur fan vertical height is established by threading or unthreading the hub 259 (or fan) relative to the shaft 253”; the examiner interprets Grassia as teaching that adjusting the vertical position of the tamping fan changes the compaction height of the coffee grounds within the portafilter, thereby adjusting how hard the tamper tamps the ground beverage-making substances).
Regarding claim 22, Grassia in view of Gillaspie teaches the device (Grassia: 150) according to claim 21, wherein the adjusting device is configured to adjust how hard the tamper tamps the ground, beverage making substance (Grassia: “coffee grounds”) held in the compartment (Grassia: 200), and to adjust how far in the tamping direction and into the compartment the tamper goes when tamping (Grassia (translation), p. 2, lns. 25-27; p. 12, lns. 2-3; p. 12, lns. 10-11; Fig. 21; the examiner interprets Grassia as teaching that adjusting the vertical position of the tamping fan not only changes the compaction of the coffee grounds, but also changes the depth to which the tamping fan extends into the portafilter during tamping, corresponding to the claimed adjustment of tamping force and tamping depth).
Regarding claim 23, Grassia in view of Gillaspie teaches the device (Grassia: 150) according to claim 22, wherein adjusting how far in the tamping direction and the into the compartment (Grassia: 200) the tamper (Grassia: 285) goes when tamping is done by adjusting a height difference between the distributor (Gillaspie: 9)/tamper (Grassia: 285) in the compressed position and the bottom of the portafilter (200) (Grassia (translation), p. 2, lns. 25-27; p. 12, lns. 2-3; p. 12, lns. 10-11; Fig. 21; the examiner interprets Grassia as teaching that adjustment of the vertical position of the tamping fan necessarily changes the height difference between the tamping fan in its compressed/tamping position and the bottom of the portafilter, thereby adjusting how far into the portafilter the tamping fan extends during tamping, corresponding to the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 24, Grassia in view of Gillaspie teaches the device (Grassia: 150) according to claim 15, wherein the distributor (Gillaspie: 9, “stirring disk”) is mounted on an axle (Gillaspie: 8, “worm gear assembly”) (Gillaspie, ¶[ [0057]: “The Stirring Disk 5 is attached to the flange of the Worm Gear Assembly 4”; ¶ [0079]: “ The Worm Gear Assembly 8 consists of three components. The lowest is a flange to which the Stirring Disk 9 is attached”).
Regarding claim 25, Grassia in view of Gillaspie teaches the device (Grassia: 150) according claim 15, wherein the one or more driving means (Grassia: 251, 252, 253) is also directly or indirectly attached to the tamper (Grassia: 285) and distributor (Gillaspie: 9, “stirring disk”) in the operative state (Grassia (translation), p. 12, lns. 1-2: “a motorised tamping augur 250 has an electric motor 251 that drives a power train or gearing assembly 252 which in turn drives the shaft 253”; p. 12, lns. 20-21: “such an augur fan wobbles or pivots about the vertical axis of the driving shaft 253”; p. 12, lns. 20-23: “the coupling 259 has …a transverse through opening 281 that receives a pivot pin 282 … in the area of the hub receiving socket 284 of the augur fan 285”; the examiner interprets the motor 251, power train 252, and driving shaft 253 as the claimed driving means, which are indirectly attached to the augur fan 285 through the coupling 259 during operation).
Regarding claim 26, Grassia in view of Gillaspie teaches the device (Grassia: 150) according claim 15, wherein the device (Grassia: 150) is part of a larger machine that also grinds the ground, beverage making substance (Grassia: “coffee grounds”) and/or passes liquid under pressure through the ground, beverage-making substance (Grassia: “coffee grounds”) (Grassia (translation), p. 3, lns. 18-19: “an espresso coffee making machine may incorporate an integral coffee grinder 180 with hopper 181, 182 and tamping augur for filling a portafilter 200”; p. 2, ln. 25: “It is known to combine an espresso making machine with an integral coffee grinder”; p. 5, ln. 33: “water flowing through the portafilter 200 [having coffee grounds]”; the examiner interprets the espresso coffee machine as the claimed larger machine, which includes a grinder for grinding coffee beans and a brewing system for passing water under pressure through coffee grounds in the portafilter).
Regarding claim 27, Grassia in view of Gillaspie teaches the device (Grassia: 150) according to claim 15, wherein in the liquid is water (Grassia (translation), p. 5, ln. 33) and the ground, beverage making substance (Grassia: “coffee grounds”) is ground coffee beans (Grassia, p. 12, lns. 37-38: “The coffee machine 310 comprises a bean hopper 311 for containing and dispensing beans into a grinder 312”; the examiner interprets the grinder 312 as grinding the coffee beans received from the bean hopper 311 to produce coffee grounds, corresponding to the claimed ground beverage making substance).
Regarding claim 28, Grassia teaches
a method for making a beverage, particularly espresso (Grassia (translation), p. 3, lns. 18-19: “an espresso coffee making machine may incorporate an integral coffee grinder 180 with hopper 181, 182 and tamping augur for filling a portafilter 200”), the method comprising:
passing liquid under pressure through a ground beverage-making substance, particularly coffee (“coffee grounds”), held in a compartment such as a filter, portafilter or strainer (200) (Grassia (translation), p. 5, ln. 33: “water flowing through the portafilter 200”; the examiner interprets the espresso coffee making machine as operating by passing water under pressure through coffee grounds contained in the portafilter during brewing);
tamping, by a tamper (Fig. 26: 285, “augur fan”), the ground, beverage-making substance (“coffee grounds”) by moving the tamper (285) in a tamping direction, preferably downwards, and applying pressure on the ground, beverage-making substance (“coffee grounds”) (Grassia (translation), p. 5, lns. 15-16: “A tamping augur comprises a rotating augur fan that fits within or otherwise cooperates with the filter basket of a portafilter. The augur fan of the tamping augur rotates within the filter basket to both compress the ground coffee in the filter basket and create a uniform upper surface”; p. 12, lns. 27-29: “When the level of coffee grinds rises within the portafilter, the grind will overcome the effect of the spring 288 and restore the augur fan to the horizontal or perpendicular condition … Thus, the tamping and polishing process will be completed with the fan in a stable perpendicular orientation relative to the shaft 253”; the examiner interprets the compression of the ground coffee by the augur fan 285 during the tamping process as teaching tamping by applying pressure on the ground beverage-making substance in a tamping direction); and
driving, by at least one driving means (Fig. 21: 251, “electric motor”), the tamping movement and pressing of the tamper (285) and the pressing of the compartment (200) by the tamper (285) (Grassia (translation), p. 12, lns. 1-2: “a motorised tamping augur 250 has an electric motor 251 that drives a power train or gearing assembly 252 which in turn drives the shaft 253 to which the augur fan 254 is directly or indirectly affixed”; p. 2, lns. 21-22: “The augur fan of the tamping augur rotates within the filter basket to both compress the ground coffee in the filter basket and create a uniform upper surface”; the examiner interprets the motor 251, power train 252, and shaft 253 as the claimed driving means that drive rotation of the augur fan for tamping and pressing the coffee grounds within the portafilter),
wherein the tamper (285) is mounted on shaft (253) on a central axis (Fig. 21) and configured to be brought into contact with the ground, beverage-making substance (“coffee grounds”) from the same direction, preferably from above (p. 12, ln. 40: “Ground coffee is dispensed 316 above the tamper augur's fan”; p. 5, lns. 15-16: “The augur fan of the tamping augur rotates within the filter basket to both compress the ground coffee in the filter basket and create a uniform upper surface”; Fig. 21; the examiner interprets the augur fan operating within the portafilter beneath the dispensed coffee grounds as teaching contact with the coffee grounds from above), during normal operation (p. 5, lns. 15-16; p. 12, ln. 52; the examiner interprets these disclosures as describing the normal operating condition of the device).
Grassia does not explicitly disclose
distributing, by a distributor, the ground, beverage-making substance in the compartment by rotation of the distributor when in contact with the ground, beverage-making substance;
tamping the ground, beverage-making substance by the tamper subsequent to evenly distributing the ground, beverage-making substance by a distributor,
wherein the tamper and the distributor are directly or indirectly attached to one another in an operative state and that in the operative state the tamper and the distributor are concentrically arranged and are configured to be brought into contact with the ground, beverage-making substance from the same direction, preferably from above, during normal operation.
However, Gillaspie discloses, in Fig. 2, a method for evenly distributing ground coffee in a portafilter basket prior to tamping (¶ [0031]: “a device incorporating a disk with tines to stir espresso ground coffee in an espresso portafilter basket to create a more even distribution of the grounds after dosing and prior to tamping”), the method comprising:
distributing, by a distributor (9, “stirring disk”), the ground, beverage-making substance (¶ [0031]: “ground coffee”) in the compartment (11, “filter basket”) by rotation of the distributor (9) when in contact with the ground, beverage-making substance (“ground coffee”) (¶ [0031]; ¶ [0044]: “The Stirring Disk is rotated so the tines can gently stir the ground coffee in the filter basket”; the examiner interprets the rotating stirring disk 9 with tines as corresponding to the distributor in contact with the ground, beverage-making substance);
tamping the ground, beverage-making substance (“ground coffee”) by the tamper subsequent to evenly distributing the ground, beverage-making substance (“ground coffee”) by a distributor (9) (¶ [0031]: “a more even distribution of the grounds … prior to tamping”);
driving, by at least one other driving means, the rotation of the distributor (9) (Gillaspie, ¶ [0076]: “The Motor 5 is mounted on the Internal Assembly Platform 2. Rotation of the motor causes rotation of the Idler 6”; ¶ [0079]: “The Worm Gear Assembly 8 consists of three components. The lowest is a flange to which the Stirring Disk 9 is attached”; the examiner interprets Gillaspie’s motor 5, idler 6 and worm gear assembly 8 as at least one other driving means for driving the rotation of the distributor 9);
wherein the tamper and the distributor (9) are directly or indirectly attached to one another in an operative state and that in the operative state the tamper and the distributor are concentrically arranged (Grassia Fig. 21 shows augur fan 285 mounted on shaft 253 on a central axis; Fig. 2 of Gillaspie shows a worm gear assembly 8 is mounted on a centrally positioned axle, and driven by a driving means, such as a motor 5; ¶ [0032]: “Clark’s Pre-Tamp can be … electrically operated, and it can be … attached to or incorporated into other devices used in the preparation of espresso coffee”; ¶ [0102]: “The invention could be incorporated into a tamper”; ¶ [0103]: “The invention could be incorporated into a machine that accomplished all four tasks: grinding, dosing, distributing and tamping”; the examiner interprets the central axis mounting of Grassia’s augur fan 285 on shaft 253 and Gillaspie’s centrally positioned worm gear assembly 8, in combination, as teaching the tamper and distributor concentrically arranged in the operative state) and are configured to be brought into contact with the ground, beverage-making substance from the same direction, preferably from above, during normal operation (Grassia (translation), p. 12, ln. 40; Gillaspie, ¶ [0034]: “In the model incorporating the helix or worm gear, the disk with tines is positioned above the basket before the stirring begins”; the examiner interprets both the augur fan 285 and stirring disk 9 as configured to be brought into contact with the ground, beverage-making substance from the same direction, from above, during normal operation).
Grassia and Gillaspie are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a device to prepare coffee. 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 Gillaspie’s rotating distributor into Grassia’s tamping device in order to “evenly distribute the grounds in the filter basket employing the stirring disk [prior to] tamp[ing].” Gillaspie, ¶ [0102].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia et al. (WO 2014165905) hereinafter Grassia, in view of Gillaspie (US 20120048120), and further in view of Barnett et al. (EP 1126774) hereinafter Barnett.
Regarding claim 16, Grassia in view of Gillaspie teaches the device according (Grassia: 150) to claim 15, but does not explicitly teach a lower surface pressing the ground, beverage-making substance during tamping is essentially an even surface, perpendicular to the tamping direction and preferably horizontal.
However, Barnett teaches, in Fig. 4, a motor-driven pressing tool (50) for a coffee grinding, portioning, and pressing device (abstract), wherein
a lower surface pressing (Fig. 4 teaches a surface extending between positions A and D of the motor-driven pressing tool 50) the ground, beverage-making substance (38, “ground coffee”) during tamping is essentially an even surface, perpendicular to the tamping direction and preferably horizontal (the examiner interprets the surface extending between positions A and D as shown in Fig. 4 as the substantially planar lower pressing surface that is an essentially even surface which is perpendicular to the tamping direction and horizontal during tamping).
Grassia, Gillaspie and Barnett are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of coffee preparation devices employing motor-driven tamping elements. 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 tamping augur of Grassia and Gillaspie to include the substantially planar lower pressing surface taught by Barnett, for the purpose of “produc[ing] substantially uniformly tamped coffee” (Barnett (translation), p. 2, ln. 51), thereby obtaining “a substantially uniform ground coffee density throughout the compressed coffee “puck”” (Barnett (translation), p. 2, lns. 35-36).
PNG
media_image5.png
305
455
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Barnett
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia et al. (WO 2014165905) hereinafter Grassia, in view of Gillaspie (US 20120048120), and further in view of Saur-Brosch (US 20160324787).
Regarding claim 17, Grassia in view of Gillaspie teaches
the device according (Grassia: 150) to claim 15, wherein the tamper (Grassia: 285, “augur fan”) has at least one groove, indent or hole (Fig. 23: 284, “hub receiving socket”; 292, “central opening”) configured to fit with at least one part of the distributor (Gillaspie: 9, “stirring disk”) and that during tamping operation the tamper (Grassia: 285) moves so at least one part of the distributor (Gillaspie: 9) moves into the at least one part of the tamper (Grassia: 285).
Grassia and Gillaspie does not explicitly teach
the tamper has at least one groove, indent or hole configured to fit with at least one part of the distributor and that during tamping operation the tamper moves so at least one part of the distributor moves into the at least one part of the tamper.
However, Saur-Brosch teaches a device (abstract: “a compression molding device”), wherein
the tamper (Fig. 62: 38, “intermediate punch”) has at least one groove, indent or hole (¶ [0253]: “recess”) configured to fit with at least one part of the distributor (Fig. 62: 19, “upper punch”) (¶ [0253]: “the pressing surface of the intermediate punch may have a recess, into which the lower part of the upper punch protrudes from above”; the examiner interprets the recess in the pressing surface of the intermediate punch 38 as corresponding to the claimed groove, indent or hole of the tamper)
and that during tamping operation the tamper (38) moves so at least one part of the distributor (19) moves into the at least one part of the tamper (38) (¶ [0253]; ¶ [0147]: “If an intermediate punch is inserted below the upper punch, with a downward movement of the upper punch it is pressed and also moved downwards by the latter. Then he dives into the die orifice and can compress the material located there below its pressing surface”; the examiner interprets the downward movement of the intermediate punch 38 during the pressing stroke, with the lower part of the upper punch 19 protruding into the recess of the intermediate punch 38, as teaching that during a tamping operation the tamper moves so at least one part of the distributor moves into the at least one part of the tamper).
Grassia, Gillaspie and Saur-Brosch are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they each address the same problem of accommodating two elements that must operate in conjunction during a downward pressing or tamping stroke without mechanical interference. 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 the recess structure taught by Saur-Brosch into the tamper and distributor configuration taught by Grassia and Gillaspie, for the purpose of having “the pressing surface of the intermediate punch may have a recess, into which the lower part of the upper punch protrudes from above. Thus, [the] pressing surface of the upper punch and the pressing surface of the intermediate punch form a joint press surface” (Saur-Brosch, ¶ [0253]), thereby accommodating the distributor moving into the tamper during the tamping operation without interference.
PNG
media_image6.png
515
478
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 62 of Saur-Brosch
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia et al. (WO 2014165905) hereinafter Grassia, in view of Gillaspie (US 20120048120), and further in view of Blanc et al. (US 9993107) hereinafter Blanc.
Regarding claim 20, Grassia in view of Gillaspie teaches the device (Grassia: 150) according to claim 19, but does not explicitly teach the device further comprises a handle suitable for human grip and a locking mechanism actuator for at least one of locking and unlocking the locking device, where the locking mechanism actuator is positioned in such a way that it is easily be reached by one or more fingers without substantially releasing the grip on the handle suitable for human grip.
However, Blanc teaches, in Fig. 2,
a device (abstract: “machine for preparing beverages”) comprising a handle suitable for human grip (5b, “head”; col. 12, lns. 36-38: “a head 5b forming a gripping surface for the handle 5 and it is on the head 5b that the operator presses or pulls to cause the handle 5 to move”) and a locking mechanism actuator (5, “actuation means”; col. 11, ln. 66-col. 12, ln. 1: “said actuation means include a control element in the form of a handle 5, said control element being used to release the locking means 10, 15 and 16”) for at least one of locking and unlocking the locking device (10, 15 and 16, “locking means”; col. 9, lns. 1-2: “The locking means can also be called locking device”) (col. 11, ln. 66-col. 12, ln. 1; col. 2, lns. 6-11: “in a position in which the actuation means or device are deactivated, the locking means or device prevent the unit from being disconnected from the receptacle, in a position in which the actuation means or device are activated, the locking means or device allow the unit to be disconnected from the receptacle”), where the locking mechanism actuator (5) is positioned in such a way that it is easily be reached by one or more fingers without substantially releasing the grip on the handle (5b) suitable for human grip (col. 6, lns. 21-23: “the actuation device or means of the assembly are configured to be activated manually by the operator, preferably with a single hand”; col. 6, lns. 56-57: “a user can grasp simultaneously and with a single hand the control element and the gripping member”; col. 12, lns. 36-38; col. 15, lns. 29-31: “the respective gripping surfaces 5b and 7 of the handle 5 and of 30 the gripping member 6 are located substantially at the same height”; the examiner interprets Blanc’s arrangement, wherein the handle 5 serves as a control element positioned adjacent to the gripping member 6 such that a user can simultaneously grasp both elements with a single hand, as teaching a locking mechanism actuator positioned so that it can be reached and actuated by one or more fingers without substantially releasing the user’s grip).
Grassia, Gillaspie and Blanc are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of beverage preparation 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 Grassia’s device to further include the handle and locking mechanism actuator arrangement as taught by Blanc, in order to provide “actuation device or means [that] … can be … easily accessible to an operator” (Blanc, col. 2, lns. 41-43) for locking and unlocking operations, and to allow operation of the locking mechanism “by acting on a control element with a hand … [p]referably, … by grasping the gripping member with … same hand” (Blanc, col. 2, lns. 34-37), thereby facilitating operation of the locking mechanism and simplifying mounting and dismounting of the device.
PNG
media_image7.png
431
539
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Blanc
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Giorgella (US 20200359827), Locher et al. (WO 2020126164), Lin (CN 210748796), Oddera et al. (IT 201800009738), Yang et al. (EP 3400853), Koh (KR 20180102759), Hauck (WO 2017118545), Otto (AT 517579), Choi et al. (KR 101710100), Guo et al. (CN 205514120), Hoare et al. (US 9301637), Psarologos et al. (CN 105054791), Kim (KR 101479006), Goeltenboth et al. (KR 20140129103), Young (US 20140234519), Pyttel (DE 202013003598), Hughes (WO 2008081238), Petiziol (US 7325491), Tegel et al. (US 6260475).
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
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights