DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the embodiments of the present disclosure is applicable” should be corrected to --the embodiments of the present disclosure are applicable-- [PG Pub: 0018].
“maintained stable” should be correctly to --maintained stably-- three total instances in [PG Pub: 0018, 0033, 0034].
“brewing chamber 220” should be corrected to --brewing chamber 210-- three total instances in [PG Pub: 0033, 0034(x2)].
“the start of the pressure maintenance stage is a time point at which the rotational speed of the flowmeter 120 changes from an increase state to a decrease state” should be corrected to --the start of the pressure maintenance stage is a time point at which the rotational speed of the flowmeter 120 changes from a decrease state to an increase state-- in [PG Pub: 0034].
“one revolution of the flowmeter 120 e, and is not less” should be corrected to -- one revolution of the flowmeter 120, and is not less—in [PG Pub: 0051].
“the revolutions of flowmeter 120 are started to be counted” should be corrected to --the revolutions of flowmeter 120 are starting to be counted-- in [PG Pub: 0086].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
“cause the one or more processors to” should be corrected to --causing the one or more processors to--.
The second instance of “a pressurizing member” should be corrected to --the pressurizing member--.
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:
The “pressurizing member” in claims 1, 10, and 11, which is interpreted as a back pressure valve as provided in [PG Pub: 0026] and equivalents.
The “information obtaining unit” in claim 10, which is interpreted as a unit of the controller, interfacing with the water supply unit and a start button and equivalents.
The “metering triggering unit” in claim 10, which is interpreted as a unit of the controller, interfacing with the water supply unit and equivalents.
The “stop control unit” in claim 10, which is interpreted as a unit of the controller, interfacing with the water supply unit and equivalents.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 13, and 14, these claims each recite an “inflection point” that occurs when the rotational speed changes from decrease to increase. The recitations that there is a transition from decrease to increase indicate that the rotational speed has reached a minimum at this point, which is evident from Fig. 3, which shows the time for one revolution has reached a maximum. However, the recitation that a minimum value is reached at the same point in time as an inflection point is unclear. This is due to the fact that in calculus, a minimum (or maximum) is defined as a peak value wherein the first derivative of the curve is equal to zero while an inflection point is defined as a point in which the concavity of that curve changes and wherein the second derivative of the curve is equal to zero. Thus, it is unknown how both a minimum and an inflection point of the rotational speed can occur at the same point, rendering this claim indefinite.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “inflection point” in claim 2, 4, 13, and 14 is apparently used by the claim to mean “local minimum,” while the accepted meaning is “a point in which the concavity of that curve changes and wherein the second derivative of the curve is equal to zero.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding claim 5, this claim recites the limitation "each period". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, there is a “preset period” and later, the claim introduces a “current period.” However, the term “each” implies a multiplicity of periods, which does not have antecedent basis here, rendering this claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, each of these claims begin with the preamble “The beverage maker according to claim 11, further comprising:” followed by method limitations. While the beverage maker does include a method, it is not made clear in this preamble how an apparatus itself “further compris[es]” steps of a method, rendering these claims indefinite. Thus, the limitation “The beverage maker according to claim 11, further comprising:” will be interpreted and can be corrected to --The beverage maker according to claim 11, the method further comprising:--.
Regarding claims 3, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence on claims 2, 13, and 18.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberali (US 2024/0164571 A1) in view of Mueller (US 2021/0059466 A1) and Zhao (US 2022/0183502 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Fig. 5 disclosed by Liberali, annotated to show relevant elements of the system pertaining to the method for controlling a beverage preparation process.
Regarding claim 1, Liberali discloses a method for controlling a beverage brewing process (“beverage preparation steps” [0053-0061]; see Annotated Figure 1), applied to a beverage maker (machine 1 [Fig. 4, 0064]), wherein a brewing unit (brewing assemblies 2 [Fig. 5, 0064]) of the beverage maker comprises a pressurizing member (pressurized hot water dispenser 6 with filter holder 7 and nozzles 8 [Fig. 5, 0069]) for generating pressure in the brewing unit in the beverage brewing process (pressurized water is fed into the brewing assemblies and pressure builds until the water is able to pass through the filter holes [0099]), a pipe supplying water to the brewing unit (water supply branches are fluidly connected [Fig. 5, [0074]; see Annotated Figure 1) is provided with a flowmeter (water flow meter 13 [Fig. 5, 0078]), and the method comprises:
supplying water to the brewing unit in response to a start signal (electronic control unit 5 is electrically connected to the user interface 4 to receive signals regarding beverage selection operations and to the pump 9 to supply water [0082]) of current beverage brewing, and obtaining state change information of the flowmeter (electronic control unit 5 is also “electrically connected to the flow meters 13 to receive therefrom electrical signals indicative of the water flow rates” [0082]);
triggering a start of metering a beverage output quantity (the amount of water dispensed into the brewing assembly is monitored throughout the three steps of the beverage preparation process, however, when the “Brewing” step begins, the amount of water dispensed into the brewing assembly would be equal to the output quantity because the pressure is maintained [Fig. 11]) of the current beverage brewing when it is determined that the brewing unit enters a pressure maintenance stage according to the state change information (the flow rate reaches a minimum as the process is transitioned from the “Ramp” stage to the “Brewing” stage, wherein the pressure is maintained during the “Brewing” stage [Fig. 11]; the flow rate is measured by the controller and its discrete time derivative is calculated to observe its rate of change [Fig. 8, 0082]).
Liberali does not expressly disclose that the state change information is configured to indicate a rotational speed change trend of the flowmeter in a current beverage brewing process. Specifically, Liberali does not disclose the type of flowmeter used in this case.
Mueller teaches a beverage preparation device having a fluidic system for dispensing milk into a beverage (beverage preparation device 1 with milk system M [Fig. 1, 0033]). This fluidic circuit contains a flow meter of the turbine wheel variety (flow meter 2 [Fig. 1, 0022, 0033]) which is electrically connected to a controller to send signals regarding state change information of the flowmeter (control unit S [Fig. 1, 0035]). Mueller further teaches that the state change information regarding the flow rate is determined by rotational speed change trends of the turbine wheel flowmeter (discussed in [0022]).
Liberali teaches a method for controlling a beverage preparation process wherein a brewing assembly uses a flowmeter to provide state change information regarding the flow rate of liquid for a beverage preparation, but does not disclose the type of flowmeter used. Mueller teaches a beverage preparation device which uses a flowmeter of the turbine wheel variety to identify changes in flow rate via an indication of rotational speed change of said flowmeter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the teaching of Mueller for a turbine wheel flowmeter to modify the flowmeter of Liberali to be of a rotational turbine wheel type, resulting in the state change information in the method of Liberali to be indicative of a rotational speed change of the flowmeter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Liberali does not indicate how the flowmeter is measuring flow rate, only that this measurement occurs, while Mueller teaches that a measurement of a flowmeter is indicative of a rotational speed change of the flowmeter. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification because flowmeters of the turbine wheel variety are known in the art (as taught by Mueller) for the application of identifying changes in fluid flow rate for the purpose of beverage preparation control.
Liberali does not expressly disclose stopping supplying water to the brewing unit when the beverage output quantity metered reaches a target beverage quantity.
Zhao teaches a device and method for controlling a beverage process wherein a flowmeter is provided within the fluidic circuit to monitor and achieve a target beverage output quantity (multi-functional coffeemaker 10, brew basket 100 of small serving station 14, and flowmeter 56 [Figs. 1 and 5, 0066, 0069, 0074]). Zhao further teaches that when a target volume of water for the serving size to be brewed has passed through the flowmeter, the controller deactivates the cold water supply pump [0089]. It should be noted that during this time, the hot water pump continues to operate in order to dry out the brewing unit following a beverage preparation [0089]. Zhao additionally teaches that determining whether or not the target volume has been achieved involves determining whether or not a “count” of the flowmeter has surpassed a target [0111].
Liberali discloses a method for controlling a beverage brewing process, including a final brewing step wherein a beverage is dispensed, however, Liberali does not disclose a “stopping” step when the target beverage output quantity has been reached. Zhao teaches a method for controlling a beverage brewing process wherein a flowmeter is used to monitor and determine when a target output beverage quantity has been reached. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Zhao for a step to stop the brewing process once the target output beverage quantity has been reached and applied this teaching to Liberali, which does not disclose a stopping step for the process. To do this, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the “count” of the flowmeter in order to determine when the target volume has been achieved, as taught by Zhao [Zhao: 0111]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure that the volume of beverage prepared reaches a target for a serving size which has been selected by a user [Zhao: 0111]. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification because both references deal with a beverage preparation control method and Liberali discloses use of a flowmeter, which is needed for the teaching of Zhao, as the determination of achievement of the target volume is obtained via “counts” of the flowmeter.
Regarding claim 2, Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao teaches (with citations directed to Liberali) the method further comprising:
determining that the brewing unit enters the pressure maintenance stage under the condition that the state change information indicates that a rotational speed of the flowmeter is at an inflection point at which the rotational speed changes from decrease to increase. During the Pressurisation stage, the flow rate reaches a maximum, then begins to decrease as the pressure reaches its maintenance value (this can be seen in Figs. 2, 10, and 11, though the pressure is not shown in the “Pre-brewing” and “Ramp” stages in Figs. 10 and 11 [0097]). As the pressure reaches its maintenance phase, the flow rate stops decreasing and starts to increase slightly before reaching a steady state during the “Brewing” stage [Figs. 10 and 11].
Regarding claim 3, Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao teaches (with citations directed to Liberali) that the obtaining state change information of the flowmeter comprises:
obtaining a rotational speed indicating parameter of the flowmeter according to a preset period (the control unit 5 constantly monitors the flow rate via the flowmeter 13 during the three stages (i.e., periods) of the beverage preparation process [Fig. 11, 0090, 0096, 0110]) in response to the start signal of current beverage brewing (electronic control unit 5 is electrically connected to the user interface 4 to receive signals for operation from the user, and to the flowmeter to receive signals regarding the flow rate when the beverage preparation process begins [0082]); and
comparing a current rotational speed indicating parameter with a last rotational speed indicating parameter each time when a rotational speed indicating parameter of the flowmeter is obtained (during the monitoring by the control unit 5, the discrete time derivative of the flow rate is calculated [Figs. 8-11, 0098], which involves using subsequent samples of the flow rate in time), and determining the state change information of the flowmeter in the current beverage brewing process (the calculation of the derivative of the flow rate is used to determine if the flow rate is decreasing, close to a maximum, and/or if the derivative of the flow rate is within a predefined range [0097]).
Regarding claim 4, Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao teaches that the rotational speed indicating parameter is a time parameter of one revolution of the flowmeter (Mueller teaches, as discussed above regarding claim 1, that rotational speed of a flowmeter changes with respect to the flow velocity [0022]; rotational speed is the number of revolutions per unit time), and the method further comprises:
determining that the rotational speed of the flowmeter is at the inflection point at which the rotational speed changes from decrease to increase (discussed regarding claim 2) under the condition that the state change information satisfies that a current time parameter of one revolution of the flowmeter is not greater than a difference between a last time parameter of one revolution of the flowmeter and a preset correction constant, and the last time parameter of one revolution of the flowmeter is not less than a sum of the preset correction constant and a before-last time parameter of one revolution of the flowmeter. Specifically, Liberali discloses a calculation of a discrete time derivative of the flow rate, as measured by the flowmeter (discussed above regarding claim 3 [Liberali: Figs. 8-11, 0096-0098]). This calculation is used to check if the derivative of the flow rate is within a predefined range [Liberali: 0097]. The following equation is disclosed by Liberali in Fig. 8 for this calculation:
∆
Q
(
t
)
∆
t
<
a
In this case, a difference of flow rate,
∆
Q
(
t
)
, as constantly monitored by the control unit [Liberali 0090, 0096, 0110], is simply the difference of the flow rate between two time points. For two consecutive signals received by the controller from the flowmeter, this equation can be rewritten as the checking process claimed to see if the current flow rate is not greater than the difference between a last flow rate and a preset correction constant (wherein the preset correction constant disclosed by Liberali in this case is
a
×
∆
t
). In the case of Liberali, this calculation is performed over the course of the beverage preparation process.
Regarding claim 6, Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao teaches that the triggering a start of metering a beverage output quantity of the current beverage brewing comprises:
triggering a start of counting revolutions of the flowmeter (as discussed regarding claim 1, Liberali discloses that the amount of water dispensed into the brewing assembly is monitored throughout the three stages of the beverage preparation process, however, when the “Brewing” stage begins, the amount of water dispensed into the brewing assembly would be equal to the output quantity because the pressure is maintained [Liberali: Fig. 11]; thus, this is the trigger to start monitoring the flowmeter for beverage quantity output; in the combination of claim 1, Zhao teaches that metering the beverage output quantity includes taking “counts” of the flowmeter [Zhao: 0111]); and
determining that the beverage output quantity metered reaches the target beverage quantity when the revolutions of the flowmeter reach a target revolution number (Zhao teaches determining the beverage output quantity has reached the target volume when the number of “counts” has reached its target [Zhao: 0111]).
Regarding claim 10, the device for controlling a beverage brewing process of this claim substantially corresponds to the method of claim 1 and is rejected over Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao for the same reasons as outlined above.
Regarding claim 11, Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao (with citations directed to Liberali) teaches a beverage maker (professional espresso coffee machine 1 [title, 0064]), comprising a brewing unit (brewing assemblies 2 [Fig. 5, 0064]) configured to brew a beverage with a solid material (brewing assemblies 2 are configured to brew a beverage from coffee powder [0064]).
The remainder of claim 11 substantially corresponds to the method of claim 1 and is rejected over Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao for the same reasons as outlined above.
Regarding claim 12, Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao (with citations directed to Liberali) teaches that the beverage maker is a coffee maker (professional espresso coffee machine 1 [title, 0064]).
Regarding claim 13, this claim substantially corresponds to the method of claim 2 and is rejected over Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao for the same reasons as outlined above.
Regarding claim 14, this claim substantially corresponds to the method of claim 3 and is rejected over Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao for the same reasons as outlined above.
Regarding claim 15, this claim substantially corresponds to the method of claim 4 and is rejected over Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao for the same reasons as outlined above.
Regarding claim 17, this claim substantially corresponds to the method of claim 6 and is rejected over Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao for the same reasons as outlined above.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberali (US 2024/0164571 A1) in view of Mueller (US 2021/0059466 A1) and Zhao (US 2022/0183502 A1), and further in view of Phan (US 2016/0374502 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao teaches (hereinafter referred to as the combination, with citations directed to Liberali) that the obtaining a rotational speed indicating parameter of the flowmeter according to a preset period comprises:
sampling the rotational speed or a time value of one revolution of the flowmeter according to a preset sampling interval in each period (the control unit 5 constantly monitors the flow rate via the flowmeter 13 throughout each stage (i.e., period) of the beverage preparation process [0082] and calculates the discrete time derivative, which requires obtaining at least two values [Figs. 8-11, 0096-0098]), and correspondingly obtaining n time values or n rotational speed values in a current period (in the case of Liberali, n is equal to at least 2 to obtain a discrete time derivative); and
The combination method does not expressly teach calculating a mean value of the n time values or the n rotational speed values in the current period, and obtaining a rotational speed indicating parameter of the flowmeter in the current period.
Phan teaches a control method and device for a beverage preparation (device 8 [Fig. 1, abstract, 0048]). Phan further teaches that the device is equipped with a flowmeter to measure the flow rate of water from the pump into the brewing unit during a beverage preparation process, which is electrically connected to and monitored by a control unit (flow meter 3 and control unit 5 [Fig. 1, 0050]). Phan additionally teaches that for a preset period of time, an average flow rate may be calculated to filter the flow rate signal [0060]. This involves sampling a number of signals from the flowmeter over a predetermined period of time and taking a moving window average of the sample (plurality of samples N over moving window ΔTW [0060]).
The combination method teaches control of a beverage preparation process wherein the control unit collects signals from the flowmeter to calculate the derivative of the flow rate, using at least 2 values to do so, but does not disclose calculating a mean from said values. Phan discloses a beverage preparation process wherein a collection of samples from the flowmeter are performed to create a moving window average of these samples. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Phan for a moving window average of multiple signal readings from the flowmeter to modify the combination beverage preparation control method to include this moving window average. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this technique utilizes a moving window average as a filter for the data obtained, allowing for a more precise measurement [Phan: 0008, 0060]. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification because both references deal with controlling a beverage preparation process and the combination is already configured to collect signals from a flowmeter and perform calculations on said signals.
Regarding claim 16, this claim substantially corresponds to the method of claim 5 and is rejected over Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao and further in view of Phan for the same reasons as outlined above.
Claims 7, 8, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberali (US 2024/0164571 A1) in view of Mueller (US 2021/0059466 A1) and Zhao (US 2022/0183502 A1), and further in view of Dubief (US 2019/0290052 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao (hereinafter referred to as the combination, with citations directed to Liberali unless otherwise noted) teaches the method further comprising:
obtaining, when it is determined that the brewing unit enters a pressurizing stage according to the state change information, brewing duration before the brewing unit enters the pressurizing stage. Specifically, the control unit tracks time through the beverage preparation process and would thus receive the time from the start of the process to the end of the “pre-brewing” stage (time is plotted on Figs. 10 and 11 and used to calculate the discrete time derivative of flow rate [0096-0098]).
The combination does not expressly disclose determining a solid material accommodating state in the brewing unit according to the brewing duration.
Dubief teaches a beverage preparation device (beverage preparation device 10 [Fig. 1, title, abstract]). Dubief additionally teaches that the device comprises a brewing chamber in which a soluble beverage powder is dispensed and supplied with a liquid during beverage preparation (powder supplied by doser 41 and mixed with liquid in chamber 1 [Fig. 1, 0149, 0151]). Further, Dubief teaches that the time of beverage preparation will be at least as long as necessary to obtain full dissolution of the powder [0033], i.e., no solid material remaining in the chamber.
The combination method for controlling a beverage brewing process teaches obtaining a time duration of the pre-brewing (i.e., filling) stage, but does not teach obtaining a solid material accommodating state. Dubief teaches that there is a duration needed to obtain a full dissolution of solid material in a brewing chamber during a beverage brewing process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Dubief for a duration necessary for full powder dissolution to modify the combination method such that the time obtained before the process enters the pressurization stage can be compared to the necessary time to full dissolution. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure that the process is obtaining a beverage wherein the entire dosage of powder has been utilized. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification as both references are dealing with measured time of coffee powder brewing in a brewing chamber.
Regarding claim 8, Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao, and further in view of Dubief teaches that the determining a solid material accommodating state in the brewing unit according to the brewing duration comprises:
determining that a solid material is accommodated in the brewing unit under the condition that the brewing duration is less than a preset time threshold (the preset time threshold is the time necessary for complete dissolution of the powder [Dubief: 0033]; thus, any time obtained by the control unit of Liberali that is less than this threshold would indicate that there has not been full dissolution of the powder); and
determining that the brewing unit is in an empty state under the condition that the brewing duration is not less than the preset time threshold (when the threshold is the time necessary for complete dissolution, as stated above [Dubief: 0033], any time obtained by the control unit of Liberali that is above this threshold would then be resulting in complete dissolution, i.e., no remaining powder and thus an empty brewing unit).
Regarding claim 18, this claim substantially corresponds to the method of claim 7 and is rejected over Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao and further in view of Dubief for the same reasons as outlined above.
Regarding claim 19, this claim substantially corresponds to the method of claim 8 and is rejected over Liberali in view of Mueller and Zhao and further in view of Dubief for the same reasons as outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art is the combination above regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 7 and 8, namely Liberali (US 2024/0164571 A1) in view of Mueller (US 2021/0059466 A1) and Zhao (US 2022/0183502 A1) and further in view of Dubief (US 2019/0290052 A1).
However, this combination does not teach that the determining a solid material accommodating state in the brewing unit according to the brewing duration comprises:
comparing the brewing duration with a plurality of brewing time intervals constructed in advance, and determining a brewing time interval in which the brewing duration is located, wherein each brewing time interval corresponds to a solid material remainder parameter; and
determining a solid material remainder in the brewing unit according to the brewing time interval in which the brewing duration is located.
Rather, Dubief in the combination teaches a single time threshold in which the brewing duration must be in order to achieve a complete dissolution of the powder. Further, within the combination, Liberali, Mueller, and Zhao do not teach a solid material accommodation state. Thus, the combination does not teach the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, this claim substantially corresponds to the method of claim 9 and thus contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons as detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA RAE BOSS whose telephone number is (571)270-0274. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/MARISSA RAE BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
