`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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because it appears to use the phrase “of the coffee brewing system of claim 1” as a placeholder and thus claim 17 is not directed to a single statutory invention since the method claim depends from a systems claim and thus “embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention" and thus the claim is directed to neither a "process" nor a "machine". Applicant is encouraged due to two different statutory classes of invention, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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 of this title, 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 and 4-8, 10-14, 16-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer et al. (20210093120) in view of Swager (2154963).
Palmer teaches with respect to Independent claim 1, a coffee brewing system (par. 0001), comprising:
a base stand (par. 0040; fig. 1 ref. 10 bottom wall) and a vertical extension that extends from a perimeter of the base (fig. 1 ref. 10 sidewalls par. 0040),
wherein the base has a front portion and a back portion (fig. 1 front relative ref. 21), wherein the vertical extension has a front extension height at the front portion of the base (fig. 1 ref. 10 front relative ref. 21) and a back extension height at the back portion of the base (fig. 1 ref. 10 back opposite side ref. 21)
an interactive display screen integral with the base stand (par. 0105; fig. 5 par. 0108; on the machine),
a coffee bean roaster (par. 0088 fig. 1 ref. 23) mounted within the vertical section of the base stand (fig. 1 ref. 23),
wherein the coffee bean roaster is a horizontally mounted cylinder (par. 0088 drum ref. 100 fig. 2) with mixing paddles (par. 0089; “in addition” stirring paddles),
wherein the coffee bean roaster has an electric heat system (par. 0088; ref. 103) that heat a lower surface of the coffee bean roaster (fig. 2 ref. 103; par. 0088),
wherein the coffee bean roaster is within the vertical section of the base (fig. 1 ref. 23),
a coffee bean grinder (fig. 1 ref. 24; par. 0044),
wherein the coffee bean grinder is a vertically orientated (fig. 1 ref. 24 relative ref. 18) burr grinder (par. 0044) mounted relative the base of the base stand (fig. 1).
wherein the coffee bean grinder is positioned below (fig. 1 ref. 24 below relative vertical axis) the coffee bean roaster (par. 0088; fig. 1 ref. 23) and configured to receive roasted coffee beans exiting the coffee bean roaster (par. 0089 before grinding; par. 0044 receives from ref. 23), and
a coffee brew chamber (fig. 1 ref. 15; par. 0044),
wherein the coffee brew chamber (fig. 1 ref. 15) is mounted relative a heating base (par. 0050 receptacle containing beverage; fig. 1 ref. 20) along the flat horizontal axis of the base stand (fig. 1 ref. 20).
Though silent to a circular base, Palmer teaches the coffee system as a stand alone unit (par. 0110) thus requiring support for the functional components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the same taught base as circular since matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art and since a matter of shape choice, such as in the instant case circular a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
Similarly, though silent to the front extension height gradually and continuously increases at the perimeter of the circular base until reaching the back extension height. The configuration for supporting a same functional components of the claimed system is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed base stand was significant and since matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art and providing a same support without the need for multiple machines as taught by Palmer (abstract last 2 lines).
"The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the front extension height gradually and continuously increases at the perimeter of the circular base until reaching the back extension height thus providing a support structure capable of supporting the functional components without the need for multiple machines as taught by Palmer (abstract last 2 lines).
Though silent to the interactive display screen located at the front portion (par. 0105; fig. 5 par. 0108; on the machine). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the user interface at the front portion for its art recognized purpose of providing it at a location which the user interacts to control the operation of the machine as taught by Palmer (par. 0104).
Palmer teaches a coffee brewing system comprising a grinding and roaster for the purpose of providing a single without the need for multiple machines (abstract last 2 lines) and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of combination coffee preparation as taught by Swager.
Swager teaches the roaster comprising a closure which is opened to discharge the roasted beans to a grinder (pg. 3 col. 2 lines 10-16), where the closure is mounted within the roaster compartment and thus heated (fig. 2 ref. 34). Though silent to a flap on a front surface of the roaster, Palmer does teach providing the beans from the roaster directly to the grinder (par. 0089) where Swager teaches a closure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a flap on a front surface which is heated for its art recognized purpose of containing the beans and providing a closed environment within the roaster till roasting process is achieved and providing the beans after roasting from the bean-reservoir to the grinder as taught by Palmer (par. 0044) and Swager (pg. 3 col. 2 lines 10-16).
Though silent to the same taught coffee bean roaster (par. 0088 fig. 1 ref. 23) mounted on an inner surface of the vertical extension. Swager teaches the coffee bean roaster mounted on an inner surface of the vertical extension (pg. 2 col. 1 lines 47-48; fig. 2 ref. 28 receive). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach same taught coffee bean roaster (par. 0088 fig. 1 ref. 23) mounted on an inner surface of the vertical extension thus achieving the art recognized purpose of providing the roaster at an elevated level with respect to the grinder for providing the beans thereto after roasting as taught by Palmer (par. 0089) and since the coffee roaster detachably mounted on the vertical section of the base stand has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Though silent to the same taught coffee bean roaster (par. 0088 fig. 1 ref. 23) detachably mounted on the vertical section of the base stand, Swager teaches the roaster being removable (pg. 2 col. 2 lines 47-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach same taught coffee bean roaster (par. 0088 fig. 1 ref. 23) detachably mounted on the vertical section of the base stand thus achieving the art recognized purpose of providing the roaster at an elevated level with respect to the grinder for providing the beans thereto after roasting as taught by Palmer (par. 0089) and since the coffee roaster detachably mounted on the vertical section of the base stand has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Though silent to the roaster comprising mixing blades, Palmer does teach stirring paddles (par. 0089). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one type of mixing mechanism as taught by Palmer with another, such as in the instant case mixing blades for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of providing agitation during roasting to ensure even roasting as taught (par. 0089).
Though silent to the same taught coffee bean grinder detachably mounted on the circular base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach same taught coffee bean grinder detachably mounted on a circular base stand thus achieving the art recognized purpose of providing the grinder with respect to the roaster and providing support of the grinder during the grinding process and since the coffee grinder detachably mounted on the base and a base which is circular has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced
Though silent to the coffee brew chamber (fig. 1 ref. 15) is detachably mounted to a heating base integral with the circular base stand. Since Palmer teaches a heating base (par. 0050 receptacle containing beverage; fig. 1 ref. 20) along the flat horizontal axis of the base (fig. 1 ref. 20) and since Swager teaches a circular base for supporting the coffee brew chamber (fig. 4, fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a same taught heating base (par. 0050 receptacle containing beverage; fig. 1 ref. 20) integral with the base stand for its art recognized purpose of maintaining the beverage at the desired heated temperature corresponding to user input as taught by Palmer (par. 0050) and since matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art and providing a same support without the need for multiple machines as taught by Palmer (abstract last 2 lines).
Claim 4, the coffee bean roaster has a sensor (par. 0094).
Claim 5, wherein the sensor is a temperature sensor (par. 0094).
Claim 6, wherein the temperature sensor detects the temperature inside the coffee bean roaster (par. 0094) and is connected with the electric heat system (par. 0090) and configured to prevent coffee beans from being burned during roasting (par. 0095; correct environment determined).
Claim 7, the coffee brew chamber has a sensor (par. 0046).
Claim 8, wherein the sensor is an overflow sensor (par. 0107 fill-level sensor).
Claim 10, wherein the helical mixing blades are taken as above. Palmer teachers the mixing paddles connected to a motor configured to rotate the mixing paddles along a central axis (par. 0089).
Claim 11, Palmer teaches the horizontally mounted cylinder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the cylinder made of glass thus providing a material which achieves the art recognized and applicants intended purpose of roasting.
Claim 12, Palmer teaches the coffee bean grinder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the grinder made of copper thus providing a material which achieves the art recognized and applicants intended purpose of containing beans during grinding.
Claim 13, since Palmer teaches the heating element being any suitable heating element (par. 0050), including configured to operate at desired temperature (par. 0050) and since Al-Jamaan teaches a same base comprising a heating element (col. 2 lines 36-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the heating base comprises a resistive heating element configured to operate at a temperature of 20 to 120 °C thus achieving a same heating of beverage by a suitable heating element as desired by both operating to attain temperatures desired prior to dispensing as taught (par. 0050).
Claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the flap on the front surface of the coffee bean roaster with a handle since providing a handle has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced and an obvious design choice.
Claim 16, though silent to the location of the interactive display screen. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the same taught display screen located at the front portion towards a left side of the circular base for its art recognized purpose of providing the interface at a location accessible to the user and since such is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
Claim 17, a method of brewing coffee, comprising:
adding raw coffee beans into the coffee bean roaster (par. 0044; coffee beans in bean reservoir comprising roasting par. 0088) of the coffee brewing system of claim 1;
selecting a brew method from the interactive display screen (par. 0105)
roasting the raw coffee beans to form roasted coffee beans (par. 0089),
dropping the roasted coffee beans into the coffee bean grinder (par. 0089 after roasting; fig. 1 relative bottom of ref. 23 and bottom of ref. 24)
grinding the roasted coffee beans to form ground roasted coffee beans (par. 0089)
transferring the ground roasted coffee beans into the coffee brew chamber (par. 0044)
adding water to the coffee brew chamber (par. 0040 last 4 lines); and
heating the ground roasted coffee beans and water in the coffee brew chamber (par. 0047) to a temperature for a time sufficient to make the coffee (par. 0047).
Claim 18, wherein roasting the raw coffee beans comprises simultaneously heating the electric heat system and rotating the mixing paddles (par. 0089), where helical blades are taken as above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 19: The method of claim 17, wherein heating the ground roasted coffee beans and water occurs for 5 to 30 minutes (par. 0059 10 min. or less).
Claims 21 and 22, the configuration for supporting a same functional components of the claimed system is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed base stand was significant and since matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art and providing a same support without the need for multiple machines as taught by Palmer (abstract last 2 lines).
"The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a top of the coffee bean grinder is higher than the front extension height of the vertical extension, and a top of the coffee bean roaster is lower than the back extension height of the vertical extension or that both the front portion and the back portion of the circular base are titled towards a left side of the circular base thus providing a support structure capable of supporting the functional components without the need for multiple machines as taught by Palmer (abstract last 2 lines) and since matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art and providing a same support without the need for multiple machines as taught by Palmer (abstract last 2 lines).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer et al. (20210093120) in view of Swager (2154963) and Al-Jamaan (9027464).
Palmer teaches a coffee brew chamber and coffee reservoir from which the coffee may be poured as an alternative to providing an additional dispensing outlet (par. 0048 last 5 lines) and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of removable receptacles similar to a carafe for brewing as taught by Al-Jamaan.
Al-Jamaan teaches an alternative to Western-style coffee (col. 4 lines 14-21) being Arabic coffee (col. 4 lines 14-21) where the coffee is extracted by a Dallah from ground beans (col. 4 lines 19-21).
Thus since both teach a same coffee brewer and since Palmer teaches the coffee receptacle as a brewed coffee reservoir as an alternative to providing a direct outlet (par. 0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one coffee brewer, such as in the instant case the Western-style brewer of Palmer with the coffee brewer of Al-Jamaan, namely a Dallah as further taught by Al-Jamaan (col. 4 lines 18-19) for its art recognized alternative to Western-style coffee (col. 4 lines 14-21) such as Arabic coffee (col. 4 lines 14-21) which can be dispensed directly from the coffee reservoir as taught by both.
Though silent to the dallah is made of copper. Al-Jamaan teaches a same claimed dallah, in addition to teaching the dallah made of steel (col. 2 line 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one metal with that of another, such as in the instant case copper thus providing a same coffee reservoir material capable and suitable for maintaining and being heated as taught by both and more specifically providing a same dallah as taught by Al-Jamaan.
Claim 9, Al-Jamaan teaches a same liquid level sensor (col. 2 lines 32-33) which controls the heat element to reduce heat as a result of the liquid level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a same liquid level sensor as taught by both, which detects a liquid in the coffee brew chamber as taught by both and is connected with the heating base as taught by both, configured to prevent the liquid from spilling from the coffee brew chamber during brewing such as in the instant case configured to prevent spilling by reducing heat of the heating base after the water has started to boil as taught by Al-Jamaan.
In addition since both teach a same liquid level sensor, though silent to “configured to prevent spilling. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach a same liquid level sensor as taught by both, which detects a liquid in the coffee brew chamber as taught by both and is connected with the heating base as taught by both, configured to prevent the liquid from spilling from the coffee brew chamber during brewing such as in the instant case configured to prevent spilling by reducing heat of the heating base after the water has started to boil as taught by Al-Jamaan.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer et al. (20210093120) in view of Swager (2154963) and Smith (https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/tips-and-ideas/archive/more-9-coffee-add-ins-you-have-try).
Palmer and Swager are taken as above.
Palmer teaches ground coffee where Smith teaches it is known to not only provide spices to the ground coffee before brewing but that cardamom is a known type of coffee recipe (pg. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add spice including cinnamon to the ground coffee the motivation being providing an alternative flavored coffee as taught by Smith.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cardamom (cardamon) as a flavoring the motivation being imitating a known popular flavored coffee as further taught by Smith (pg. 2)
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urging directed to the particular configuration having a specific function. It is initially noted applicants urgings it is designed with considerations for weight distribution, stability and vibration dampening, as described in the specification on page 9 line 10. Specifically, the base stand is designed in an asymmetrical way to facilitate ergonomic interaction for the user, as described in the specification on page 10 line 8. The claims are silent to such, the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
However and importantly, though silent to a circular base, Palmer teaches the coffee system as a stand alone unit (par. 0110) thus requiring support for the functional components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the same taught base as circular since matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art and since a matter of shape choice, such as in the instant case circular a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
Similarly, though silent to the front extension height gradually and continuously increases at the perimeter of the circular base until reaching the back extension height. The configuration for supporting a same functional components of the claimed system is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed base stand was significant and since matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art and providing a same support without the need for multiple machines as taught by Palmer (abstract last 2 lines).
"The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the front extension height gradually and continuously increases at the perimeter of the circular base until reaching the back extension height thus providing a support structure capable of supporting the functional components without the need for multiple machines as taught by Palmer (abstract last 2 lines).
With respect to applicants urging the heating system of Palmer is not limited to only the bottom, the claims are not limited to only the bottom but encompass around, which includes the bottom.
With respect to applicants urging directed to the flap and applicants urging teaches away since Palmer is silent to on the front. Importantly the purpose is to provide the roasted beans to the grinder, and thus the location of the opening is merely a matter of design choice which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a same end function.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN N LEFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)270-34753475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights