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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants urgings with respect to the restriction requirement of 1/14/26 have been considered and are persuasive. Claims 17-20 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability.
Because all claims have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 1/14/26 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 20 is 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.
The phrase “Saudi Arabian method of brewing coffee” in claim 20 is rejected, as it is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “Saudi Arabian method of brewing coffee” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Though the specification teaches Arabic beans (par. 0069), the specification further teaches the device of Middle Eastern coffee culture (par. 0058). It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “Saudi Arabian method of brewing coffee”; it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed by this phrase, if not “Saudi Arabian method of brewing coffee”, but Middle Easter. It is unclear if the phrase is distinguished by device, by bean, by unclaimed brewing condition, with respect to any coffee produced from grounds or something different altogether.
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 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer et al. (20210093120).
Palmer teaches with respect to Independent claim 1, a coffee brewing system (par. 0001), comprising:
a base having a flat horizontal section (par. 0040; fig. 1 ref. 10 bottom wall), a vertical section (fig. 1 ref. 10 sidewalls) connected to an edge of the flat horizontal section (fig. 1 ref. 10; par. 0040),
an interactive display screen integral with the base (par. 0105; fig. 5),
a coffee bean roaster (par. 0088 fig. 1 ref. 23) mounted within the vertical section of the base (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) on a lower surface (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 flat horizontal section 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 (fig. 1 ref. 20).
Though silent to the structural relationship of a vertical section circumferentially connected to an edge of the front surface, the roaster mounted, detachable mounting, mixing blades or a flap, importantly Palmer teaches the requisite functional components.
Since 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 a stand having a flat horizontal section and a vertical section circumferentially connected to an edge of the flat horizontal section for its art recognized purpose of providing a support structure and more specifically since the shape of the claimed base and corresponding vertical section is a matter of shape choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
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. 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 a flap on a front surface of the roaster, Palmer does teach providing the beans from the roaster directly to the grinder (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 provide a flap on a front surface 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) for subsequent processing.
Though silent to the coffee bean grinder detachably mounted on the flat horizontal section of the base stand. 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 coffee bean grinder (par. 0044) detachably mounted on the vertical section of the base stand thus achieving the art recognized purpose of providing support of the grinder relative the roaster and since the coffee grinder detachably mounted on the flat horizontal section of the base stand has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced and an obvious design choice.
Though silent to the coffee brew chamber (fig. 1 ref. 15) is detachably mounted to a heating base integral with the flat horizontal section of the 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). 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 flat horizontal section of 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).
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 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 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 15, 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 comprising a flat horizontal section of the base stand being circular, and the vertical section of the base stand has a front side and a rear side, wherein the front side is lower than the rear side for its art recognized purpose of providing a support structure and more specifically since the shape of the claimed base and corresponding vertical section lower than the rear side is a matter of shape choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
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 on the vertical section of the base stand on the front side 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, 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).
Claim 20, wherein the method of brewing coffee is a Saudi Arabian method of brewing coffee minus any clear and convincing evidence Saudi Arabians do not brew as claimed and taught by Palmer.
Claims 2-3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer et al. (20210093120) in view of 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.
Alternatively, with respect to claim 20. 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 type of coffee brewing with respect to 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20220408964, 3153377 directed to roasting, grinding and brewing device,
20190082881 directed to grinding and brewing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 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) 270-3475. 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