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 .
1. Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are presented for examination and claim 7 is cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8 and 16 under 103 have been fully considered,
3.1 Applicant argues that the cited prior arts fail to disclose the amended limitation of claims 1, 8 and 16, at least one capacitive sensor adjacent to an external surface of the channel. However, Skaling (US 20210088462 A1) discloses in Par. [0044], the capacitive matrix suction sensor is disposed in the media such that the outer surface of the sensor's jacket comes into contact with and is surrounded by the porous media, therefore, such arguments are not persuasive.
3.2 Applicant argues that the cited prior arts fail to disclose the amended limitation of claims 1, 8 and 16, …to sense a relative permittivity of fluid in the channel through the external surface and a measurement of a ratio of air to liquid in fluid flowing inside of the channel based on the relative permittivity of the fluid, such arguments are persuasive. However, upon further consideration and search, newly found prior art Arantes et al.(Relative Permittivity Meter Using a Capacitive Sensor and an Oscillating Current Source) discloses in Abstract, analysis of several fluids; Page 806, column 2, par. 2-3, fluid analysis by measuring the relative permittivity based on the capacitive sensor. Obtain the relative permittivity of a fluid from the measured capacitance value.
As a result, the previous rejection has been withdrawn and a new rejection has been made in its place, McDougall et al. (US 20210238022 A1) in view of Skaling (US 20210088462 A1) further in view of Arantes et al.(Relative Permittivity Meter Using a Capacitive Sensor and an Oscillating Current Source).
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.
4. 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.
4.1 Claim(s) ) 1, 2, 6, 8-11, 16-17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDougall et al. (US 20210238022 A1) in view of Skaling (US 20210088462 A1) future in view of Arantes et al.(Relative Permittivity Meter Using a Capacitive Sensor and an Oscillating Current Source).
Regarding claim 1, 8 and 16, McDougall discloses a system, comprising:
at least one pump being configured to control a flow rate through a channel ([0017], [0020], [0037], [0054], [0086], A pump may be in fluid communication with the conduits, and be configured to pump the fluid ingredient through the conduit; pumps are responsive to input control signals to pump a certain amount of fluid within the fluid paths that is predetermined to output a certain amount of ingredient);
least one sensor adjacent to the channel ([0017], An electrical conductivity sensor may be configured to sense an electrical conductivity of the fluid ingredient within the conduit); and
at least one computing device (processing unit 215) in communication with the at least one sensor and operatively coupled to the at least one pump ([0017], [0038], [0062], A processing unit may be configured to receive electrical conductivity measurements from the electrical conductivity sensor, and further be configured to determine whether the electrical conductivity of the fluid ingredient crosses a threshold level. The conductivity sensor may communicate the conductivity (fluid resistance) signals to the electronics for processing), the at least one computing device being configured to:
receive at least one signal from the at least one sensor ([0015], 0017], The electrical conductivity sensor may further be configured to output), wherein the at least one signal corresponds to a measurement in the channel ([0014], [0062], The conductivity sensor may be formed by using a pair of electrodes placed within the fluid path and measuring electrical conductivity of the fluid ingredient. FIG. 2C, the conductivity sensor 210a may communicate the conductivity (fluid resistance) signals to the electronics 214 for processing);
calculate a fluid value based on the at least one signal ([0062], the processing unit include a comparator that compares the conductivity signals with a comparator value);
determine that the fluid value exceeds a predefined threshold ([0062], the processing unit include a comparator, which may be hardware or software, that compares the conductivity signals with a comparator value. The comparator value is set at a threshold level that allows for small air bubbles to pass without reaction, but identifies air bubbles that are large enough to indicate that the ingredient 202a is empty. The comparator 224 may generate an output 227 that indicates if an air bubble detected is greater than the comparison value 226); and
perform a remedial action in response to the fluid value exceeding the predefined threshold ([0058]-[0059], the processing unit may disable one or more selectable icons of a beverage that includes the beverage ingredient that has been sensed to be empty by way of a conductivity measurement crossing a threshold level).
McDougall fails to disclose one capacitive sensor wherein the at least one signal corresponds to a measurement of a ratio of air to liquid in fluid and the capacitive sensor and capacitive sensor positioned adjacent to an external surface of a channel.
However, Skaling discloses one capacitive sensor (abstract, capacitive matrix suction sensor) wherein the at least one signal corresponds to a measurement of a ratio of air to liquid in fluid in the channel ([0046], the ratio of liquid to air within the pores can be measured by the capacitive matrix suction sensor); and capacitive sensor positioned adjacent to an external surface of a channel ([0044], the capacitive matrix suction sensor is disposed in the media such that the outer surface of the sensor's jacket comes into contact with and is surrounded by the porous media).
McDougal and Skaling are analogous art. They relate to measured, the fluid contact with the media. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify, porous medium, taught by Skaling, incorporated with a beverage dispenser, taught by McDougal, since doing so would efficiently monitor the state of the fluid dispensed.
The combination of McDougal and Skaling fail to disclose sense a relative permittivity; and wherein the at least one signal corresponds to a measurement of a ratio of air to liquid in fluid flowing inside of the channel based on the relative permittivity of the fluid. However, Arantes discloses … sense a relative permittivity (Page 807, Column 2, Par. 1-4, when relating the measured capacitance to the relative permittivity of the fluid); and the at least one signal corresponds to a measurement of a ratio of air to liquid in fluid flowing inside of the channel based on the relative permittivity of the fluid relative permittivity (dielectric constant) of fluid in the channel (Abstract, Page 806, column 2, par. 2-3, fluid analysis by measuring the relative permittivity based on the capacitive sensor; and obtain the relative permittivity of a fluid from the measured capacitance value).
Arantes, McDougal and Skaling are analogous art. They relate to measure the fluid contact with the media. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify, taught by Aranteset incorporated with teaching of Skaling and McDougal, as state above, in order to improve the accuracy of the system by calibration and sampling procedures to measure the relative permittivity of other fluids by using capacitive sensor.
Regarding claim 2, McDougal discloses the remedial action comprises the at least one computing device being further configured to transmit a command to the at least one pump to adjust the flow rate ([0058], [0086], conductivity signals 215 or data derived therefrom, to control operation of the dispenser based on level (e.g., fluid ingredient available or empty) of the ingredients; a controller (not shown) to cause a micro-pump 706 to stop or prevent pumping).
Regarding claim 6, McDougal discloses the remedial action comprises the at least one computing device being further configured to generate a notification to replace at least one reservoir coupled to the channel ([0038],[007], [0057], [0071], user interfaces and notifications may be used to provide the ingredient level data and status notifications of a beverage ingredient being empty; a notification to an electronic device of an operator in response to sensing that a fluid ingredient and last date replaced, remaining amount, electrical conductivity and/or other measurement parameter, and so on).
Regarding claim 9, McDougal discloses controlling, via at least one pump, a flow rate of a liquid through the channel ([0057], [0086], conductivity signals or data derived therefrom, to control operation of the dispenser based on level, e.g., fluid ingredient available or empty of the ingredients. a level sensor used to sense whether the ingredient cartridge is empty to enable a controller to cause a micro-pump to stop or prevent pumping).
Regarding claim 10, McDougal discloses determining, via one of the one or more computing devices, that the fluid value exceeds a second threshold ([0059], The threshold level defined based on sensed electrical conductivity levels for ingredient fluid, and should be set to distinguish between small air bubbles and air bubbles that are indicative of empty fluid ingredient levels); and in response to determining that the fluid value exceeds the second threshold, generating, via one of the one or more computing devices, a notification to replace a reservoir coupled to the channel ([0038], [0070], [0071], The dispenser is communicate with a remote electronic device. The dispenser may sense that an ingredient is empty, and communicate an empty status of the ingredient to the electronic device for displaying an empty indicator; the dispenser communicates a notification to the operator to take action accordingly).
Regarding claim 11, McDougal discloses generating, via one of the one or more computing devices, a notification that a reservoir is low based on the fluid value ([0038], [0070], [0071], the dispenser communicates a notification to the operator about the “sold out” or empty status of the fluid ingredient. an electrical conductivity of the fluid ingredient may be sensed within the conduit. A determination as to whether an electrical conductivity of the fluid crosses a threshold level at step 606. The determination may be made based on whether the electrical conductivity or metric derived therefrom (e.g., standard deviation) has crossed a threshold level indicative of a fluid ingredient being empty).
Regarding claim 17, McDougal discloses causes the computing device to control, via at least one pump, a flow rate of a liquid from a reservoir ([0057],[0084], [0086], a microprocessor to control operation of the dispenser based on level (e.g., fluid ingredient available or empty) of the ingredients, and a controller to cause a micro-pump to stop or prevent pumping).
Regarding claim 21, McDougall discloses the at least one signal from the at least one sensor comprises a plurality of high frequency dips ([0076], vibration frequency detector to measure vibration of a pump or other fluid path member).
4.2 Claim(s) 3-4, 14-15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDougal in view Skaling future in view of Arantes and furthermore in view of Renzi (US 20190152759 A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, 14-15 and 18-19, the combination of McDougal, Skaling and Arantes disclose the limitation of claims 1, 8 and 16, but fail to disclose the limitations of claims 3-4, 14-15 and 18-19. However, Renzi discloses the limitation of claims 3- 4, 14-15 and 18-19 as follow:
Regarding claims 3-4, Renzi discloses the at least one computing device is further configured to detect a change in the at least one signal indicating a change in a ratio of air to liquid in the fluid and the command increases the flow rate; and the ratio of air to liquid changes based on a quantity of bubbles in the fluid increasing ([0072], [0114], [0118], [0167], a large amount of foam in the line without a sufficient amount of liquid to enable it to be reabsorbed, so that the varying means is ineffective or has to work under non-ideal or inacceptable conditions; above all when the tap is first opened there would be the risk of dispensing with excessive foam. Examples of a means for indicating the presence of foam include: an ultrasonic bubble detector such as the ones used, for example, in fields like dialysis, a sensor capable of detecting the passage of bubbles (and optionally the size and amount thereof), or a sensor (for example optical) which indicates the presence of gas in the conduit. Control means 72 is capable of receiving information from the means for indicating the presence of foam and sending setting commands to the patriotization means22. In particular, the control means is configured to determine a desired pressureP10 (also called counter-reaction pressure) in the container on the basis of the indication of the presence of foam; the device could react by increasing the flow rate in order to bring it back to the nominal value. The flow rate can thus be increased until the measured pressure remains equal too r above the saturation pressure plus the first safety threshold established to ensure that no foam is formed).
Renzi, Arantes, Skaling, and McDougal are analogous art. They relate to fluid flow controller. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify, dispensing means, taught by Renzi, incorporated with the teaching of Arantes McDougal and Skaling, as stated above, since doing so would efficiently monitor the state of the fluid dispensed.
Regarding claims 14-15, Renzi discloses performing the remedial action comprises transmitting a command to at least one pump to increase a flow rate based on the fluid value; and the command causes the at least one pump to increase the flow rate to be a consistent (equivalent to a normal value) flow rate over time ([0037], [0163], [0167],[0194], determining a variation in the flow rate of the beverage comprises increasing the flow rate of the beverage, an increase in the flow rate of the beverage corresponds to a decrease in the compensation pressure, and vice versa. the device could react by increasing the flow rate in order to bring it back to the nominal value. The flow rate can thus be increased until the measured pressure remains equal to or above the saturation pressure plus the first safety threshold established to ensure that no foam is formed).
Renzi, Arantes, Skaling, and McDougal are analogous art. They relate to fluid flow controller. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify, dispensing means, taught by Renzi, incorporated with the teaching of Arantes, McDougal and Skaling, as stated above, in order to prevent critical states by adjusting the flow prior to opening.
Regarding claim 18-19, Renzi discloses causes the computing device to determine the predefined threshold based on a calibration ([0114], The pre-established value can be set on the basis of experiments and calibrations (to be performed at the time of designing, manufacturing and/or installing the device), so that it indicates a certain amount of foam present in the line), and determine the predefined threshold based on historical data associated with one or more historical measurements ([0126], The calibration curve on the basis of the season of the year and characteristics of the beverage).
Renzi, Arantes, Skaling, and McDougal are analogous art. They relate to fluid flow controller. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify, dispensing means, taught by Renzi, incorporated with the teaching of Arantes, McDougal and Skaling, as stated above, in order to achieve an optimal dispensing of the beverage.
4.3 Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDougal in view of Skaling future in view of Arantes and furthermore in view of CANET PEIROUS (US 20220053970 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Arantes, McDougal and Skaling disclose the limitation of claims 1 and 2, but fail disclose the limitation of claim 5. However, Canet Peiro discloses the limitations of claim 5, the command is configured to modify properties of pulse width modulations for the pump ([0017], The push-button is used to select the beverage and prepare it, and the at least one control unit with a PID logic and a pulse width modulation circuit is used to command a single DC rotary vane pump, which provides the water coming from a tank).
Canet Peiro, Arantes, McDougal and Skaling are analogous art. They relate to fluid flow controller. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify automatic dispensing machines, taught by Canet Peiro, incorporated with the teaching of Arantes, McDougal and Skaling, as stated above, in order to allow an adjustment to be carried out, while the beverage is being prepared, of the pressure and/or flow rate parameters as provided by the pump and the time of infusion and extraction; after the beverage has been prepared.
4.4 Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDougal in view of Skaling further in view of Arantes and furthermore in view of Wing et al. (US 20180251358 A1).
Regarding claims 12-13, the combination of Arantes, McDougal and Skaling disclose the limitations of claim 8, but fail to disclose the limitation of claims 12-13, However, Wing discloses the limitation of claims 12-13 as follow:
Regarding claim 12, Wing discloses transmitting, via one of the one or more computing devices, an order for at least one new reservoir (Abstract, [0022], [0030], a wireless communicator reports information indicative of the default weight of each replacement container to a central server. A process detects increases in the time periods required in each of the beverage dispensers to dispense a beverage beginning after a replacement water filter has been installed in the dispenser. A process determines when the time period exceeds a predetermined threshold for a given beverage dispenser, that the replacement time has been reached).
Regarding claim 13, Wing discloses the fluid value is calculated using a rolling average of the at least one signal ([0282] The following calculations are performed using empirical examples of the weights calculated, to create a rolling average of the measurements of “a” and “b.” The coefficients are revised according to the rolling average).
Wing, Arantes, McDougal are analogous art. They relate to fluid flow controller. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify managing a variety of functions including replacement of depleted supplies of component, taught by wing, incorporated with the teaching of Arantes, McDougal and Skaling, as stated above, in order to enable the beverages that are dispensed to be uniform and appealing to users and the remote management abilities of the systems and techniques mean that the dispensers can operate with low costs and remain profitable.
4.5 Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDougal in view of Skaling further in view Arantes and furthermore in view of Stork Genannt Wersborg (US 20210022547 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Arantes, McDougal and Skaling disclose the limitations of claim 16, but fail to disclose the limitation of claim 20, However, Stork Genannt Wersborg discloses the limitation of claim 20 as follow: the fluid value is a noise to signal ratio ([0059], [0068], extracting features emphasizes or increases the signal-to-noise ratio by focusing on the more relevant information of a data set).
Stork Genannt Wersborg, Arantes, Skaling and McDougal are analogous art. They relate to fluid flow controller. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a monitoring system for an apparatus for making beverages, taught by Stork Genannt Wersborg, incorporated with the teaching of Arantes, McDougal and Skaling, as stated above, in order to increase the beverage treatment or dispensing machine in flexibility, quality, and efficiency.
Citation Pertinent prior art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. discloses measurement of the relative permittivity of the liquid phase of R454C with
vapor quality change under two-phase condition.
Lange (US20240034609A1) discloses an automated beverage dispensing attachment includes a capacitive sensor located adjacent to a fluid passage, for example, inside of a cork that attaches to an inside of a bottle.
Cloutier (US 6075464 A) discloses positioning the capacitive sensor at a fixed distance close to the conductive part so that the dielectric substance whose permittivity is to be measured is between the conductive part and the capacitive sensor.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR 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 PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217 - 9197.
/KIDEST WORKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights