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
Applicant’s election of group II in the reply filed on 1/26/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) gathering data/information, storing the data/information, and sharing/uploading this data/information without any factual material processing steps. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include any physical processing steps of the beverage. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the acts of monitoring, storing, sharing, and uploading information are simply mathematical logic-based steps which rely upon manipulation and transformation of data/information without any physical steps of treating, preparing, or perfecting a beverage. Further, the claimed steps appear to read upon a mental process, as all of the claimed steps could be performed by an individual by simply monitoring a temperature gauge, remembering/storing the data in their mind, sharing/uploading the information by speaking it to others. Also, the claims do not positively recite any physical action which is performed as a result of gathering and sharing the claimed information.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “monitoring a first characteristic of a first brewed beverage” and sharing the information to “enable additional users to replicate the first characteristic”. It is not clear if the “monitoring” step occurs after the beverage has been made, and is simply being held prior to consumption; or whether the “monitoring” occurs during the brewing process. It is not clear if the “monitoring” step is for the final brewed beverage, or whether the “monitoring” is of the water used during the brew cycle. It is not clear what is being replicated if the beverage was previously created. It is not clear what actions are required to replicate the beverage since the claims only includes steps of “monitoring”, “storing information”, and “sharing the information”.
Claim 28 recites “the beverage handling process change includes a change in time of day during which the brewing cycle is carried out”. It is not clear what this claim requires. It is not clear if this is simply a delayed start to the brew cycle, or not. It is not clear if the cycle time would be changed or not.
Claim 31 recites “monitoring a first temperature of the beverage during the brewing process” and “determining one or more features of the beverage after the brewing process”. It is not clear if the “monitoring” step occurs after the beverage has been made, and is simply being held prior to consumption; or whether the “monitoring” occurs during the actual brewing process. It is not clear if the “monitoring” step is for the final brewed beverage, or whether the “monitoring” is of the water used during the brew cycle. It is not clear what actions are required since the claims only includes steps of “monitoring”, “storing” information, “determining a feature’, and “uploading” information.
Claim 35 recites “short-range communication”. It is not clear what distances would be considered “short-range”.
Claim 35 recites “monitoring a first characteristic of a beverage during the brewing cycle” and “determining a second characteristic of the beverage after the brewing cycle”. It is not clear if the “monitoring” step occurs after the beverage has been made, and is simply being held prior to consumption; or whether the “monitoring” occurs during the actual brewing process. It is not clear if the “monitoring” step is for the final brewed beverage, or whether the “monitoring” is of the water used during the brew cycle. It is not clear what actions are required since the claims only includes steps of “monitoring”, “storing” information, “determining a feature’, and “uploading” information.
Claim 39 recites a second beverage “similar to the first beverage”. It is not clear what level or degree of similarity would satisfy this requirement. For instance, it is not clear if any two beverages would be considered “similar” since they are both edible liquids.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 21-24, 30, 36-37, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al [US 2023/0276976A1] in view of Chiou [US 2018/0199752A1].
Matsumura et al teach a pour-over coffee replication system (title) by monitoring the temperature of water with a sensor during the brew process (Figure 1, #1, 3, 6), determining a second characteristic of the beverage, such as weight (Figure 1 & 3, #2), storing or recording information related to the temperature and weight (paragraph 0015), sharing the information with an external user device (Figure 1, #4), sharing the information with a network of other brewing machines (Figure 3, #6), replicating the first brewed beverage with the other brewing machines to produce a second brewed beverage (paragraph 0016), uploading the information to a cloud network interface accessible by the other brewing machines (Figure 1 & 3, #5; paragraph 0015), and storing the information in a cloud database (Figure 3, #51; paragraph 0015).
Matsumura et al do not explicitly recite monitoring a first characteristic of the brewed beverage (claim 21, 36), the first characteristic being beverage temperature (claim 23).
Chiou teaches a brewing quality measuring device (title) comprising a vessel receiving a brewed beverage (Figure 2, #10), monitoring a first characteristic of the beverage, such as temperature, with a sensor (Figure 2, #102), monitoring a second characteristic of the beverage, such as weight, with a scale platform (Figure 2, #101, 105), a timer (Figure 1, #111), a control unit (Figure 2, #104), a display unit (Figure 2, #110), communication with a remote data monitoring center (Figure 1, #126), connecting the device to the brewing machine to receive a brewing temperature (paragraph 0028), and the remote data monitoring center performing data analysis to enhance quality control and provide strategy for improvement (paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed beverage temperature monitoring into the invention of Matsumura et al, in view of Chiou, since both are directed to methods of making brewed beverages, since Matsumura et al already included monitoring the temperature of water with a sensor during the brew process (Figure 1, #1, 3, 6), since beverage systems commonly included monitoring of the beverage temperature (Figure 2, #102) in order to improve beverage quality (paragraph 0004-0005) as shown by Chiou above, since consumers often preferred beverages with higher quality, and since monitoring both the water temperature and the beverage temperature would have better ensured a more acceptable beverage for the consumer of Matsumura et al, in view of Chiou.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al, in view of Chiou, as applied above, and further in view of Johnson et al [US 6,062,126].
Matsumura et al and Chiou teach the abovementioned concepts. Matsumura et al do not explicitly recite identifying a target range (claim 25). Johnson et al teach a beverage quality control method (title) including a vessel (Figure 2, #12), a temperature sensor (Figure 2, #30), and maintaining a target temperature range (Figure 7, #104, 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed target range into the invention of Matsumura et al, in view of Chiou and Johnson et al, since all are directed to beverage systems, since Matsumura et al already included monitoring the water temperature, since Chiou already included monitoring the beverage temperature, since beverage systems commonly maintained a target temperature range for the beverage (Figure 7, #104, 112) as shown by Johnson et al, and since maintaining a target temperature range for the beverage would better enabled a high quality beverage for the consumer of Matsumara et al, in view of Chiou and Johnson et al.
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al, in view of Chiou, as applied above, and further in view of Helbling [US 5,094,153].
Matsumura et al and Chiou teach the abovementioned concepts. Matsumura et al do not explicitly recite collecting dispensing information and identifying a beverage handling process change (claim 26), the change being a change in volume (claim 27) or a change in time of day (claim 27), and an automatic process change (claim 28). Helbling teaches a coffee machine (title) comprising carafes (Figure 6, #224-227), dispensing nozzles above the carafes (Figure 6, #214-215), ultrasonic sensors to detect the beverage level in the carafes (Figure 6, #239-242), a program collecting dispensing information for a particular time of day and automatically filling a carafe (column 11, lines 50-58; Figure 11), and a display presenting information such as “lunch cycle”, time of day, beverage volume in each carafe, and freshness (Figure 12, #202). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed process change features and automatic operation into the invention of Matsumura et al, in view of Chiou and Helbling, since all are directed to beverage systems, since Matsumura et al already included monitoring temperature and weight, since Chiou already included monitoring temperature and weight of the beverage, since beverage systems commonly included ultrasonic sensors to detect the beverage level in the carafes (Figure 6, #239-242), a program collecting dispensing information for a particular time of day and automatically filling a carafe (column 11, lines 50-58; Figure 11), and a display presenting information such as “lunch cycle”, time of day, beverage volume in each carafe, and freshness (Figure 12, #202) as shown by Helbling, and since automatic refilling of the container of Matsumura et al would have enabled more consistent and uniform results as compared to manual monitoring and replenishment of the container.
Claims 31-32, 34-35, 38, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al, in view of Chiou, as applied above, and further in view of Li et al [US 2015/0351581A1].
Matsumura et al and Chiou teach the above mentioned concepts. Matsumura et al also disclose a wireless connection between the mobile device and brew system (Figure 1 & 3, #2-4, 21-31, 42).
Matsumura et al do not explicitly recite storing temperature values and information on the brewer (claim 31), and determining the temperature at the beginning or brewing, during brewing, and at the end of brewing (claim 34), vessel sensors (claim 38), and adjusting the settings (claim 40).
Li et al teach a network connected coffee maker (title) comprising a beverage machine with memory for storing beverage information (Figure 4, #8), a vessel/container with a temperature sensor, liquid level sensor, and pressure sensor which monitor the beverage throughout brewing operations (Figure 10, #81-83), and modifying retrieved beverage parameters by the user (paragraph 0059-0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed brew machine memory, periodic temperature monitoring, and adjusted settings into the invention of Matsumura et al, in view of Chiou and Li et al, since all are directed to beverage systems, since Matsumura et al already included a cloud database for storing information, since beverage systems commonly included a beverage machine with memory for storing beverage information (Figure 4, #8) as shown by Li et al, since data storage on the beverage machine would permit operations even if the access to the internet/cloud was unavailable, since Matsumura et al already included temperature monitoring of the water, since Chiou already included temperature monitoring of the beverage, since beverage systems commonly included a container with a temperature sensor, liquid level sensor, and pressure sensor which monitor the beverage throughout brewing operations (Figure 10, #81-83) as shown by Li et al, since continuous and/or periodic temperature measurement of the beverage would have enabled the system to provide warming of the beverage if the temperature fell too low and thus provide a high quality beverage for the consumer of Matsumura et al, since beverage systems commonly included adjustment of settings (paragraph 0059-0060) as shown by Li et al, and since the ability to modify a beverage according to an individual’s personal tastes and preferences would have provided increased consumer demand for the system of Matsumura et al.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al, in view of Chiou and Li et al, as applied above, and further in view of Helbling [US 5,094,153].
Matsumura et al, Li et al, and Chiou teach the abovementioned concepts. Matsumura et al do not explicitly recite determining the volume (claim 33). Helbling teaches a coffee machine (title) comprising carafes (Figure 6, #224-227), dispensing nozzles above the carafes (Figure 6, #214-215), ultrasonic sensors to detect the beverage level in the carafes (Figure 6, #239-242), a program collecting dispensing information for a particular time of day and automatically filling a carafe (column 11, lines 50-58; Figure 11), and a display presenting information such as “lunch cycle”, time of day, beverage volume in each carafe, and freshness (Figure 12, #202). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed volume measurement into the invention of Matsumura et al, in view of Chiou, Li et al, and Helbling, since all are directed to beverage systems, since Matsumura et al already included monitoring temperature and weight, since Chiou already included monitoring temperature and weight of the beverage, since beverage systems commonly included ultrasonic sensors to detect the beverage level in the carafes (Figure 6, #239-242), a program collecting dispensing information for a particular time of day and automatically filling a carafe (column 11, lines 50-58; Figure 11), and a display presenting information such as “lunch cycle”, time of day, beverage volume in each carafe, and freshness (Figure 12, #202) as shown by Helbling, and since automatic volume measurement and refilling of the container of Matsumura et al would have enabled more consistent and uniform results as compared to manual monitoring and replenishment of the container.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De Warrimont et al, Hanson et al, Watanabe, Zajac et al, Daniell et al, Knepler teach beverage systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, 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 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792