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 Status
Claims 1-19 are pending:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2023 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1 “electronic processing unit”, Page9 explicitly indicates that the electronic processing unit is “not illustrated”
Claim 18 “control device”, the office could not find the control device in the drawings
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation - Language
Language and/or terms in the claims are interpreted as follows:
Terms within parentheses in claim do not limit claim scope, please see MPEP 608.01(m.)
“and/or” will be read as “or” unless otherwise stated
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
“means for making a beverage for …” as recited in claim 1
Corresponding structure
Well known in the art structure 9 of tank, pump, boiler, capsule piercer 10, as in formed by Fig1 and Page6
Or Equivalents
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“infeed section” as recited in claim 1
Corresponding structure
Capsule insertion tube 13 region, as informed by Fig1/2
Or Equivalents
“image acquisition device” as recited in claim 11
Corresponding structure
Digital video camera sensor 16/18/19, as informed by Fig3 and Page8
Or Equivalents
“electronic processing unit” as recited in claim 1
Corresponding structure
None
Or Equivalents
“control device” as recited in claim 18
Corresponding structure
Button, as informed by Page11
“mechanical detecting device” as described in WO 2019/021076, recited on pages 11/23
Please see Examination Note below
Or Equivalents
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examination Note
On pages 11/23, applicant indicates that “a control device according to what is described in the already mentioned patent application WO 2019/021076 A1, to which reference should be made for details”. The office notes that the “control device” is considered “essential material” of the specification due to being claimed subject matter. CFR 1.57(d) states that “ ‘Essential material’ may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication”. First, the instant specification fails to invoke incorporation by reference to WO 2019/021076, and Second, even if the instant specification did properly invoke incorporation by reference the WO patent document – the WO patent document is still not a US Patent or US PG Pub. and therefore fails to provide support for the essential material of a “control device”.
The office notes that the disclosure of “a button” on page 11 as a structure for a “control device” is the only written description supported by the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112a/b – Invoked via 35 USC 112f
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
The cited claim limitation(s) below invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim 1-19 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1
The specification fails to provide any written description support for any structure to perform the function of the limitation “electronic processing unit” as interpreted under 35 USC 112f
Claims dependent on a rejected claim are rejected based on dependency.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
General
Consider rewording each instance of “it”, “them”, “this”, and similar terms to greatly improve clarity and to reduce the narrative nature of the claim language.
The office notes that while providing limitations in functional form is fine, using narrative language is not proper.
Claim 1
L9, amend “[[a]]the capsule” to improve clarity by properly indicating the correct antecedent basis
Claim 2
L3, amend “[[a]]the capsule” to improve clarity by properly indicating the correct antecedent basis
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The office notes that the instant subject matter of dependent claims 4 and 11 are the same. While claim 11 does further depend upon the subject matter of claim 10; Claim 10 is rejected below under 35 USC 112d for not further limiting the claim scope of independent claim 1, and therefore cannot be relied upon to show a difference of subject matter between claims 4 and 11.
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 1-19 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.
General
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with idiomatic errors.
Some, but not all, of the narrative issues are explicitly indicated below to guide applicant in correcting the narrative claim construction. Full correction is required.
Claim 1
Line 4/9, limitation “can be” renders the claim indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown, as it is unknown if the corresponding recitations are or are not required by the claim language as such language invokes a potential optional limitation, and is narrative in nature.
For the purpose of applying art, the office will read the above as required functional language.
Claim 2
L2/3 ”which is considered to correspond” renders the claim indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown, as it is unknown if the corresponding recitations are or are not required by the claim language as such language invokes a potential optional limitation, and is narrative in nature.
For the purpose of applying art, the office will read the above as required functional language.
Claim 8
“them” renders the claim indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown, as it is unknown if the cited term references the first group of photos, only some photos, a collection of pixels in one or a group of photos, etc, further the recitation is narrative in nature.
Claim 18
L2, limitation “can be” renders the claim indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown, as it is unknown if the corresponding recitations are or are not required by the claim language as such language invokes a potential optional limitation.
For the purpose of applying art, the office will read the above as required functional language, and is narrative in nature.
Claims dependent on a rejected claim are rejected based on dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10
“wherein the electronic processing unit is programmed to perform the inspection step by directly or indirectly comparing the first image (31) with the reference image (30)” (office added underlining for emphasis) is in improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, as “by directly or indirectly” covers the full possible patentable scope of a comparison, and therefore the cited limitation does not further limit the patentable scope relative to Claim 1, of which claim 10 directly depends upon.
The office notes that claim 11 does require further limitations, and therefore is not rejected based on dependency.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-11, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bugnano (US 10,130,211)
Claim 1
Bugnano discloses:
“An apparatus for making beverages (best seen Fig1, apparatus 1), which uses capsules (best seen Fig1/4/7, capsule 30) containing a food substance, comprising:
an extraction unit (best seen Fig1/6, body region of housing 2 near injector 5) which defines an extraction chamber (best seen Fig1/6, inner chamber of housing 2 near injector 5) in which, in use, a capsule can be inserted (best seen Fig16, capsule 30 in extraction chamber), the extraction unit in turn comprising a first part (best seen Fig6/16, capsule holder 3) and a second part (Fig6/16, injector 5), the first part and the second part being movable, at least one relative to the other (best seen Fig6/14-18, capsule holder 3 and injector 5 move relative to eachother), between a home position in which they are spaced apart from each other (home position best seen Fig4), and in which the extraction chamber is open to allow insertion of a capsule in it (best seen Fig4, open position awaiting capsule 30), and an extraction position in which they are coupled to each other and close the extraction chamber (best seen Fig16, closed position closed on capsule 30);
an infeed section (best seen Fig1/4, guide 7) at which, in use, a capsule (30) can be fed to the apparatus, a forward movement duct (best seen Fig1/4, passage 8) for the capsule in the apparatus extending between the infeed section and the extraction unit (best seen Fig4, passage 8 vertically extends from guide 7 into inner chamber of housing 2);
means for making a beverage (best seen Fig13, tank 51, pump 53, duct 52/58, boiler 54, injector 5) for, in use, making hot water circulate through the capsule contained in the closed extraction chamber, thereby causing the beverage to be formed (C19L15-25, injector 5 forces hot water into capsule 30 to form coffee), and for dispensing the beverage to the outside of the apparatus (C10L28-50, Fig16, formed coffee dispensed via duct 18);
an image acquisition device (best seen Fig1/2/10/13, optical sensor 9) associated with the forward movement duct, at a transit zone of the forward movement duct (Abstract; best seen Fig1/2/10/13, optical sensor 9 faces passage 8 at the capsule transition zone), and configured to acquire digital images inside the forward movement duct at the transit zone (Abstract; C6L26-39, optical sensor 9 is a video/photographic camera aimed an the guide 7 passage 8); and
an electronic processing unit (best seen Fig13, control unit 60) connected to the image acquisition device (best seen Fig13, control unit 60 connected to optical sensor 9 via connection 60f) for receiving and processing the digital images acquired by it (best seen Fig13, communication connection 60f); wherein moreover:
the image acquisition device (optical sensor 9) is associated with a first side of the forward movement duct (best seen Fig1/2/10/13, first left side of guide 7) and is facing towards a second side of the forward movement duct opposite the first side (best seen Fig1/2/10/13, second right side of guide 7 opposite the first left side of guide 7), the image acquisition device being positioned in such a way that it frames a predetermined portion of an inner surface of the forward movement duct (best seen Fig10, opening 7b frames view of optical sensor 9), when the forward movement duct is empty (empty state best seen Fig10); and
a pattern (best seen Fig7/11/19, “Coffee” pattern on capsule 30) having a known shape is present in said predetermined portion (best seen Fig7/5, pattern on capsule 30 faces optical sensor 9 when in sensed position), the pattern being visually recognisable at least in an operating band of frequencies in which the image acquisition device acquires the images (C13L28-57), in such a way that the pattern is visible in a reference image acquired when the forward movement duct is empty (C20L61-C21L12, pattern information captured by optical sensor is also pre-stored in control memory); and wherein, in use, the electronic processing unit is programmed to receive a first image (31) acquired by the image acquisition device (16), and to perform the following steps:
an inspection step, during which the processing unit inspects the first image (C21L4-23, when control unit 60 processing means 61 compares reference image to captured image from optical sensor 9);
a classification step, in which based on the result of the inspection step, the electronic processing unit classifies the first image (31) in one of a plurality of types of images, where the plurality of types of images comprises at least a first type which is considered to correspond to an image of the transit zone occupied by a capsule (C20L61-C21L12, when control unit 60 processing means 61 confirms reference image to captured image from optical sensor, then brewing mode is automatically started; arrangement best seen Fig1/2/10/13 of capsule 30 within guide 7 relative to optical sensor 9), and … ; and
a control step, in which the electronic processing unit controls the operation of the apparatus depending on the result of the classification step (C20L61-C21L12, when control unit 60 processing means 61 confirms reference image to captured image from optical sensor, then brewing mode is automatically started).”
Bugnano does not explicitly discuss capturing an image of an empty guide 7.
Bugnano teaches (best seen Fig13; C7L28-C8L12) the application of non-contact presence sensor 13 to detect the presence of a capsule 30 in the correct location in guide 7 in order to activate the detection step of optical sensor 9. Bugnano further teaches (C7L55-C8L12) that sensor 13 may a non-contact visual based sensor on the same side of guide 7 as that of optical sensor 9.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Bugnano to use non-contact visual optical sensor 9 to incorporate the non-contact visual presence detection function of sensor 13, as optical sensor 9 is capable of performing the same acquisition of presence data as that required by sensor 13, and such a modification would reduce the number of components in the modified arrangement of Bugnano – thus reducing the cost of components due to less components and improving the reliability of the system due to less components, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Bugnano with a working arrangement where optical sensor 9 performs both its explicitly disclosed functions and capsule presence function due to additional images capture upon activation of switch 12 which results in captured images that include both a first type of the capsule graphics and a second type of the guide 7 with and without the capsule fully located at the proper graphic viewing location.
Claim 2
The modified arrangement of Bugnano discloses: “The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the second type is divided into a third type which is considered to correspond to an image of the transit zone occupied by something other than a capsule (limitation is within the scope of the modification as discussed in claim 1. limitation is merely a naming convention for second type images that do not confirm that the capsule is fully located at the proper graphic viewing location), and a fourth type which is considered to correspond to an image of the transit zone which is empty (limitation is within the scope of the modification as discussed in claim 1. limitation is merely a naming convention for second type images that do not confirm that the capsule is fully located at the proper graphic viewing location).”
Claim 3
The modified arrangement of Bugnano discloses: “The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the electronic processing unit is programmed to prevent movements by movable parts of the apparatus when, during the inspection step, it classified the first image in the second type (C25L23-47, C20L61-C21L12, operation of the system is deactivated unless the correct operating mode is activated, ie due to the captured image matching the first type and thus only then starting a brewing mode).”
Claim 4
The modified arrangement of Bugnano discloses:
“The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein, during the inspection step, the electronic processing unit is programmed:
to compare characteristics of the first image with corresponding reference characteristics (C21L4-23, when control unit 60 processing means 61 compares reference image to captured image from optical sensor 9);
based on that comparison to consider the pattern fully visible, partly visible or absent in the first image (C22L40-58, if the captured image fails to correspond to a stored image then the system classifies the instructions to a default);
to classify the image in one of said plurality of types of images based on how much of the pattern has been considered visible in the first image (C22L40-58, if the captured image fails to correspond to a stored image then the system classifies the instructions to a default).”
Claim 5
The modified arrangement of Bugnano discloses: “The apparatus according to claim 4 wherein the electronic processing unit is programmed to compare the characteristics of the first image with corresponding reference characteristics (Bugnano: C20L61-C21L23, captured image compared relative to stored images), for each of a plurality of first groups of pixels of the first image (Bugnano: Fig19, C24L50-C25L10, spacing/texture/color of features in captured/stored images are compared).”
Claim 6
The modified arrangement of Bugnano discloses: “The apparatus according to claim 5 wherein during the comparison step with regard to each first group the electronic processing unit is programmed to verify the presence of a predefined number of colour variations within the first group of pixels (Bugnano: C24L50-C25L10, spacing/texture/color of features in captured/stored images are compared), and/or to verify that present among the pixels of the first group there is a difference in colour intensity which is greater than a reference value (Bugnano: Fig19, C24L50-C25L10, spacing/texture/color of features in captured/stored images are compared).”
Claim 7
The modified arrangement of Bugnano discloses: “The apparatus according to claim 5 wherein the pixels of each first group are selected adjacent and positioned at a zone of the reference image at which the pattern has at least one discontinuity of at least some of its characteristics (Bugnano: image discontinuities best shown by variation in Fig19; C24L50-C25L10, spacing/texture/color of features in captured/stored images are compared).”
Claim 8
The modified arrangement of Bugnano discloses: “The apparatus according to claim 5 wherein the first groups are predefined and selected in such a way that at least some of them share a plurality of pixels (Bugnano: C20L61-C21L23, captured/stored images are compared to determine shared graphic details).”
Claim 10
The modified arrangement of Bugnano discloses: “The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the electronic processing unit is programmed to perform the inspection step by directly or indirectly comparing the first image with the reference image (non-limiting recitation – encompasses full possible comparison scope. C21L4-23, when control unit 60 processing means 61 compares reference image to captured image from optical sensor 9).”
Claim 11
The modified arrangement of Bugnano discloses:
“The apparatus according to claim 10 wherein, during the inspection step, the electronic processing unit is programmed:
to compare characteristics of the first image with corresponding reference characteristics (C21L4-23, when control unit 60 processing means 61 compares reference image to captured image from optical sensor 9);
based on that comparison to consider the pattern fully visible, partly visible or absent in the first image (C22L40-58, if the captured image fails to correspond to a stored image then the system classifies the instructions to a default);
to classify the image in one of said plurality of types of images based on how much of the pattern has been considered visible in the first image (C22L40-58, if the captured image fails to correspond to a stored image then the system classifies the instructions to a default).”
Claim 16
The modified arrangement of Bugnano discloses: “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the control step, the electronic processing unit is programmed to start or to enable a cycle for making a beverage only when, during the classification step, it classified the first image in the first type (C20L61-C21L12, when control unit 60 processing means 61 confirms reference image to captured image from optical sensor, then brewing mode is automatically started; C25L23-47, operation of the system is deactivated unless the correct operating mode is activated, ie due to the captured image matching the first type and thus only then starting a brewing mode).”
Claim 17
The modified arrangement of Bugnano discloses: “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, when the apparatus is switched on and in a stand-by condition and/or ready to use (C14L59-C15L10; best seen Fig13, ready mode when switch 12 activates positioning sensing of capsule 30), the image acquisition device acquires first images continuously, with a predetermined frequency (limitation is within the scope of the modification discussed in Claim 1 for the optical sensor 9 to perform presence detection), and sends them to the electronic processing unit (best seen Fig13, optical sensor 9 communication connection 60f to control unit 60), which, for each first image, performs the inspection and classification steps (see claim 1, control unit 60 performs inspection and classification step processing), and wherein, when the electronic processing unit (control unit 60) classifies a first image in the first type, during the subsequent control step it switches the apparatus to a ready to use condition and starts or enables a cycle for making a beverage (C20L61-C21L12, when control unit 60 processing means 61 confirms reference image to captured image from optical sensor, then brewing mode is automatically started).”
Claim 18
The modified arrangement of Bugnano discloses: “The apparatus according to claim 1, also comprising a control device (control unit 60) which can be operated, directly or indirectly, by a user (best seen Fig13/10, display 64 with keys, communication device 63, switch 12 activated by moving guide 7 lid 11), and wherein, when the apparatus is switched on, the image acquisition device (optical sensor 9) is programmed to acquire one or a plurality of images one after another following an activation command generated by the control device (limitation is within the bounds of the modification discussed in Claim 1. Optical sensor 9 takes images after being activated by sensor 12).”
Claim 19
The modified arrangement of Bugnano discloses: “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, when in the classification step it classified the first image in the first type, during the subsequent control step the electronic processing unit is also programmed to perform a capsule recognition step, using the first image used for the inspection step or a different image acquired by the image acquisition device (limitation is within the scope of the modification discussed in claim 1. Optical sensor 9 captures images to perform both the graphic identification and the capsule positioning functions), and to control the operation of the apparatus depending on the result of the recognition step (C20L61-C21L12, when control unit 60 processing means 61 confirms reference image to captured image from optical sensor, then brewing mode is automatically started).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9, 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st and 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9
The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the claim, and in particular the full limitations of the instant claim in combination with the limitations of the intervening claims.
Claim 12
The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the claim, and in particular the full limitations of the instant claim in combination with the limitations of the intervening claims.
Claims 13-15 are allowable based on dependency
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights