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 .
Drawings
The drawing Fig. 2 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “130A” has been used to designate both "Coffees and cold brew" and "Espresso". According to the specification, “in method step 130A, the selected coffee product is determined to be a coffee or a cold-brew beverage. Alternatively, in method step 130B, the selected coffee product is determined to be an espresso.” 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. 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 Objections
Claims 20-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 should begin with “A method for”
Claims 21-33 should begin with “The method”
Claim 34 should begin with “A coffee machine”
Claim 20: line 10 of the claim reads “automatically outputting information to a user” should instead read “automatically outputting information to the user”;
line 19 of the claim reads “in response to the receiving the second user input”, could be amended to read “in response to the second user input” or “in response to the received second user input”.
Claim 22: lines 2-3 of the claim reads “the expiry” and should read “an expiry”; lines 4-5 of the claim reads “the adjustment of a control element” and should read “an adjustment of a control element”.
Claim 23: line 2 of the claim reads “the expiry” and should read “an expiry”; line 4 of the claim reads “the adjustment of the or a control element” and should read “an adjustment of a control element”.
Claim 28: line 3 of the claim reads “the position of a control element” and should read “a position of a control element”;
Claim 29: line 3 reads “the illumination” and should read “illumination”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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:
Claim 24, line 5, “a control element of the grinding mill for adjusting the grind level”. The generic placeholder is “element” and the functional language attributed to the “element” includes: “for adjusting the grind level”. Structure from the Specification to support the claimed functional language: Page 8, last paragraph, “the control element is a rotary switch that can be operated by the user”.
Claim 34, lines 3-4, “manually operable and/or mechanical adjustment device of the grind level”. The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional language attributed to the “device” includes: “adjustment … of the grind level”. Structure from the Specification to support the claimed functional language: Page 23, first and second paragraphs, “adjustment element 31 … may comprise the control element 12 of the user interface 10 shown in Fig. 3 or be coupled thereto … a grind level of the grinding mill can be adjusted, or the actual grind level of the grinding mill can be set”.
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.
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 20-34 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.
Regarding claim 20, in lines 7-8 of the claim, the recitation: “wherein the first user input is associated with the selection of a coffee product” is unclear. It is not clear whether being “associated with the selection of a coffee product” is referring to “a coffee product selected by a user” or a different coffee product selection. One possible amendment to more positively recite the limitation could be “wherein the first user input is the coffee product selected by the user”.
Regarding claims 21-23, 27-28, 30-31, and 34 the phrases "in particular" and “preferably” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 25 recites the limitation "for adjusting the control element" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if claim 25 should be dependent on claim 22 or is referring to a different “control element”.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the control element" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if claim 29 should be dependent on claim 22 or is referring to a different “control element”.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "output of the indication" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if claim 31 should be dependent on claim 24 or if the limitation should read: “output of the information to the user”. If claim 31 is meant to be dependent on claim 24, which “indication” is being referred to?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 21-34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is considered to be “Bouziad166” (US 2023/0346166), “Bouziad561” (US 2023/0225561), and “Muheim” (US 2021/0353093).
Regarding claim 20, Bouziad166 discloses a method for grinding material to be ground having at least one coffee grinding mill in a coffee machine (Figs. 3-4, para. [0063]: “system 110 is adapted to dispense ground coffee (such as into a beverage preparation machine)”), the method comprising:
determining an actual grind level of the grinding mill (Para. [0081]);
determining a target grind level of the grinding mill based on a coffee product selected by a user (Para. [0081]: “grinder 30 is as such adapted to provide different particle sizes of ground coffee for different coffee beverage types or recipes, such as for an espresso, a ristretto, and a logo”),
comprising: receiving a first user input (Para. [0063]: “a request of the user for dispensing a specific beverage”); and determining the target grind level based on the received first user input, wherein the first user input is associated with the selection of a coffee product (Para. [0081]);
automatically comparing the actual grind level with the target grind level (Paras. [0082] and [0100]).
Similarly, Bouziad561 discloses a “grinding device further comprises a control unit configured to adapt the grinding size and the quantity of roasted coffee beans to be delivered from the coffee beans containers for obtaining a certain coffee quantity and/or a certain coffee blend quantity from each beans container to be grinded according to these product parameters and/or according to a recipes database, and/or according to the user’s input” (para. [0012]); and Muheim discloses an automatic coffee grinder for “adjusting the operating parameters of the grinder depending on the selected drink” (Para. [0107]).
However, none of the cited prior art anticipates or makes obvious a coffee grinder automatically outputting information to a user of the grinding mill based on the comparison of the actual grind level with the target grind level;
receiving a second user input; and
when the actual grind level matches the target grind level:
grinding the material to be ground with the actual grind level;
when the actual grind level does not match the target grind level:
grinding of the material to be ground with the actual grind level, or
adjusting the actual grind level to set the target grind level,
wherein the grinding of the material to be ground with the actual grind level or
adjusting the actual grind level is performed in response to the receiving the second user input.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Vettorel (EP 3586693) discloses “The user (i.e. an operator able to manually vary the fineness of grinding) can be driven by the machine to adjust the grain-size through e.g. an audible and/or visual warning (e.g. an image and/or a message shown on a display).”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W HATTEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 (EST).
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.
/DANIEL WARD HATTEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights