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
Claims 1, 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/11/26.
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 2, 6, 16-18, 20-21 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.
Claims 2, 16, 21 recite “it”. It is not clear what “it” is.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the sensor arm". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said top". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “mounted at a in the range of 80-120 mm”. It is not clear where it is mounted.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the sensor arm". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 20-21, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkelberg [US 11,622,647B2] in view of Tseng [US 2017/0295983A1].
Dunkelberg teaches a method for controlling a coffee grinder (title) by providing a separate coffee brewing machine with a dispenser station, water tank, pump, heater, and interface for porta filter (Figure 1, #1, 12, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9); a separate coffee bean grinder with a grinder module, bean container, control unit, and load cell (Figure 1, #2, 24, 20, 26, 25); a cup for receiving the beverage (Figure 1, #11), a sniffer-sensor unit with CPU, battery, storage means, and communication means for sensing a volume of liquid going to the cup over time (Figure 1, #5, 15-15’; column 7, lines 27-40), the sniffer being a separate unit which is installed in the brew machine or optionally connected to an external USB interface (column 4, lines 42-57), the sniffer unit communicating wirelessly with the grinder device (column 7, line 37), the grinder continuously monitoring the flow rate to control and adjust parameters such as fineness and amount of the grinder (column 8, line 13), the flow meter sensor monitoring an amount of water per shot, extraction time, and flowrate profile (column 9, line 4-14), and the wireless communication being Bluetooth (column 7, line 37).
Dunkelberg does not explicitly recite placing a separate sensor unit with a bottom part and load cell located at the dispensing location (claim 12), the bottom part having a height of 2-40 mm or a length of 50-140 mm (claim 6), a housing (claim 7, 21), the bottom part having a height of 7-15 mm or a length of 80-120 mm (claim 20).
Tseng teaches a method for beverage brewing management (title) comprising a beverage brewing machine (Figure 2, #21-22, 24), a separate grinder (Figure 4, #14), a separate sensor unit with a housing, bottom part, weighing unit, and timer unit (Figure 2, #13, 131-132); the sensor unit placed beneath a cup in the dispensing area (Figure 2, #13, 23), and the sensor unit wirelessly communicating with the grinder (Figure 1, #13, 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed separate sensor unit with a cup load cell into the invention of Dunkelberg, in view of Tseng, since both are directed to methods of making coffee, since Dunkelberg already included with CPU and storage means and communication means for sensing an amount of liquid going to the cup over time (Figure 1, #5, 15; column 7, lines 27-40), the sensor unit communicating wirelessly with the grinder device (column 7, line 37), the grinder continuously monitoring the flow meter to control and adjust parameters such as fineness and amount of the grinder (column 8, line 13), the sniffer being a separate unit which is installed in the brew machine or optionally connected to an external USB interface (column 4, lines 42-57), and the flow meter sensor monitoring an amount of water per shot, extraction time, and flowrate profile (column 9, line 4-14); since coffee systems commonly included a separate sensor unit with a bottom part, weighing unit, and timer unit (Figure 2, #13, 131-132), the sensor unit placed beneath a cup in the dispensing area (Figure 2, #13, 23), and the sensor unit wirelessly communicating with the grinder (Figure 1, #13, 14) as shown by Tseng; since both the flow meter of Dunkelberg and the load cell of Tseng were used to monitor an amount of liquid over time and communicate that information to the grinder, since the substitution of one known element (ie load cell sensor) for another (ie flow meter sniffer) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, since the load cell unit of Tseng would not have required a USB interface or internal installation of the brew machine of Dunkelberg et al, since an separate sensor device would have been more easily serviced, replaced, and repaired as compared to an internal sensor device within the coffee machine of Dunkelberg et al, and since the load cell sensor device of Tseng could be more easily transferred to different coffee machines/models at different locations as compared to an internally installed sensor device in the system of Dunkelberg.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed dimensions into the invention of Dunkelberg et al, in view of Tseng, since both are directed to coffee systems, since Tseng already included a rectangular sensor unit (Figure 2, #13) but simply did not mention specific dimensions, since a relatively small sensor unit would more easily fit in the dispensing are of a coffee machine, since many consumers desired large cups of coffee, since a relatively small sensor unit would have also provided more space for a larger cup, and since the claimed dimensions would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the beverage type, serving size, and/or dimensions of the coffee dispensing area in the combined method of Dunkelberg et al, in view of Tseng.
Claims 2-5, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkelberg et al, in view of Tseng, as applied above, and further in view of Chiou [US 2018/0199752A1].
Dunkelberg et al and Tseng teach the above mentioned concepts and components. Dunkelberg et al do not explicitly recite a further sensor for temperature (claim 2), a vertical sensor arm (claim 3), a height of at least 50 mm (claim 4), the sensor arm behind the cup (claim 5, 19), a height of 80-120 mm (claim 18).
Chiou teaches a brewing quality measuring device (title) comprising a bottom part including an electronic scale (Figure 2, #100-101), a vertical sensor arm with a thermometer (Figure 2, #102-103), and the sensor arm located behind a beverage cup (Figure 2, #10, 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed further sensor features into the invention of Dunkelberg et al, in view of Tseng and Chiou, since all are directed to systems for making and/or measuring beverages, since Dunkelberg et al already included a heater and dispensing area with a cup (Figure 1, #7, 11), since Tseng already included a temperature sensor device (Figure 1, #12), since brewing quality measuring systems commonly included a bottom part including an electronic scale (Figure 2, #100-101), a vertical sensor arm with a thermometer (Figure 2, #102-103), and the sensor arm located behind a beverage cup (Figure 2, #10, 12) as shown by Chiou, since monitoring the beverage temperature would have ensured that the heater of Dunkelberg et al was operating and functioning properly, since adding the vertical sensor arm of Chiou to the weight sensor unit of Tseng would have permitted the simultaneous monitoring of both the brew rate and temperature rate by a single sensor unit, and since the claimed dimensions would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the size of the cup, the size of the dispensing area, and/or the amount of dispensed beverage in the combined method of Dunkelberg et al, in view of Tseng and Chiou.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkelberg et al, in view of Tseng, as applied above, and further in view of Hernou et al [US 2022/0202232A1].
Dunkelberg et al, and Tseng teach the above mentioned concepts and components. Dunkelberg et al do not explicitly recite optical temperature measurement (claim 17). Hernou et al teach an automated beverage system with an optical temperature sensor aimed at the top surface of the beverage in the cup (Figure 7A, #224; paragraph 0086). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed optical temperature measurement into the invention of Dunkelberg et al, in view of Tseng, and Hernou; since all are directed to beverage systems, since beverage systems commonly included an optical temperature sensor as shown by Hernou et al, since the substitution of one known element (ie optical sensor) for another (ie direct contact sensor) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, and since an optical sensor would not require as much cleaning due to it not contacting the beverage directly.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkelberg et al, in view of Tseng and Chiou, as applied above, and further in view of Hernou et al [US 2022/0202232A1].
Dunkelberg et al, Chiou, and Tseng teach the above mentioned concepts and components. Dunkelberg et al do not explicitly recite optical temperature measurement (claim 17). Hernou et al teach an automated beverage system with an optical temperature sensor aimed at the top surface of the beverage in the cup (Figure 7A, #224; paragraph 0086). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed optical temperature measurement into the invention of Dunkelberg et al, in view of Tseng, Chiou, and Hernou; since all are directed to beverage systems, since beverage systems commonly included an optical temperature sensor as shown by Hernou et al, since Chiou already included a vertical sensor arm above the cup, since the substitution of one known element (ie optical sensor) for another (ie direct contact sensor) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, and since an optical sensor would not require as much cleaning due to it not contacting the beverage directly.
Claims 8, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkelberg et al, in view of Tseng, as applied above, and further in view of Gross et al [US 2018/0220833A1].
Dunkelberg et al and Tseng teach the above mentioned concepts and components. Dunkelberg et al do not explicitly recite a tare button (claim 8, 22). Tseng taught resetting the load scale to zero (paragraph 0049). Gross et al teach a digital scale for a brew process (title) comprising a zero, or tare, button (Figure 1, #104; paragraph 0014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed tare button into the invention of Dunkelberg et al, in view of Tseng and Gross et al, since all are directed to beverage systems, since Tseng already included resetting the load scale to zero (paragraph 0049), since beverage systems commonly included a zero, or tare, button (Figure 1, #104; paragraph 0014) as shown by Gross et al, and since a tare button would have enabled the user to eliminate the weight of the cup when measuring the rate of brewing in the combined method of Dunkelberg et al, in view of Tseng and Gross et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed separate sensor unit with a cup load cell into the invention of Dunkelberg, in view of Tseng, since both are directed to methods of making coffee, since Dunkelberg already included with CPU and storage means and communication means for sensing an amount of liquid going to the cup over time (Figure 1, #5, 15; column 7, lines 27-40), the sensor unit communicating wirelessly with the grinder device (column 7, line 37), the grinder continuously monitoring the flow meter to control and adjust parameters such as fineness and amount of the grinder (column 8, line 13), the sniffer being a separate unit which is installed in the brew machine or optionally connected to an external USB interface (column 4, lines 42-57), and the flow meter sensor monitoring an amount of water per shot, extraction time, and flowrate profile (column 9, line 4-14); since coffee systems commonly included a separate sensor unit with a bottom part, weighing unit, and timer unit (Figure 2, #13, 131-132), the sensor unit placed beneath a cup in the dispensing area (Figure 2, #13, 23), and the sensor unit wirelessly communicating with the grinder (Figure 1, #13, 14) as shown by Tseng; since both the flow meter of Dunkelberg and the load cell of Tseng were used to monitor an amount of liquid over time and communicate that information to the grinder, since the substitution of one known element (ie load cell sensor) for another (ie flow meter sniffer) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, since the load cell unit of Tseng would not have required a USB interface or opening of the brew machine of Dunkelberg et al, since an external sensor device would have been more easily serviced and repaired as compared to an internal sensor device within the coffee machine of Dunkelberg et al, and since the load cell sensor device of Tseng could be more easily transferred to different coffee machines/models at different locations as compared to an internally installed sensor device in the system of Dunkelberg.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., direct communication between the sensor unit and grinder control, and the exclusion of further unclaimed components) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights