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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Torizu et al. (WO2022118483 citing to PGPUB#2024/0008675).
Regarding claim 1, Torizu teaches an apparatus comprising one or more processors and memory operably coupled with the one or more processors (par. 225, figure 10), wherein the memory stores instructions that, in response to execution of the instructions by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to suggest a coffee brewing operation by: presenting a two dimensional brew selection interface to a user, the two dimensional brew selection interface including a plurality of positions distributed across first and second dimensions, with each position mapped to a set of values for a plurality of brewing parameters used when performing the coffee brewing operation (figures 75-80, par. 837-875); presenting on the two dimensional brew selection interface a plurality of historical indicators respectively associated with a plurality of prior coffee brewing operations, each of the plurality of historical indicators having a respective position in the two dimensional brew selection interface corresponding to a respective set of values for the plurality of brewing parameters used when performing the associated prior coffee brewing operation (Figure 80: par. 873: Displays example of 3 sets of data points representing historic data in database); determining, based on at least a portion of the plurality of prior coffee brewing operations, a suggested set of values for the plurality of brewing parameters; and presenting on the two dimensional brew selection interface a suggested indicator associated with a suggested coffee brewing operation to be performed, the suggested indicator having a position in the two dimensional brew selection interface corresponding to the suggested set of values for the plurality of brewing parameters (figures 82-106, par. 882-971: Teaches displaying a highlighted section of a range reading on the claimed suggested indicator by processing historic data to provide range of suggested values for user to select from.).
Regarding claim 2, Torizu teaches wherein a first historical indicator of the plurality of historical indicators is a rating indicator that indicates a user rating associated with a first prior coffee brewing operation of the plurality of prior coffee brewing operations. (Figure 101, par. 949)
Regarding claim 3, Torizu teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to present the first historical indicator with a size that is based at least in part on the user rating associated with the first prior coffee brewing operation. (Figure 101, par. 949)
Regarding claim 4, Torizu teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the suggested set of values based at least in part on the user rating of the first prior coffee brewing operation. (Figure 101, par. 949)
Regarding claim 5, Torizu teaches wherein a first historical indicator of the plurality of historical indicators is a favorite indicator that indicates that a user favorited an associated first prior coffee brewing operation of the plurality of prior coffee brewing operations. (Figure 101, par. 944-950)
Regarding claim 6, Torizu teaches wherein a second historical indicator of the plurality of historical indicators is a rating indicator that indicates a user rating associated with a second prior coffee brewing operation of the plurality of prior coffee brewing operations. (Figure 101, par. 944-950: User ratings are grouped and would be associated with multiple prior brewing operations.)
Regarding claim 7, Torizu teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the suggested set of values based at least in part on the user favoriting the first prior coffee brewing operation. (Figure 101, par. 944-950: Ranges determined based on favoriting/ high ranking.)
Regarding claim 8, Torizu teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to update the position of the favorite indicator to that of the suggested indicator in response to user input received subsequent to a coffee brewing operation performed using the suggested set of values. (figure 106, par. 969-971: User can touch screen to provide a user selected indicator. )
Regarding claim 9, Torizu teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive user input from the user selecting the suggested coffee brewing operation; and configure the plurality of brewing parameters for the coffee brewing operation to use the suggested set of values for the suggested coffee brewing operation. (figure 96, 106, Par. 930-931, and 969-971)
Regarding claim 10, Torizu teaches wherein the apparatus is a mobile computing device, the one or more processors present the two dimensional brew selection interface on and receive the user input from a touch screen display of the mobile computing device, and the one or more processors configure the plurality of brewing parameters for the coffee brewing operation by communicating data to a coffee maker to cause the coffee maker to use the suggested set of values corresponding to the suggested coffee brewing operation. (par. 224-247)
Regarding claim 11, Torizu teaches wherein the apparatus is a drip coffee maker including a brew basket 9, a heating element 72a configured to heat water supplied to the brew basket, and a flow control device 72i configured to control water flow through the brew basket, the one or more processors present the two dimensional brew selection interface on and receive the user input from a touch screen display 12 of the drip coffee maker, and the one or more processors further configure the coffee brewing operation by controlling at least one of the heating element and the flow control device during the coffee brewing operation based upon at least a portion of the values in the suggested set of values corresponding to the suggested coffee brewing operation (figures 1-4, par. 132- 226) .
Regarding claim 12, Torizu teaches wherein the plurality of brewing parameters includes a water temperature, a water pressure, a water flow rate, a valve position, a water amount, a coffee amount, a grind size, a bean type, a roast level, a brewing ratio, and/or a water/coffee contact time. (figure 39, 62, 93)
Regarding claim 14, Torizu teaches wherein the plurality of brewing parameters includes a coffee amount parameter, and the one or more processors are configured to calculate a value of the coffee amount parameter based at least in part on the position of the suggested indicator in the two dimensional brew selection interface and control a coffee grinder to grind an amount of coffee associated with the calculated value of the coffee amount parameter. (par. 261, 382, 422, 825, 1011, 1014)
Regarding claim 15, Torizu teaches wherein the user input is first user input, and the one or more processors are further configured to rate the coffee brewing operation after completion of the coffee brewing operation in response to second user input. (figure 71, and par. 912)
Regarding claim 16, Torizu teaches wherein the first dimension corresponds to strength and the second dimension corresponds to development, and the strength is based upon concentration of solubles and the development is based upon yield of solubles. (figure 80: section 2802 shows example parameters which would correspond to strength and development.)
Regarding claim 17, Torizu teaches wherein the plurality of prior coffee brewing operations is a first plurality of prior coffee brewing operations, and the one or more processors are configured to determine the suggested set of values for the plurality of brewing parameters further based on: user profile data associated with a user; a second plurality of prior coffee brewing operations performed on a plurality of coffee makers by a plurality of users; time, date, or location data; coffee bean data; or coffee drink type data. (figures 15 and 93, par. 915): Processed data includes date and drink type. )
Regarding claim 19, Torizu teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the suggested set of values for the plurality of brewing parameters using a mathematical distance optimization algorithm that optimizes the position of the suggested indicator in the two dimensional brew selection interface based on at least a portion of the plurality of prior coffee brewing operations. (par. 880, 916, 940, and 945)
Regarding claim 20, Torizu teaches wherein the mathematical distance optimization algorithm is configured to determine the optimized position of the suggested indicator in the two dimensional brew selection interface using the respective positions of at least a portion of the plurality of historical indicators. (par. 880, 916, 940, and 945)
Regarding claim 21, Torizu teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a coffee bean recommendation based on at least a portion of the plurality of prior coffee brewing operations; and present the coffee bean recommendation to the user. (figure 18)
Regarding claim 22, Torizu teaches an apparatus comprising one or more processors and memory operably coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that, in response to execution of the instructions by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to suggest a coffee brewing operation by: presenting an N-dimensional brew selection interface to a user, the N-dimensional brew selection interface including a plurality of positions distributed across N dimensions, with each position mapped to a set of values for a plurality of brewing parameters used when performing the coffee brewing operation; presenting on the N-dimensional brew selection interface a plurality of historical indicators respectively associated with a plurality of prior coffee brewing operations, each of the plurality of historical indicators having a respective position in the N-dimensional brew selection interface corresponding to a respective set of values for the plurality of brewing parameters used when performing the associated prior coffee brewing operation; determining, based on at least a portion of the plurality of prior coffee brewing operations, a suggested set of values for the plurality of brewing parameters; and presenting on the N-dimensional brew selection interface a suggested indicator associated with a suggested coffee brewing operation to be performed, the suggested indicator having a position in the N-dimensional brew selection interface corresponding to the suggested set of values for the plurality of brewing parameters. (see rejection of claim 1 as limitations are substantially similar)
Regarding claim 23, Torizu teaches an apparatus comprising one or more processors and memory operably coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that, in response to execution of the instructions by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to suggest a coffee brewing operation by: representing a plurality of prior coffee brewing operations in an N-dimensional space, the N-dimensional space including a plurality of positions distributed across N dimensions, with each position mapped to a set of values for a plurality of brewing parameters used when performing the coffee brewing operation, and with each of the prior coffee brewing operations having an associated user-assigned rating; determining, based on at least a portion of the plurality of prior coffee brewing operations and the user-assigned ratings associated therewith, a suggested position in the N-dimensional space; and suggesting a suggested coffee brewing operation to be performed using the set of values for the plurality of brewing parameters corresponding to the suggested position in the N-dimensional space. (see rejections of claims 1 and 6 above which discloses using rating/ranking information to provide suggested ranges of values to a user. )
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torizu et al. (WO2022118483 citing to PGPUB#2024/0008675) in view of Keller (PGPUB 2006/0222736) .
Regarding claim 13, Torizu dteaches wherein the plurality of brewing parameters includes a coffee amount parameter, and the one or more processors are configured to calculate a value of the coffee amount parameter based at least in part on the position of the suggested indicator in the two dimensional brew selection interface. (par. 261, 382, 422, 825, 1011, 1014)
Torizu does not explicitly teach a prompt the user to add an amount of coffee associated with the calculated value of the coffee amount parameter.
However, Keller teaches a coffee machine. (abstract, figure 1) Keller teaches that it is known in the art to prompt a user to add coffee when it is below a targeted threshold. (par. 13-24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the prompt of Keller, to the apparatus of Torizu, in order to ensure the machine has sufficient coffee prior to start as taught by Keller.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torizu et al. (WO2022118483 citing to PGPUB#2024/0008675) in view of Gutwein et al. (PGPUB 2009/0136632).
Regarding claim 18, Torizu does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the suggested set of values for the plurality of brewing parameters using a machine learning model trained based upon a plurality of historical brewing operations.
However, Gutwein teaches a similar coffee apparatus (abstract, figure 6) Gutwein teaches using machine learning to adapt a set of processing parameters for a coffee machine. Gutwein teaches that this is beneficial in optimizing customized suggestions based on user feedback. (par. 100)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the machine learning of Gutwein, to the apparatus of Torizu, in order to optimize customized suggestions based on user feedback as taught by Gutwein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights