COFFEE TAMPING MAT
FIRST OFFICE ACTION ON THE MERITS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s election of April 16, 2026.
DRAWINGS
The submitted drawings have been considered and approved.
TITLE
The title is objected to because it is vague and not clearly descriptive of the claimed invention.
ABSTRACT
The abstract has been considered and approved.
SPECIFICATION
The specification has been considered and approved.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 - 20 are pending. A restriction was set forth on Feb. 26, 2026 establishing Invention I as claims 1 - 14 and Invention II as claims 15 - 20. Applicant elected invention I, claims 1 - 14, for prosecution. However, after review of the claims and the restriction set forth by the previous Examiner, the restriction has been withdrawn. Claims 1 - 20 have been examined on the merits.
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
35 U.S.C. § 112
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Claims 1 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a system for coffee tamping detection but nothing within the body of the claim is directed to coffee tamping detection.
Claims 3 and 5 reference the “one or more displaying devices” but parent claim 2 establishes that the one or more displaying devices are a plurality of devices. Thus, the requirement of only one device in claims 3 and 5 causes a contradiction.
35 U.S.C. § 102
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), a person shall be entitled to a patent unless 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 and 15 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weber (US Pat. 11,006,777).
With respect to independent claim 1, Weber sets forth a system for coffee tamping detection (see Fig. 8a), the system has a mat comprising:
a body comprising a first surface (18) and a second surface (42) that is opposite to the first surface; and
a plurality of force sensors (20) arranged between the first surface and the second surface and configured to measure a force exerted on the first surface of the mat (col. 3, lines 59+),
wherein each force sensor of the plurality of force sensors is configured to:
receive a respective input representing a portion of the force exerted on the respective force sensor (col. 3, lines 59+); and
provide a respective sensor output representing a measurement of the portion of the force exerted on the respective force sensor (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 2, Weber sets forth a plurality of displaying devices (40) configured to provide a visual output representing the sensor outputs provided by the plurality of force sensors (20) with each displaying device corresponding to a given force sensor (col. 6, lines 10+).
With respect to claim 3, Weber sets forth that the displaying device is configured to provide an indication of the force exerted on the force sensor and thus will provide an indication of whether the force exceeds a first threshold value (col. 6, lines 10+).
With respect to claim 4, Weber sets forth that providing the first indication of whether the
portion of the force exerted on the corresponding force sensor exceeds the first threshold value by displaying a first color (red) and displaying a second color (yellow) if the portion of the force exerted on the corresponding force sensor doesn’t exceed the threshold value (col. 6, line 10+).
With respect to claim 5, Weber sets forth that each of the displaying devices is configured to provide a second indication if the portion of the force exerted on the corresponding force sensor exceeds a second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is lower than the second threshold value (col. 4, lines 27-58).
With respect to claim 6, Weber sets forth a processing module configured to:
receive input data representing the sensor outputs by the plurality of force sensors;
determine whether the input data has met a condition for a successful coffee tamping; and
in response to determining whether the input data has met the condition for a successful coffee tamping, provide output data (col. 5, lines 30+).
With respect to claim 7, Weber sets forth that determining whether the input data has met the condition for the successful coffee tamping further comprises determining that the input data has met the condition for the successful coffee tamping by determining that all of the sensor outputs provided by the plurality of force sensors exceed a first threshold value representing a minimum tamping force (col. 5, lines 30+).
With respect to claim 8, Weber sets forth that the determining that the input data has met the condition for the successful coffee tamping further comprises determining that none of the outputs provided by the plurality of force sensors exceeds a second threshold value representing
a maximum tamping force (col. 5, lines 30+).
With respect to claim 9, Weber sets forth that determining that the input data has met the
condition for the successful coffee tamping further comprises determining that none of a difference between any two outputs provided by the plurality of force sensors exceeds a third
threshold value representing a maximum force imbalance between two force sensors (col. 5, lines 62+).
With respect to claim 10, Weber sets forth that determining whether the input data has met the condition for the successful coffee tamping further comprises determining that the input data has not met the condition for the successful coffee tamping by determining that at least one of the sensor outputs provided by the plurality of force sensors has not exceeded a first threshold value representing a minimum tamping force (col. 4, lines 1+).
With respect to claim 11, Weber sets forth the determining that the input data has not met the condition for the successful coffee tamping by determining that at least one of the sensor outputs provided by the plurality of force sensors has exceeded a second threshold value representing a maximum tamping force (col. 6, lines 38+).
With respect to claim 12, Weber sets forth a communications module configured to provide the output data from the processing module to one or more displaying devices (Fig. 3), wherein the processing module and the communications module are arranged between the first surface (18) and the second surface (42) of the body (Fig. 2).
With respect to independent claim 15, Weber sets forth a method for detecting coffee tamping, comprising:
obtaining, by a processing module comprising a processor (38), input data representing outputs by a plurality of force sensors (20) indicating portions of a force exerted on the plurality of sensors arranged between two surfaces (18 & 42) of a coffee tamping mat (col. 3, lines 59+);
determining, by the processing module, whether the input data has met a condition for a successful coffee tamping (col. 5, lines 30+); and
in response to determining whether the input data has met the condition for a successful coffee tamping, providing, by the processing module, output data (col. 5, lines 30+).
With respect to independent claim 16, Weber sets forth the determining of whether the input data (forces) has met the condition for the successful coffee tamping by way of the processing module (38), that the input data has met the condition for the successful coffee tamping by determining that all of the sensor outputs provided by the plurality of force sensors exceed a first threshold value representing a minimum tamping force (col. 6, lines 10+).
With respect to claim 17, Weber sets forth that determining that the input data has met the condition for the successful coffee tamping further comprises determining, by the processing module, that none of the outputs provided by the plurality of force sensors exceeds a second threshold value representing a maximum tamping force (col. 5, lines 30+).
With respect to claim 18, Weber sets forth that determining that the input data has met the condition for the successful coffee tamping further comprises determining, by the processing module, that none of a difference between any two outputs provided by the plurality of force sensors exceeds a second threshold value representing a maximum force imbalance between two force sensors (col. 5, lines 62+).
With respect to claim 19, Weber sets forth that in response to determining that the input data has met the condition for a successful coffee tamping (desired tamp force), providing a control signal, by the processing module to one or more robotic devices (vibrator), to continue with a coffee-making process (col. 6, lines 49+).
With respect to claim 20, Weber sets forth the determining, by the processing module, that the input data has not met the condition for the successful coffee tamping by determining that a sensor output provided by the plurality of force sensors has not exceeded a first threshold value representing a minimum tamping force (col. 4, lines 1+).
35 U.S.C. § 103
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103, 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 of this title, 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (11,006,777).
With respect to claim 13, Weber sets forth a first surface (18) of mat with the plurality of force sensors (20) arranged under the first surface. But Weber fails to set forth that the first surface includes a reference marking for receiving a coffee portafilter.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Weber teaching to include a reference marking on the first surface.
The motivation being to provide an aid for proper use of the system by the user by showing where on the first surface to apply a force and how much force to apply.
Allowable Subject Matter
After a search of the prior art, claim 14 is believed to be distinct over the prior art and thus would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 because the prior art fails to teach or suggest the use of a robotic device to hold a tamper and a coffee portafilter; to apply the force exerted on the first surface of the mat by pressing the tamper on the coffee portafilter; and to stop the application of the force based on sensor outputs of the plurality of force sensors.
CITED DOCUMENTS
The Applicant’s attention is directed to the “PTO-892” form for the relevant art made of record at the time of this Office Action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is (571)272-2183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights