DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on April 19, 2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-35 have been added.
Claims 21-35 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
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: “a processing unit configured to” in claims 21, 32 and 35.
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 §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Regarding Claims 21, 32 and 35, the claims recite limitations that fall within mental process (observation/evaluation) and a method of organizing a human activity (commercial interaction). The limitations on monitoring consumption, updating stock state information, obtaining stock order information, comparing first and second stock order identifiers and displaying information could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. For example, a barista at a coffee shop keeping track of the number of containers used at a coffee shop by remembering or writing down the stock amount and updating the amount when coffee is served. Other than reciting a general beverage machine, a computer, an electronic device, a server, a processor and a memory, nothing in the claims precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process and method of organizing a human activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computers to perform the monitoring, updating, obtaining, comparing and displaying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 22-31 and 33-34, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, the processing steps and the information used. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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(s) 21-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoakim (US 2012/0173357 A1) in view of Silver (US 7,987,118 B1).
Claim 21
Yoakim discloses the following limitations:
A computer implemented method for monitoring consumption of a single serving, single use containers containing ground coffee by a beverage machine, (see at least paragraphs 0010-0014-preventing shortage at a customer location of consumable ingredient capsules).
the beverage machine comprising a processing unit configured to process the container by perforation and injection of fluid to prepare a beverage therefrom, and a fluid supply comprising a reservoir for containing the fluid, a fluid pump, and a fluid heater being in fluid communication with each other to form a fluid line for injection of said fluid into the container, the method comprising: (see at least abstract and paragraphs 0015-0017-preparation machine).
deriving container consumption information, which is individualised by container type for a plurality of types of container; (see at least paragraph 0033-differentiate between the consumption of capsules of the different types).
updating, using the consumption information, stock state information, wherein said stock state information comprise information detailing an amount of containers at a location of the machine, which is individualised by container type for a plurality of types of container (see at least paragraphs 0045-0047-updating information).
obtaining stock order information, which comprises information detailing an amount of containers purchased by a user, which is individualised by container type for a plurality of types of container, and is associated with a first stock order identifier; (see at least paragraphs 0033 and 0045-0047-consumption monitoring).
and updating the stock state information using the stock order information associated with the first stock order identifier (see at least paragraphs 0033 and 0045-0047-consumption monitoring).
and implementing display via a user interface said amount of stock derived from the updated stock state information, which is individualised by container type for a plurality of types of container (conditional limitation-no patentable weight-see at least paragraphs 0030-0033 and 0045-0047-consumption monitoring).
Yoaking does not explicitly discloses the following limitations, however Silver does:
comparing the first stock order identifier to a second stock order identifier; (see at least column 2 lines 30-65-comparing orders to see if they are the same or different orders).
determining if said identifiers are different, (see at least column 2 lines 30-65- comparing orders to see if they are the same or different orders).
and if different: storing the first stock order identifier as the second stock order identifier; (conditional limitation-no patentable weight; see at least column 2 lines 30-65 and figure 3-analyzing potential orders, duplicate orders and completed orders).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Yoaking and Silver in order to detect duplicate/erroneous orders (Silver abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 22
Furthermore, Yoakim discloses the following limitations:
wherein the stock state information comprises an array with elements detailing the stock of each type of container, and the stock order information and consumption information comprise corresponding arrays; (see at least paragraphs 0033 and 0045-0047).
with updating the stock state information based on the consumption information comprising arithmetic between the array of the stock state information and the array of the consumption information, and; (see at least paragraphs 0033 and 0045-0047).
updating the stock state information based on the stock order information associated with the first stock order identifier comprising arithmetic between the array of the stock state information and the array of the stock order information associated the first stock order identifier. (see at least paragraphs 0033 and 0045-0047).
Claim 23
Furthermore, Yoakim discloses the following limitations:
wherein the consumption information is determined based on a container detection sensor, which is arranged to determine a type of container processed by the beverage or foodstuff preparation machine. (see at least paragraphs 0034-0036).
Claim 24
Furthermore, Yoakim discloses the following limitations:
wherein the container detection sensor comprises one or more of: a code reader, including an optical code reader; a color sensor. (see at least paragraphs 0034-0036).
Claim 25
Furthermore, Yoakim discloses the following limitations:
wherein the containers have different types based on the ground coffee stored therein and/or container geometry. (see at least paragraph 0032).
Claim 26
Furthermore, Yoakim discloses the following limitations:
wherein the consumption information is determined based on a particular preparation process executed by the beverage machine for a particular container type, with container type consumed being based on the particular preparation process. (see at least paragraph 0032).
Claim 27
Furthermore, Yoakim discloses the following limitations:
comprising, prior to updating the stock state information:
obtaining a response from a user interface confirming that the stock order information associated with the first identifier is to be associated with the stock state information. (see at least paragraphs 0033 and 0045-0047).
Claim 28
Furthermore, Yoakim discloses the following limitations:
comprising: receiving an input from a user for manual adjustment of the stock state information and deriving therefrom stock state correction information; (see at least paragraph 0038).
updating of the stock state information using the stock state correction information;
displaying via a user interface the updated stock state information. (see at least paragraph 0038).
Claim 29
Furthermore, Yoakim discloses the following limitations:
comprising: receiving a user request to order an amount of containers;
ordering said amount of containers from a remote resource; obtaining associated stock order information associated with the order. (see at least abstract, paragraphs 0022-0025).
Claim 30
Furthermore, Yoakim discloses the following limitations:
comparing, using the stock state information, an amount of the actual stock of containers at a location of said machine to a predetermined value; if below said value then providing a notification to a user interface. (conditional limitation-no patentable weight; see at least paragraph 0030).
Claim 31
Furthermore, Yoakim discloses the following limitations:
comprising: accounting for more than one preparation process executed on the same container in the consumption information. (see at least abstract and paragraph 0017).
Claim 33
Furthermore, Yoakim discloses the following limitations:
comprising one or more single serving, single use containers containing ground coffee for use with the beverage preparation machine. (see at least paragraph 0014).
Claim 34
Furthermore, Yoakim discloses the following limitations:
wherein the container has a cup-shaped body with a flange closed by a lid, the body having an internal volume of 5 - 80 ml. (see at least figure 1 and paragraph 0043).
As per claims 32 and 35, claims 32 and 35 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and are therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Varga (US 6,181,981 B1) discloses a system comprising unique identifiers for collecting and transmitting information concerning goods dispensed on vending machines.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627