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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on
06/15/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, group II, claims 8-13 have been withdrawn from prosecution.
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: “a central control unit” in claims 1-4 and 6.
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.
Abstract of the instant invention publication (US 20240415318) discloses Machine (10) for preparing a beverage starting from a dry food substance (S), preferably in grains or beans (C), comprising a hopper (15) to contain the dry food substance (S) and provided with a lower aperture (25) for the outlet of the dry food substance (S). A grinding device (16) is disposed below the lower aperture (25) to grind the dry food substance (S) and transform it into an aromatic blend (M) in powder form. A central control unit (20) is able to control the grinding device (16) and a user interface (43) is connected to the central control unit (20).
Paragraph [0019] discloses in accordance with one aspect of the present invention, the machine also comprises at least first detection means operatively connected to the central control unit and configured to detect the selective closure of the at least one lower aperture and send a corresponding closure signal to the central control unit so that the latter enables the user interface so that at least one option is displayed which can be selected by a user for the execution of a procedure for the automatic removal of possible residual material present in the grinding device.
Paragraph [0020] discloses in accordance with another aspect of the present invention, the central control unit, when it receives the closure signal, is configured to allow the selection on the user interface of at least a first option of removal procedure and of at least a second option different from the first option.
Paragraph [0021] discloses in accordance with another aspect of the present invention, the central control unit, when it receives the closure signal, is configured to allow the selection on the user interface of at least a first option which provides to use the residual material to prepare another dose of the beverage before discharging the residual material, and of at least a second option which provides to directly discharge the residual material without preparing any other dose of the beverage.
Paragraph [0022] discloses in accordance with another aspect of the present invention, the central control unit, when it receives the closure signal, is configured to allow the selection on the user interface also of a third option which provides to leave the residual material in the grinding device.
Paragraph [0026] discloses in accordance with another aspect of the present invention, a method is perfected for preparing a beverage starting from a dry food substance, preferably in grains or beans, by means of a machine having at least one hopper configured to contain at least the dry food substance and provided with at least one lower aperture for the outlet of the dry food substance; a grinding device disposed in correspondence with the lower aperture to grind the dry food substance and transform it into an aromatic blend in powder form; a central control unit to control at least the grinding device; and a user interface connected to the central control unit. The method also comprises a detection step in which first detection means, operatively connected to the central control unit, detect the closure of the at least one lower aperture and send a corresponding closure signal to the central control unit so that the latter enables the user interface so that it is possible to display a selection of at least one procedure for the automatic removal of possible residual material present in the grinding device.
Paragraph [0045] discloses in addition, the machine 10 comprises a central control unit 20 of the electronic type, which is connected to the operating components of the machine 10 to command their operation.
Paragraph [0066] discloses in accordance with one aspect of the present invention, in correspondence with the lower aperture 25 there is disposed at least one other detection device 46 (FIGS. 1 and 2), substantially of a known type, such as a sensor or a microswitch for example, which is operatively connected to the central control unit 20 and configured to detect the closure of the lower aperture 25 and to send a corresponding closure signal SC to the central control unit 20, so that the latter enables the user interface 43 so that it is possible to select at least one procedure for the automatic removal of the residual material MR present in the grinding device 16.
Paragraph [0067] discloses in particular, the central control unit 20 can enable the user interface 43 so that at least one option OP1, OP2 is displayed on it, which can be selected by a user to command the execution of a procedure for the automatic removal of the residual material MR.
Paragraph [0076] discloses a detection step, in which the detection device 46 sends a closure signal SC to the central control unit 20 when it detects the closure of the lower aperture 25, so that the central control unit 20 enables the user interface 43 so that a user can select at least one procedure for the automatic removal of possible residual material MR present in the grinding device 16.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least first detection means” in claim 1 and “second detection means” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0019] discloses in accordance with one aspect of the present invention, the machine also comprises at least first detection means operatively connected to the central control unit and configured to detect the selective closure of the at least one lower aperture and send a corresponding closure signal to the central control unit so that the latter enables the user interface so that at least one option is displayed which can be selected by a user for the execution of a procedure for the automatic removal of possible residual material present in the grinding device.
Paragraph [0024] discloses in accordance with another aspect of the present invention, the machine also comprises second detection means, operatively connected to the central control unit and configured to detect whether the hopper is associated with the grinding device.
Paragraph [0026] discloses in accordance with another aspect of the present invention, a method is perfected for preparing a beverage starting from a dry food substance, preferably in grains or beans, by means of a machine having at least one hopper configured to contain at least the dry food substance and provided with at least one lower aperture for the outlet of the dry food substance; a grinding device disposed in correspondence with the lower aperture to grind the dry food substance and transform it into an aromatic blend in powder form; a central control unit to control at least the grinding device; and a user interface connected to the central control unit. The method also comprises a detection step in which first detection means, operatively connected to the central control unit, detect the closure of the at least one lower aperture and send a corresponding closure signal to the central control unit so that the latter enables the user interface so that it is possible to display a selection of at least one procedure for the automatic removal of possible residual material present in the grinding device.
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 1-7 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 1, the word "preferably" in the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the word are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, the phrase "can be" at line 12 renders the claim indefinite for not providing positive limitation because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
In claims 5 and 7, there is a similar issue with the phrase “can be” in the claims as set forth in claim 1.
The dependent claims are rejected for their inherited deficiencies on rejected independent claim 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihara et al. US 20200163485) in view of Colizza (US 20240116089).
Regarding claim 1, Kihara discloses a machine 1 (fig. 1) for preparing a beverage starting from a dry food substance (see figure 45, i.e. roasted coffee beans), preferably in grains or beans (¶ 0006), the machine comprising:
at least one hopper (42, i.e. collective conveyance path 42 manually or using a funnel-shaped tool) configured to contain said dry food substance (i.e. roasted coffee beans) and provided with at least one lower aperture (42b, 51b, 65b, 405, 405a, i.e. an outlet) for an outlet of said dry food substance (i.e. roasted coffee beans) (¶ 0539);
a grinding device (5) disposed in correspondence with said lower aperture (2b, 51b, 65b, 405, 405a, i.e. an outlet) to grind said dry food substance (i.e. roasted coffee beans) and transform it into an aromatic blend (i.e. ground beans powder) in powder form (¶ 0308);
a central control unit 11 (fig. 2, i.e. a control apparatus and/or a control unit) to control at least said grinding device (5) (¶ 0006, 0279, 0594, 0965); and
a user interface (11c) connected to said central control unit 11 (fig. 2, i.e. a control apparatus and/or a control unit), said machine (1) comprising at least first detection means 13 (fig. 2, i.e. called a sensor group) operatively connected to said central control unit (11) (¶ 0280) and
configured to detect a selective closure (i.e. by the shutter portion 443) of said at least one lower aperture (2b, 51b, 65b, 405, 405a, i.e. an outlet and send a corresponding closure signal to said central control unit 11 (fig. 2, i.e. a control apparatus and/or a control unit) such that the said central control unit 11 (fig. 2, i.e. a control apparatus and/or a control unit) enables said user interface (11c) (¶ 0279, 0493, 0499, 0506).
Kihara et al. discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for at least one option is displayed, which can be selected by a user for execution of a procedure for an automatic removal of possible residual material present in said grinding device.
However, Colizza teaches at least one option is displayed (03), which can be selected by a user for execution of a procedure for an automatic removal of possible residual material (i.e. a removal of coffee powder residues) present in said grinding device (230) (abstract; ¶ 0002, 0030, 0050, 0052, 0061, 0082; Claim 11).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of grinding coffee beans. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kihara and Colizza before him or her, to include such an option of coffee beans residues automatic and/or manual removal procedure of Colizza because cleaning is important for the correct delivery of powdered coffee both to avoid obstructions of the unloading ducts and to guarantee the correct homogeneity of the ground coffee, avoiding the uncontrolled formation of powder lumps mixed with the powder itself. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it reduces the frequency of cleaning allow optimizing the device operating time, avoiding or in any case reducing the operator's involvement in maintenance operations (¶ 0028) and improving the coffee grinders design for controlling and/or reducing the formation of attached accumulations of powdered coffee in coffee grinders (¶ 0016).
With respect to claim 2, Kihara in view of Colizza discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Colizza further discloses wherein when said central control unit (06, i.e. a special electronic control unit) receives said corresponding closure signal (¶ 0044), said central control unit (06) is configured to allow a selection on said user interface (03) of at least a first option (i.e. a removal of coffee powder residues) of automatic removal procedure and of at least a second option (i.e. a control element for the flow of powder coming out of the grinding chamber) different from said first option (i.e. a removal of coffee powder residues) (¶ , 0049, 0050, 0067, 00081-0082).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kihara and Colizza before him or her, to include such an flow option of coffee powder of Colizza because cleaning is important for the correct delivery of powdered coffee both to avoid obstructions of the unloading ducts and to guarantee the correct homogeneity of the ground coffee, avoiding the uncontrolled formation of powder lumps mixed with the powder itself. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it reduces the frequency of cleaning allow optimizing the device operating time, avoiding or in any case reducing the operator's involvement in maintenance operations (¶ 0028) and improving the coffee grinders design for controlling and/or reducing the formation of attached accumulations of powdered coffee in coffee grinders (¶ 0016).
With respect to claim 3, Kihara in view of Colizza discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Colizza further discloses wherein when said central control unit (06, i.e. a special electronic control unit) receives said corresponding closure signal (¶ 0044), said central control unit (06) is configured to allow a selection on said user interface (03) of at least a first option (i.e. a removal of coffee powder residues) that provides to use said possible residual material (i.e. coffee powder) to prepare another dose of said beverage before discharging said residual possible material (i.e. coffee powder), and of at least a second option (i.e. a control element for the flow of powder coming out of the grinding chamber) that provides to directly discharge said possible residual material (i.e. coffee powder) without preparing any other dose of said beverage (i.e. coffee) (¶ 0062).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kihara and Colizza before him or her, to include such a control option(s) of Colizza because cleaning is important for the correct delivery of powdered coffee both to avoid obstructions of the unloading ducts and to guarantee the correct homogeneity of the ground coffee, avoiding the uncontrolled formation of powder lumps mixed with the powder itself. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it reduces the frequency of cleaning allow optimizing the device operating time, avoiding or in any case reducing the operator's involvement in maintenance operations (¶ 0028) and improving the coffee grinders design for controlling and/or reducing the formation of attached accumulations of powdered coffee in coffee grinders (¶ 0016).
With respect to claim 4, Kihara in view of Colizza discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Colizza further discloses wherein when said central control unit (06, i.e. a special electronic control unit) receives said corresponding closure signal (¶ 0044), said central control unit (06, i.e. a special electronic control unit) is configured to display and allow the selection on said user interface (03) also of a third option (i.e. channeling/conveyng the coffee powder to a filter holder or collection tank) that provides to leave said possible residual material (i.e. coffee powder) in said grinding device (230) (abstract; ¶ 0007, 0012, 0015).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kihara and Colizza before him or her, to include such available option(s) of Colizza because cleaning is important for the correct delivery of powdered coffee both to avoid obstructions of the unloading ducts and to guarantee the correct homogeneity of the ground coffee, avoiding the uncontrolled formation of powder lumps mixed with the powder itself. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it reduces the frequency of cleaning allow optimizing the device operating time, avoiding or in any case reducing the operator's involvement in maintenance operations (¶ 0028) and improving the coffee grinders design for controlling and/or reducing the formation of attached accumulations of powdered coffee in coffee grinders (¶ 0016).
With respect to claim 6, Kihara in view of Colizza discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kihara further discloses second detection means 13 (fig. 2, i.e. called a sensor group, e.g. an operation position detection sensor of a mechanism), operatively connected to said central control unit 11 (fig. 2, i.e. a control apparatus and/or a control unit) and configured to detect whether said hopper (42, i.e. collective conveyance path 42 manually or using a funnel-shaped tool) is associated with said grinding device (5) (¶ 0280, 0478, 0488, 0539, 0547).
With respect to claim 7, Kihara in view of Colizza discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kihara further discloses said user interface (11c) comprises a display device (i.e. display screen) and said at least one option (i.e. a cleaning process) is displayed in the form of an icon (e.g. rinse icon) which can be selected directly on said display device (i.e. display screen), or in the form of a message associated with a respective button (¶ 0594-0595, 0668, 0685).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kihara et al. US 20200163485) in view of Colizza (US 20240116089) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Richeson (US 2,827,845).
Regarding claim 5, Kihara in view of Colizza discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kihara further discloses wherein said grinding device (5) comprises a first chamber 64 (fig. 4, i.e. the separation chamber forming portion), disposed in proximity of or in contact with said lower aperture (42b, 51b, 65b, 405, 405a, i.e. an outlet) and configured to accommodate a certain quantity of said beans (i.e. roasted coffee beans), except for a second chamber disposed below said first chamber and comprising grinding members to grind said beans, whereby in said second chamber both said beans and also at least a part of said aromatic blend in powder form can be present, and a third chamber disposed below said second chamber and configured to contain only said aromatic blend.
However, Richeson teaches a second chamber 36 (fig. 1, i.e. called a measuring chamber) disposed below said first chamber (35) and comprising grinding members (50, 51, i.e. grinding discs) to grind said beans, whereby in said second chamber both said beans (i.e. coffee beans) and also at least a part of said aromatic blend in powder (i.e. ground coffee) form can be present, and a third chamber (90, i.e. called container) disposed below said second chamber (36) and configured to contain only said aromatic blend (i.e. ground coffee).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a beverage making machine. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kihara in view of Colizza and Richeson before him or her, to include such chambers arrangement of Richeson because it provides novel and improved grinding means for grinding coffee beans which means are cooled to prevent an undesirable heating of the coffee while being ground thereby impeding or at least appreciably reducing the escape of flavor essences during the grinding operation. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the ground coffee and the extracting water are maintained in continuous contact and strongly agitated during the entire brewing or steeping operation and the water is supplied to the machine at an optimum temperature thereby assuring a maximum extraction of the desirable ingredients without extracting undesirable ingredients contained in the ground coffee such as fats and waxes (col. 1, lines 56-63).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hartmann et al. (US 20190045968). Abbiati (US 20180153332). Pikkemaat et al. (US 20160192806). And Oddera (US 20160345778).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights