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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledge. Group II (claims 10-15) are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains less than 50 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: MACHINE
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-9 includes part number after each limitation such as “A machine (10)” recited in claim 1 (line 1), the “(10)” should be removed. Applicant is advised to fix similar issues.
Claims 2-9 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 2.
Claim 5 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 4.
Claim 6 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 4.
Claim 1 (line 3), claim 4 (line 4) recite “can be”. This should be changed to “is/are”.
Claims 2-9 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 5 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 4.
Claim 6 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 4.
Claim 1 (lines 4, 6-7, 9), claim 2 (line 4), claim 4 (line 3), claim 5 (line 2) recite the limitation “said containers”. This should be changed to “said plurality of containers” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited in claim 1 (lines 1-2).
Claims 2-9 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 2.
Claim 5 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 4.
Claim 6 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 4.
Claim 1 recite the limitation “the container” in line 12. This should be changed to “one of said plurality of containers” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited in claim 1 (lines 1-2).
Claims 2-9 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 recite the limitation “container” in line 2. This should be changed to “one of said plurality of containers” or “said plurality of containers” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited in claim 1 (lines 1-2).
Claim 5 recite the limitation “said seating” in line 4. This should be changed to “said housing seating” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited in claim 1 (line 3).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the parameters of the profile” in line 4. This should be changed to “said/the profile of extraction parameters” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited in claim 1 (lines 11-12).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” (or “step”). Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“identification means” in claim 1 (lines 4, 6), claim 4 (line 1). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “identification” (Prong B); and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “identification means” in claim 1 (lines 4, 6), claim 4 (line 1) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “identification means” will be interpreted as “bar code or QR code”, or “emitter configured to communicate with receiver by means of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) or NFC (Near-Field Communication) technology” or “activator member having the shape of a protruding flap” or equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 14 lines 2-3, 7-12 & 22-23.
“recognition means” in claim 1 (line 5), claim 4 (lines 2, 3). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “recognition” (Prong B); and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “recognition means” in claim 1 (line 5), claim 4 (lines 2, 3) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “recognition means” will be interpreted as “receiver suitable to read bar code or QR code provided on each container” or “microswitch(es)” or “position sensor(s)” or equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 6 lines 11-18, and on page 13 lines 12-19.
“processing means” in claim 9 (line 2). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “processing” (Prong B); and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “processing means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is noted that the Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application do not provide specific structure for the “processing means”; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the limitation “processing means” in this context means “processing device, or processing circuitry, or processor-based computing element configured to receive and process user commands” or equivalent.
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.
Additionally, 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:
“control unit which is configured to regulate operation of said machine” in claim 1 (lines 7-8), “control unit” in claim 1 (line 8), “control unit is configured to automatically select and set operating parameters of the machine on a basis of the profile of extraction parameters which is associated with the container identified on each occasion” in claim 1 (lines 10-13), and “control unit is provided with processing means configured to receive and process commands received from a consumer by means of an interface during the use of a specific container, in order to condition the operation of the machine and/or adjust the parameters of the profile associated with said container as a function of said commands received” in claim 9 (lines 1-5). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language: “configured to regulate operation of said machine” / “control” / “configured to automatically select and set operating parameters of the machine on a basis of the profile of extraction parameters which is associated with the container identified on each occasion” / “configured to receive and process commands received from a consumer by means of an interface during the use of a specific container, in order to condition the operation of the machine and/or adjust the parameters of the profile associated with said container as a function of said commands received” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C) [it is noted that even though claim 9 recites “said control unit (15) is provided with processing means (19)”; the limitation “processing means” also invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as analyzed and explained above]. Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is noted that the Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application do not provide specific structure for the “control unit”; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the limitation “control unit” in this context means “controller or control circuitry” or equivalent.
“activator member(s)” in claim 4 (lines 2, 4-5), and claim 5 (line 1). This limitation uses generic placeholder “member(s)” (Prong A); the term “member(s)” is modified by functional language “activator” (Prong B); and the term “member(s)” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “activator member(s)” will be interpreted as “having shape of a protruding flap” or equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 14 lines 2-3: “the activator member 25 can have the shape of a protruding flap”.
“actuator member(s)” in claim 4 (line 4). This limitation uses generic placeholder “member(s)” (Prong A); the term “member(s)” is modified by functional language “actuator” (Prong B); and the term “member(s)” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “actuator member(s)” will be interpreted as “mechanical actuators, such as a microswitch for example, or from position sensors of the magnetic or Hall effect type” or equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 13 lines 17-19: “the actuator members 31 can be chosen from mechanical actuators, such as a microswitch for example, or from position sensors of the magnetic or Hall effect type”.
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.
Furthermore, 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:
“identification means” in claim 7 (lines 1-2), claim 8 (line 1). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “identification” (Prong B); and the term “means” is modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function “emitter” as recited in claim 7, “surface identification portion (27) having its own color or its own bar code or QR code” as recited in claim 8 (fails Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “identification means” in claim 7 (lines 1-2), claim 8 (line 1) does NOT invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and it will be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
“recognition means” in claim 7 (line 2), claim 8 (line 3). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “recognition” (Prong B); and the term “means” is modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function “receiver” as recited in claim 7, “optical device” as recited in claim 8 (fails Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “recognition means” in claim 7 (line 2), claim 8 (line 3) does NOT invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and it will be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
“means of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) or NFC (Near-Field Communication) technology” in claim 7 (lines 3-4). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is not modified by functional language (fails Prong B); and the term “means” is modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function “RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) or NFC (Near-Field Communication)” (fails Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “means of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) or NFC (Near-Field Communication) technology” does NOT invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and it will be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
“means of an interface” in claim 9 (line 3). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language: provide commands to processing means (Prong B); and the term “means” is modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function “interface” (fails Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “means of an interface” does NOT invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and it will be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
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.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “certain types of coffee beans” in line 2. The term “certain” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “certain” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the limitation “certain types of coffee beans” will be interpreted as “types of coffee beans”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “certain profile of extraction parameters” in line 10. The term “certain” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “certain” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the limitation “certain profile of extraction parameters” will be interpreted as “profile of extraction parameters”.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “certain types of coffee beans” in line 3. The term “certain” in claim 2is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “certain” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the limitation “certain types of coffee beans” will be interpreted as “types of coffee beans”.
Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the position of respective coupling members” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “position of respective coupling members” recited previously.
Claim 6 recites “such as” in line 2. The phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the limitation “mechanical actuators such as microswitches, or from position sensors of a magnetic or a Hall effect type” recited in claim 6 will be interpreted as “mechanical actuators
Claim 9 recites the limitation “specific container” in line 3. The term “specific” in claim 9is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specific” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the limitation “specific container” will be interpreted as “container”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “an interface” in line 3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 9 depends on claim 1; however, claim 1 recites the limitation “a user interface” in line 16. Thus, it is unclear if “an interface” recited in claim 9 refers to “a user interface” recited in claim 1, or refers to a different interface. For examination purposes, the limitation “an interface” recited in claim 9 will be interpreted as to refer to “a user interface” recited in claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0024160 A1) in view of Ye (CN 107822509 A, Translation is attached).
Regarding claim 1, Van Os discloses a machine (system 1, Van Os Fig.1) for preparing coffee beverages (Van Os Par.0081 discloses: “In FIG. 1 a system 1 for preparing coffee beverages is shown.”), comprising
a plurality of containers (“cartridges”, Van Os Par.0010) suitable to contain certain types of coffee beans (Van Os discloses plurality of cartridges suitable to contain certain types of coffee beans because Van Os Par.0010 discloses: “Such a coffee bean packaging container does not need to remain connected to the coffee beverage system until it is emptied completely. By the option of selectively closing the exit passage it may be temporarily removed from the system, to allow bean cartridges with different contents to be connected to the system intermediately. This enables to the consumer or customer to be offered a different taste of coffee, without having a plurality of costly systems operating in parallel.”) (It is noted that the Instant Application defines only one of the containers is inserted into the coffee machine to be used at a time; in this case, the prior art Van Os also discloses a plurality of cartridges, and one of the plurality of cartridge is configured to insert into the coffee machine to be used at a time.), which can be selectively associated with a same housing seating (housing seating is the receptacle that is configured to receive the coffee bean packaging cartridge 3, Van Os annotated Fig.1 below) of said machine (system 1, Van Os Fig.1) (Van Os Par.0010 discloses: “Such a coffee bean packaging container does not need to remain connected to the coffee beverage system until it is emptied completely. By the option of selectively closing the exit passage it may be temporarily removed from the system, to allow bean cartridges with different contents to be connected to the system intermediately. This enables to the consumer or customer to be offered a different taste of coffee, without having a plurality of costly systems operating in parallel.”), wherein said containers (“cartridges”, Van Os Par.0010) have their own identification means (identification element 22, Van Os Fig.1 & Par.0087) and said machine (system 1, Van Os Fig.1) is provided with recognition means (second sensor 21, Van Os Fig.1 & Par.0087) configured to interact with said identification means (identification element 22, Van Os Fig.1 & Par.0087) in order to supply a signal of successful identification of one of said containers (coffee bean packaging cartridge 3, Van Os Fig.1) to a control unit (control device unit 13A, Van Os Fig.1) which is configured to regulate operation of said machine (system 1, Van Os Fig.1) (Van Os Par.0087 discloses: “the control device unit 13A is connected to a second sensor 21 acting as a detection means for detecting an identification element 22 such as a barcode or a RFID label of the coffee bean packaging cartridge 3. Thereby the control device unit 13A cannot only detect the presence or removal of the coffee bean cartridge 3, but also receive information about its contents and/or a identifier which identifies the cartridge 3. Preferably the control unit 13A controls the grinder mechanism 6, the coffee brewing device 7, the water supply means 10, closing mechanism 12B and/or the dosing device 23 in dependence on the identifier was is read by means of the second sensor 21.”), wherein said control unit (control device unit 13A, Van Os Fig.1) is configured to automatically select and set operating parameters of the machine (system 1, Van Os Fig.1) on a basis of the profile of extraction parameters which is associated with the container (coffee bean packaging cartridge 3, Van Os Fig.1) identified on each occasion (Van Os discloses a control device unit 13A is configured to automatically select and set operating parameters of the system 1 on a basis of the profile of extraction parameters which is associated with the coffee bean packaging cartridge 3 identified on each occasion because Van Os Par.0087 discloses: “the control device unit 13A is connected to a second sensor 21 acting as a detection means for detecting an identification element 22 such as a barcode or a RFID label of the coffee bean packaging cartridge 3. Thereby the control device unit 13A cannot only detect the presence or removal of the coffee bean cartridge 3, but also receive information about its contents and/or a identifier which identifies the cartridge 3. Preferably the control unit 13A controls the grinder mechanism 6, the coffee brewing device 7, the water supply means 10, closing mechanism 12B and/or the dosing device 23 in dependence on the identifier was is read by means of the second sensor 21.”, and Van Os Par.0088 discloses: “The control unit 13A is thus further arranged to control the grinding mechanism 6 and the water supply to the coffee brewing device 7. It thus becomes possible for the control device unit 13A to adjust the grinding and brewing process in accordance with the particular coffee bean product offered by the cartridge 3. Such information can be supplied to the control unit 13A by the identification element 22.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
938
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Van Os does not explicitly disclose:
a user interface communicating with said control unit and configured to make a bijective association between each of said containers and a certain profile of extraction parameters
Ye teaches a machine for preparing coffee beverages (Ye Abstract), comprising
a user interface (“human-computer interaction interface to the user”, Ye Translated Abstract) communicating with said control unit (“mobile phone or flat computer”, Ye Translated Document on page 4 – second paragraph) and configured to make a bijective association between each of said containers (“coffee capsule”, Ye Translated Document on page 3 – last paragraph) and a certain profile of extraction parameters (Ye teaches a user interface communicating with said control unit and configured to make a bijective association between each of said containers and a certain profile of extraction parameters because Ye Translated Abstract teaches: “the unique identification code on the outer surface of the coffee capsule is set marking the raw materials, and giving the corresponding process parameter, and this corresponding relationship is stored in the memory of the capsule coffee machine, raw materials and technical parameters required for forming individual beverage making the one-to-one corresponding relation; displays the name of the beverage and the corresponding to the user on the man-machine interaction interface of capsule coffee raw material and technique parameter, in response to a selection operation for making a beverage on the human-computer interaction interface to the user, making the drink.”, and Ye Translated Document on page 3 – second paragraph from the bottom of page 3 to last paragraph on page 4 describes in detail the user interface communicating with control unit and configured to make a bijective association between each of said containers and a certain profile of extraction parameters.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Van Os, by adding the teaching of user interface communicating with control unit and configured to make a bijective association between each of said containers and a certain profile of extraction parameters, as taught by Ye, in order to allow user to customize and store brewing parameters for the coffee product contained in each identified container, thereby enabling the machine to automatically use the desired parameters when that container is subsequently recognized and facilitating preparation of beverages according to user’s preferences.
Regarding claim 2, Van Os in view of Ye teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and Ye also teaches comprising:
a memory unit (“memory”, Ye Translated Document on page 3 – last paragraph) in which a plurality of profiles is stored (it is noted that Ye invention relates to multiple capsules, thus having plurality of profiles, specifically, Ye Translated Document on page 4 – the last two paragraphs teaches: “In one specific embodiment of the invention, a user can raw materials and technique parameter of the coffee drink is adjusted to obtain the beverage user-defined formula. to user-defined fissistigma Rui, white coffee as an example, supposing the built-in coffee machine of the "iron" coffee related process parameter is as follows: using a coffee capsule 75mlEspresso coffee and milk diluted capsule by a concentrated 225 ml milk. Based on this, the user can be modifying the technological parameter is as follows: using two coffee capsule 150mlEspresso coffee, and the concentrated milk capsule and diluting the 150 ml milk, the formulation stored and named as "fissistigma Rui, white coffee is the prescription displayed on the coffee machine to make the touch panel or mobile network terminal networked with the coffee machine so that the user after the operation or further adjustment.”), each comprising its own set of extraction parameters which are associated with at least one certain type of coffee beans (Ye Translated Abstract teaches: “the unique identification code on the outer surface of the coffee capsule is set marking the raw materials, and giving the corresponding process parameter, and this corresponding relationship is stored in the memory of the capsule coffee machine, raw materials and technical parameters required for forming individual beverage making the one-to-one corresponding relation; displays the name of the beverage and the corresponding to the user on the man-machine interaction interface of capsule coffee raw material and technique parameter, in response to a selection operation for making a beverage on the human-computer interaction interface to the user, making the drink.”, and Ye Translated Document on page 3 – last paragraph to page 4 – first paragraph teaches: “step S1. The raw material components of the beverage manufacturing raw material of beverage to obtain, and after accurately weighing according to proportion into the coffee capsule is sealed. wherein the raw material comprises coffee, tea, tea, herbs, solid beverage concentrate, liquid beverage concentrate. the only identification code in step S2, the outer surface of the coffee capsule is set marking the raw materials of the capsule coffee machine identifies the identification code, and the dynamic corresponding process parameter, and the corresponding relationship is stored in the memory of the capsule coffee machine, forming raw materials and technological parameter needed personalized beverage making the one-to-one correspondence relation, and the coffee capsule into storehouse of capsule coffee machine for use. Preferably, the identification code is a bar code or two-dimensional code.”), and said user interface (“mobile phone or flat computer”, Ye Translated Document on page 4 – second paragraph) is configured to make a bijective association between said containers (it is noted that Ye invention relates to multiple capsules, each having its own code and its own extraction parameters, specifically, Ye Translated Document on page 4 – the last two paragraphs teaches: “In one specific embodiment of the invention, a user can raw materials and technique parameter of the coffee drink is adjusted to obtain the beverage user-defined formula. to user-defined fissistigma Rui, white coffee as an example, supposing the built-in coffee machine of the "iron" coffee related process parameter is as follows: using a coffee capsule 75mlEspresso coffee and milk diluted capsule by a concentrated 225 ml milk. Based on this, the user can be modifying the technological parameter is as follows: using two coffee capsule 150mlEspresso coffee, and the concentrated milk capsule and diluting the 150 ml milk, the formulation stored and named as "fissistigma Rui, white coffee is the prescription displayed on the coffee machine to make the touch panel or mobile network terminal networked with the coffee machine so that the user after the operation or further adjustment.”) and the coffee beans present therein, and consequently with said extraction parameters (Ye teaches user interface is configured to make a bijective association between capsules and the coffee beans present therein, and consequently with said extraction parameters because Ye Translated Abstract teaches: “the unique identification code on the outer surface of the coffee capsule is set marking the raw materials, and giving the corresponding process parameter, and this corresponding relationship is stored in the memory of the capsule coffee machine, raw materials and technical parameters required for forming individual beverage making the one-to-one corresponding relation; displays the name of the beverage and the corresponding to the user on the man-machine interaction interface of capsule coffee raw material and technique parameter, in response to a selection operation for making a beverage on the human-computer interaction interface to the user, making the drink.”, and Ye Translated Document on page 3 – second paragraph from the bottom of page 3 to last paragraph on page 4 describes in detail user interface is configured to make a bijective association between capsules and the coffee beans present therein, and consequently with said extraction parameters.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Van Os in view of Ye, by adding the teaching of memory unit in which a plurality of profiles is stored, each comprising its own set of extraction parameters which are associated with at least one certain type of coffee beans, and user interface is configured to make a bijective association between said containers and the coffee beans present therein, and consequently with said extraction parameters, as taught by Ye, in order to preserve previously established extraction parameters for different coffee bean types so that the machine can reuse the appropriate parameter set upon subsequent identification of a corresponding container, thereby avoiding repeated parameter entry and promoting consistent beverage preparation for repeated use of the same coffee bean type.
Regarding claim 3, Van Os in view of Ye teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, and also teaches:
wherein information is stored in said memory unit (“memory”, Ye Translated Document on page 3 – last paragraph, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2 above) concerning the associations between container (“capsule”, Ye Translated Abstract or Translated Document on page 3 – last paragraph), type of coffee beans and respective extraction parameters (Ye Translated Abstract teaches: “the unique identification code on the outer surface of the coffee capsule is set marking the raw materials, and giving the corresponding process parameter, and this corresponding relationship is stored in the memory of the capsule coffee machine, raw materials and technical parameters required for forming individual beverage making the one-to-one corresponding relation; displays the name of the beverage and the corresponding to the user on the man-machine interaction interface of capsule coffee raw material and technique parameter, in response to a selection operation for making a beverage on the human-computer interaction interface to the user, making the drink.”, and Ye Translated Document on page 3 – last paragraph to page 4 – first paragraph teaches: “step S1. The raw material components of the beverage manufacturing raw material of beverage to obtain, and after accurately weighing according to proportion into the coffee capsule is sealed. wherein the raw material comprises coffee, tea, tea, herbs, solid beverage concentrate, liquid beverage concentrate. the only identification code in step S2, the outer surface of the coffee capsule is set marking the raw materials of the capsule coffee machine identifies the identification code, and the dynamic corresponding process parameter, and the corresponding relationship is stored in the memory of the capsule coffee machine, forming raw materials and technological parameter needed personalized beverage making the one-to-one correspondence relation, and the coffee capsule into storehouse of capsule coffee machine for use. Preferably, the identification code is a bar code or two-dimensional code.”).
Regarding claim 7, Van Os in view of Ye teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Van Os also discloses:
wherein said identification means (identification element 22, Van Os Fig.1 & Par.0087) and recognition means (second sensor 21, Van Os Fig.1 & Par.0087) respectively comprise an emitter and a receiver suitable to communicate with each other in wireless mode, by means of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) or NFC (Near-Field Communication) technology (It is noted that the limitation “RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) or NFC (Near-Field Communication) technology” is in alterative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Van Os discloses RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technology because Van Os Par.0087 discloses: “the control device unit 13A is connected to a second sensor 21 acting as a detection means for detecting an identification element 22 such as a barcode or a RFID label of the coffee bean packaging cartridge 3.”. It is known that Radio-frequency identification (RFID) uses radio waves and electromagnetic fields to automatically track and identify items or people without direct contact, thus, the identification element 22 and the second sensor 21 respectively comprise an emitter and a receiver suitable to communicate with each other in wireless mode, by means of RFID).
Regarding claim 8, Van Os in view of Ye teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Van Os also discloses:
wherein said identification means (identification element 22, Van Os Fig.1 & Par.0087) comprise at least one surface identification portion (the surface portion of cartridge 3 where the identification element 22 is located, Van Os Fig.1) having its own color or its own bar code or QR code (It is noted that the limitation “its own color or its own bar code or QR code” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of this was required during examination. In this case, Van Os discloses barcode Van Os Par.0087 discloses: “the control device unit 13A is connected to a second sensor 21 acting as a detection means for detecting an identification element 22 such as a barcode or a RFID label of the coffee bean packaging cartridge 3. Thereby the control device unit 13A cannot only detect the presence or removal of the coffee bean cartridge 3, but also receive information about its contents and/or a identifier which identifies the cartridge 3.”), and said recognition means (second sensor 21, Van Os Fig.1 & Par.0087) comprise an optical device (second sensor 21 is optical device because Van Os Par.0087 discloses: “the control device unit 13A is connected to a second sensor 21 acting as a detection means for detecting an identification element 22 such as a barcode or a RFID label of the coffee bean packaging cartridge 3.”) suitable to recognize said color or read said code at least on said identification portion (the surface portion of cartridge 3 where the identification element 22 is located, Van Os Fig.1) (Van Os Par.0087 discloses: “the control device unit 13A is connected to a second sensor 21 acting as a detection means for detecting an identification element 22 such as a barcode or a RFID label of the coffee bean packaging cartridge 3. Thereby the control device unit 13A cannot only detect the presence or removal of the coffee bean cartridge 3, but also receive information about its contents and/or a identifier which identifies the cartridge 3.”).
Regarding claim 9, Van Os in view of Ye teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein said control unit (“mobile phone or flat computer”, Ye Translated Document on page 4 – second paragraph; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) is provided with processing means (; thus, the mobile phone or flat computer is provided with processing means configured to receive and process commands received from a consumer by means of an interface) configured to receive and process commands received from a consumer by means of an interface (“human-computer interaction interface to the user”, Ye Translated Abstract; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) during the use of a specific container (“capsule”, Ye Translated Document on page 3 – last paragraph) (Ye Translated Document on page 3 – last two paragraphs to page 4 – paragraphs 1-3 teaches: “step S1. The raw material components of the beverage manufacturing raw material of beverage to obtain, and after accurately weighing according to proportion into the coffee capsule is sealed. wherein the raw material comprises coffee, tea, tea, herbs, solid beverage concentrate, liquid beverage concentrate. the only identification code in step S2, the outer surface of the coffee capsule is set marking the raw materials of the capsule coffee machine identifies the identification code, and the dynamic corresponding process parameter, and the corresponding relationship is stored in the memory of the capsule coffee machine, forming raw materials and technological parameter needed personalized beverage making the one-to-one correspondence relation, and the coffee capsule into storehouse of capsule coffee machine for use. Preferably, the identification code is a bar code or two-dimensional code. step S3, displaying the name of the beverage to the user on the man-machine interaction interface of capsule coffee and the corresponding raw materials and process parameters, the raw materials and technique parameter comprises the capsule coffee inside the raw material and process parameters and user-defined raw material components and process parameters. said man-machine interaction interface is touch panel or mobile network terminal, so the user can operate on the capsule coffee machine with the network of mobile phone or flat computer. step S4, in response to a selection operation for making a beverage on the human-computer interaction interface to the user, selecting corresponding coffee capsule according to raw materials of the beverage capsule coffee machine, according to the technical parameters of making the beverage of the beverage.”), in order to condition the operation of the machine (system 1 of Van Os Fig.1) and/or adjust the parameters of the profile associated with said container as a function of said commands received (Ye Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 10 teaches: “The embodiment of the invention based on the following conditions: selecting raw material of uniform specification, using uniform specification, the shell of the capsule shell identifier for identifying the machine, capsule coffee machine with capsule recognition ability and modification ability of technological parameter storing beverage manufacturing. capsule coffee machine has good man-machine interface, can drink desired water temperature, water quantity, working pressure, working time and other relevant parameters to precisely adjust within a certain range, and is able to store the updated, and preparing technological parameters of the newly added; and recording material convenient for user to adjust the components and technique parameter, with specific raw materials and technique parameter of drink.”; furthermore, Van Os Par.0087 discloses: “the control device unit 13A is connected to a second sensor 21 acting as a detection means for detecting an identification element 22 such as a barcode or a RFID label of the coffee bean packaging cartridge 3. Thereby the control device unit 13A cannot only detect the presence or removal of the coffee bean cartridge 3, but also receive information about its contents and/or a identifier which identifies the cartridge 3. Preferably the control unit 13A controls the grinder mechanism 6, the coffee brewing device 7, the water supply means 10, closing mechanism 12B and/or the dosing device 23 in dependence on the identifier was is read by means of the second sensor 21.”, and Van Os Par.0088 discloses: “The control unit 13A is thus further arranged to control the grinding mechanism 6 and the water supply to the coffee brewing device 7. It thus becomes possible for the control device unit 13A to adjust the grinding and brewing process in accordance with the particular coffee bean product offered by the cartridge 3. Such information can be supplied to the control unit 13A by the identification element 22.”. Therefore, in combination, Van Os in view of Ye teaches control unit is provided with processing means configured to receive and process commands received from a consumer by means of user interface during the use of a specific capsule, in order to condition the operation of the machine and/or adjust the parameters of the profile associated with said capsule as a function of said commands received.).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Os et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0024160 A1) in view of Ye (CN 107822509 A, Translation is attached), and further in view of Bugnano et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0319003 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Van Os’160 in view of Ye teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein said identification means and recognition means are of a mechanical type and comprise an activator member associated with each of said containers and said recognition means comprise a plurality of actuator members which can be activated by said activator members.
Bugnano teaches a container (capsule 1, Bugnano Fig.5):
wherein said identification means (projections 8 and recesses 9, Bugnano Fig.5) (Bugnano Par.0046 teaches: “The projections 8 protrude transversely towards the outside and the number of projections, together with the arrangement thereof, define an identification of the capsule 1.”, Bugnano Par.0074 teaches: “The push-button control members 14 a of the microswitches 14 thus act as actual feelers, which explore and “read” the sequence of projections 8 and recesses 9, or the identification/information code associated with a corresponding planar surface of the body 2 of the capsule 1 inserted into the grooves 13 a of the guides 13.”) and recognition means (microswitches 14, Bugnano Fig.5) (Bugnano Par.0072 teaches: “The microswitches 14 are each provided with a movable member 14 a for controlling switching, which causes said microswitch to open and close. These members 14 a protrude transversely, in such a way that they may interact with the projections 8 of two opposite planar faces of the portion 4 b of the lateral surface of the body 2 of the capsule.”) are of a mechanical type (projections 8, recesses 9, and microswitches 14 are of mechanical type) and comprise an activator member (projections 8 and recesses 9, Bugnano Fig.5) associated with each of said containers (capsule 1, Bugnano Fig.5) and said recognition means (microswitches 14, Bugnano Fig.5) comprise a plurality of actuator members (microswitches 14, Bugnano Fig.5; Bugnano Fig.5 shows two microswitches 14) which can be activated by said activator members (projections 8 and recesses 9, Bugnano Fig.5) (Bugnano Par.0072 teaches:“The microswitches 14 are each provided with a movable member 14 a for controlling switching, which causes said microswitch to open and close. These members 14 a protrude transversely, in such a way that they may interact with the projections 8 of two opposite planar faces of the portion 4 b of the lateral surface of the body 2 of the capsule.”, Bugnano Par.0073 teaches: “Each time a member 14 a passes from a recess 9 to a projection 8, it causes a switching of the associated microswitch 14, for example in the sense that it causes the microswitch to open and, when it passes from a projection 8 to a recess 9, it causes reverse switching, for example causing the microswitch to close.”, and Bugnano Par.0073 teaches: “The push-button control members 14 a of the microswitches 14 thus act as actual feelers, which explore and “read” the sequence of projections 8 and recesses 9, or the identification/information code associated with a corresponding planar surface of the body 2 of the capsule 1 inserted into the grooves 13 a of the guides 13.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Van Os in view of Ye, by adding the teaching of identification means and recognition means are of a mechanical type and comprise an activator member associated with each of containers and recognition means comprise a plurality of actuator members which can be activated by said activator members, as taught by Bugnano, in order to enable the coffee machine to mechanically identify or distinguish among different removable cartridges based on the pattern of switches actuated when the cartridge is installed, rather than merely detecting that a cartridge is present.
Regarding claim 5, Van Os’160 in view of Ye and Bugnano teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 4, and also teaches:
wherein said activator members (projections 8 and recesses 9, Bugnano Fig.5) on said containers (capsule 1, Bugnano Fig.5) are disposed in different positions with respect to each other in relation to the position of respective coupling members (flange-like formation 5 and cover 6, Bugnano Fig.5) which are configured to cooperate with mating coupling members (grooves 13a, Bugnano Fig.5) provided in said seating (guides 13 and part 12, Bugnano Fig.5) (Bugnano Par.0067 teaches: “said retaining and guiding device comprises two straight guides 13, parallel to one another, provided with respective facing grooves 13 a which can engage with two opposite sides of the perimeter of the flange-like formation 5 and cover 6 of the capsule 1.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Van Os in view of Ye and Bugnano, by adding the teaching of activator members on the containers are disposed in different positions with respect to each other in relation to the position of respective coupling members which are configured to cooperate with mating coupling members provided in the seating, as taught by Bugnano, in order to ensure that each cartridge is repeatably positioned so that its actuator engages the intended recognition member when the cartridge is coupled to the machine, thereby reducing the possibility of incorrect identification caused by variation in cartridge placement.
Regarding claim 6, Van Os’160 in view of Ye and Bugnano teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 4, and also teaches:
wherein said actuator members (microswitches 14, Bugnano Fig.5; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 4 above) are selected from mechanical actuators such as microswitches, or from position sensors of a magnetic or a Hall effect type (It is noted that the limitation “microswitches, or from position sensors of a magnetic or a Hall effect type” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Bugnano teaches microswitches, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 4 above.).
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Carr et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0017293 A1) discloses a beverage preparation system comprising a beverage preparation machine, a cartridge containing one or more beverage ingredients, and a coded insert. The cartridge comprises a primary code configured to provide operating instructions to the beverage preparation machine for delivering a beverage from the cartridge. The coded insert is separate from the cartridge and insertable along with the cartridge into the brew head. The coded insert comprises a secondary code configured to provide alternative operating instructions to the beverage preparation machine for delivering a modified beverage from the cartridge.
Tinkler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0215632 A1) discloses apparatus and method for sharing capsule image data and beverage preparation parameters, from one or more beverage preparation machines with a remote computer system via a network. The remote computer system may process the capsule image data to determine characteristics of the capsule (e.g., a type of capsule, such as a brand, or beverage ingredients in the capsule), thereby relieving the beverage preparation from having to determine information about the capsule. The remote computer may track a user's consumption of capsules, may compare this value to the user's past capsule purchase history, and may determine if the user's supply of capsules is below a threshold value (e.g., below a week's worth of capsules).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 09/19/2026
Prosecution Insights