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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/22/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that any search for the invention of Group I would necessarily include a search for the invention of Group II. This is not found persuasive because Groups I and II lack unity of invention. The technical feature found common to both inventions is not a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 05/31/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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:
recognition unit interpreted as a “unit for recognition” in claim 1,
device configured for generation of heated water in claim 1.
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.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0005] line 6 recites “used for controller of the machine.” The term “controller” appears to be incorrectly used. Examiner suggests amending [0005] line 6 to read as “used for .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 “a recognition unit wherein the recognition unit includes a proximity sensor (10) that is configured to detect in a contactless manner, a first shape of the portion pack (6, 16, 26) and a second shape of the portion pack (6, 16, 26), which is different from the first shape.” A proximity sensor is known in the art to detect distance, not dimensional characteristics. It is unclear how a proximity sensor can be configured to detect a shape without the use of a controller programmed to receive signals from the proximity sensor and process those signals to determine shape. Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to include any necessary structural elements that would complement the proximity sensor in achieving the claimed function of detecting a first and second shape.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flick et al (US 2015/0272380).
Regarding claim 1, Flick discloses a machine for the preparation of a brewed beverage, comprising:
a device configured for generation of heated water (Fig. 1 #8 water heater), which can be operated said device being operable via a controller (Fig. 1 #11 control unit; [0052] lines 7-11 ---" The control unit includes processor(s), memories and programs enabling to provide appropriate inputs to and receive outputs from the different activation means of the machine in particular, the pump, heater, motor and user interface.”)),
a holder (Fig. 1 #40 capsule positioner) configured for holding a portion pack (Fig. 1 #5 capsule) with an extraction material, the holder (Fig. 1 #40 capsule positioner) being arranged below a supply line (Fig. 1 #9 water circuit) configured for supplying the heated water,
and a recognition unit, wherein the recognition unit includes a proximity sensor (Fig. 1 #12 sensors) that is configured to detect in a contactless manner, via which a first shape of the portion pack and a second shape of the portion pack, which is different from the first shape ([0019] ---"In particular, the size sensing arrangement may be adapted to detect the presence of a capsule in the positioner by receiving or reading information from the capsule, and/or by measuring at least one of the following characteristic of the capsule: spectral property, colour, electrical property, resistivity, capacitance, electromagnetic property, magnetic induced field, mechanical property, geometry, weight, identifying information, code bar, emitted or reflected signal.”; This disclosure insists that the sensing arrangement behaves the same as a proximity sensor.) (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.)
Regarding claim 2, Flick teaches the machine as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Flick teaches wherein the first shape of the portion pack corresponds to a closed state of the portion pack ([0017] lines 3-4 ---"The machine may be adapted to handle more than two types of capsules of different sizes.”; Examiner interprets that different sizes correspond to different shapes. The sensor of Flick senses different sizes/shapes. The sensor of Flick is capable of determining a first shape that is different from a second, a third, or an “nth” shape.) (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 3, Flick teaches the machine as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Flick teaches wherein the second shape of the portion pack corresponds to an opened state of the portion pack before a brewing procedure ([0017] lines 3-4 ---"The machine may be adapted to handle more than two types of capsules of different sizes.”; Examiner interprets that different sizes correspond to different shapes. The sensor of Flick senses different sizes/shapes. The sensor of Flick is capable of determining a second shape that is different from a first, a third, or an “nth” shape.) (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 4, Flick teaches the machine as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Flick teaches wherein a third shape of the portion pack corresponds to an opened state of the portion pack after a brewing procedure ([0017] lines 3-4 ---"The machine may be adapted to handle more than two types of capsules of different sizes.”; Examiner interprets that different sizes correspond to different shapes. The sensor of Flick senses different sizes/shapes. The sensor of Flick is capable of determining a third shape that is different from a first, a second, or an “nth” shape.) (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 7, Flick teaches the machine as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Flick teaches wherein the proximity sensor includes a light barrier ([0022-0024] ---" [0022] The size sensing arrangement may comprise a length-detection unit for determining the size information. In an embodiment the length-detection unit comprises a light-receiving device and a light-emitting device, both positioned in the capsule positioner so as that: [0023] a light, emitted by the light-emitting device, is reflected by a capsule of the second type when such a capsule is positioned in the positioner, and is being received by the light-receiving device; [0024] a light, emitted by the light-emitting device, is not reflected by a capsule of the first type when such capsule is positioned in the positioner, and/or is not being received by the light-receiving device.”).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick et al (US 2015/0272380) as applied in claim 1, in view of Harrod et al (WO 2015051407 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Flick teaches the machine as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the proximity sensor is configured to detect a volume change of the extraction material before and after a brewing procedure.
Nonetheless, Harrod in the same field of endeavor being beverage brewing devices teaches wherein the proximity sensor is configured to detect a volume change of the extraction material before and after a brewing procedure (Page 2 para. 1-2 ---" When first exposed to hot water, the coffee grounds in the filter basket take time to dissolve or for water to be absorbed into the coffee. Some undissolved coffee will float on the water. Additionally during this dissolving and brewing process some coffee foam is formed on top of the coffee and water brew mixture. This material on top of the wet or dissolved coffee is known as coffee "bloom". Once the water is fully absorbed by the coffee, this blooming ceases and the total, water / coffee level drops. However, if too much water is provided to the coffee particularl during this "bloom" phase, the water and coffee will overflow from the basket, which is undesirable.
Monitoring and regulating the level within the filter basket will prevent the overflow of the contents of the filter basket.”).
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 Flick by incorporating the proximity sensor configured to detect volume change for the benefit of preventing the overflow of contents of the filter basket.
Regarding claim 6, Flick teaches the machine as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the proximity sensor includes a capacitive proximity sensor.
Nonetheless, Harrod teaches wherein the proximity sensor includes a capacitive proximity sensor (Fig. 2 #203 capacitive sensor).
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 Flick by incorporating the sensor with the capacitive sensor of Harrod for the benefit of regulating the amount of water in a filter basket.
Regarding claim 8, Flick teaches the machine as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the proximity sensor comprises an ultrasonic proximity sensor.
Nonetheless, Harrod teaches the proximity sensor comprises an ultrasonic proximity sensor (Fig. 12 #109 ultrasonic sensor).
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 Flick by incorporating the sensor with the ultrasonic sensor of Harrod for the benefit of regulating the amount of water in a filter basket.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flick et al (US 2015/0272380) as applied in claim 1, in view of Ramus et al (US 2005/0178197).
Regarding claim 9, Flick teaches the machine as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the proximity sensor is attached to a moveable part of the machine and thus is configured to detect different areas.
Nonetheless, Ramus in the same field of endeavor being beverage brewing devices teaches wherein the proximity sensor (Fig. 4 #20 apparatus for detecting a level of a surface of a liquid) is attached to a moveable part (Fig. 4 #41 retaining plate) of the machine and thus is configured to detect different areas.
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 Flick by incorporating the proximity sensor attached to a moveable part of the machine as taught by Ramus for the benefit of freely moving a serving container in and out of the beverage maker.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights