DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the response filed on 08/05/26. Claim 1 has been amended and no claims have been added nor cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-15 are presently pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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. Such claim limitation(s) are as detailed hereafter:
“water delivery system” (cl. 7): “The water delivery system comprises a fluid passage for delivering heated water to the water delivery head 40, which in turn delivers the heated water to the brew chamber 18. The water delivery head comprises a water distribution disc. The water distribution disc provides an area of water delivery to the ground coffee. The water delivery head may further comprise a filter that enables the passage of water while also retaining the ground coffee so that it may be compacted during tamping.”, para. [0081].
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 20170215451) in view of Calik et al. (WO 2019/192778)
With regard to claim 1, Tan teaches a system for analyzing coffee beans (FIG. 5), comprising:
an emitter (122) for emitting an infrared (IR) pulse (121)(“the signal 121 may be any suitable signal, such as an optical signal, an acoustic signal or any other suitable type of electromagnetic signal. An optical signal such as a laser signal or an infrared signal affords more accurate determination of the coffee bean volume”, para. [0050]); a receiver (124) for detecting the pulse reflected by a coffee bean (“The transmitter 122 of the sensor arrangement 120 is typically arranged to transmit a signal 121 towards the coffee beans 10, with the receiver 124 of the sensor arrangement 120 typically arranged to detect a reflection 123 of the transmitted signal 121.”, para. [0044]; a light sensor (220) for sensing a color of a coffee bean in a line of sight of the reflected IR pulse (as sensor 220 is in the compartment and in a line of sight of the IR pulse being transmitted by the transmitter 122 as illustrated in FIG. 2a/2b/5: “a further sensor 220 may be present in the compartment 110 as schematically shown in FIG. 5, which further sensor 220 is arranged to determine the colour of the coffee beans 10 in the compartment 110. The further sensor 220 is communicatively coupled to the controller 130 such that the controller 130 can further control the heating arrangement of the coffee roasting apparatus 100 in response to the further sensor 220. As the process of coffee bean colour determination is well-known per se, this will not be explained in any further detail for the sake of brevity only. It is simply noted that any suitable coffee bean colour determination sensing arrangement may be used.”, para. [0065]); a distance sensor (120/122/124) for determining a distance between the light sensor and the coffee bean based on a time of flight measurement of the reflected IR pulse (“An increase in the volume of coffee beans 10 in the compartment 110 during the roasting process caused by the expansion of the coffee beans 10 as indicated by the transition from the left panel to the right panel in FIG. 2 will lead to a reduction of the free volume or head space, i.e. a reduction of the height H to H′, this reduction in head space can be determined from a reduction of the time-of-flight of the signal 121 and its reflection 123 from the transmitter 122 to the receiver 124: H=(V*t)/2 wherein V is the signal speed and t is the time-of-flight of the signal 121 and its reflection 123.”, para. [0046]); and a processor (130) adapted to calibrate the sensed color to obtain a calibrated color , wherein the calibrated level of color represents a roast intensity of the coffee bean (sensor 220 determines bean color as indicated above), and wherein the calibrated level of color is obtained based on a pairing identified from pre-stored relationships (“roasting profile”) to obtain a calibrated level of color that represents a roast intensity of the coffee bean (“the controller is adapted to control the roasting element as a function of said change in the volume and said weight and/or colour change.”, para. [0019]; “a roasting profile of a type of coffee beans, wherein the controller is adapted to program said data storage element. Such a roasting profile may be relied upon during subsequent use of the coffee roasting apparatus with the same type of coffee beans, e.g. to improve the roasting process of the beans. For instance, the controller may be adapted to control the roasting element in accordance with the stored roasting profile in response to a user defining a degree of roasting for said type of coffee beans. This ensures that the beans are exposed to an optimized roasting profile, thereby improving the quality of the roast.”, para. [0021]), in which each of the pre-stored relationships (“roasting profile”) indicates for coffee beans of a respective roast intensity (“colour change”, para. [0019]), a reflected intensity from a fixed intensity of the emitted IR pulse reflected by the coffee beans with respect to different distances between the light sensor and the coffee beans (distance relates to “change in the volume”, para. [0019]), in which the pair is one of the pre-stored relationships (“roasting profile” of look-up table in memory) closest to the determined distance and a measured reflecting intensity value from the coffee bean (“the controller is adapted to control the roasting element as a function of said change in the volume and said weight and/or colour change”, para. [0016]; “In an embodiment, the coffee roasting apparatus 100 may be controlled by a combination of the aforementioned volume monitoring and at least one other parameter, such as time, bean color and/or temperature.”, para. [0063]; “FIG. 6 shows an experimental graph showing changes in the volume V of Mandheling coffee beans (dots) and changes in the colour of these coffee beans (squares) as a function of roasting time. The volume scale (in ml) is depicted on the left-hand vertical axis and the colour scale (in Hunterlab colour coordinates) is depicted on the right-hand vertical axis of the graph. The horizontal axis (or x-axis) depicts the roasting time (in minutes). This graph clearly demonstrates that the roasting colour may be used as an auxiliary parameter to determine the progress of the roasting process of the coffee beans 10.”, para. [0066]; “the coffee roasting apparatus 100 may further comprise a data storage element such as a RAM or Flash memory, look-up table or the like that is communicatively coupled to the controller 130 for storing a roasting profile of the coffee beans 10. The coffee roasting apparatus 100, e.g. by means of the controller 130 or by means of a separate signal processor, may be adapted to program a roasting profile as detected by the monitored volume changes of the coffee beans 10 into the data storage element.”, para. [0071]) (emphasis added).
Tan does not explicitly utilize the term “darkness” (instead utilizing the term “coffee bean colour determination”; however, it is submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the terms are equivalent as the citation explicitly states: “the controller 130 may terminate the roasting process if the volume of the coffee beans 10, or the increase of this volume, exceeds a defined threshold, e.g. a predefined threshold or a user-defined threshold, in order to prevent the beans becoming too darkly roasted”, para. [0062] and “the controller 130 may be adapted to engage the heating arrangement for a set period of time upon completion of the first cracking process as detected by the aforementioned volume changes in the coffee beans 10. The set period of time may correspond to a user-defined degree of roasting of the coffee beans 10, where a longer period of time typically corresponds to a darker roast of the coffee beans 10. To this end, the controller 130 may include or may have access to a look-up table or the like in which a time period is defined as a function of roasting degree. The controller 130 may further include a timer for controlling the heating arrangement in accordance with the set period of time. As it is well-known per se to control a heating arrangement of coffee roasting apparatus 100 using time as a control parameter, this will not be explained in further detail for the sake of brevity only. It is simply noted that the time control aspect of the aforementioned embodiment may be implemented in any suitable manner.”, para. [0064].
With regard to the newly amended claim limitation of claim 1 of “the reflected IR Pulse” and “based on a time of flight measurement of the reflected IR pulse”, it is respectfully submitted that Tan explicitly teaches this limitation: “To this end, the sensor arrangement may comprise a sensor adapted to transmit a signal into the compartment towards said coffee beans and to detect a reflection of said signal. From the detected reflection, a time-of-flight of the signal for instance may be derived, which can be translated into a distance the signal has travelled through the compartment, which distance is a measure of the aforementioned head space. Such a signal for instance may be an optical signal or an acoustic signal.”, para. [0016]; “The transmitter 122 of the sensor arrangement 120 is typically arranged to transmit a signal 121 towards the coffee beans 10, with the receiver 124 of the sensor arrangement 120 typically arranged to detect a reflection 123 of the transmitted signal 121. This reflection 123 is typically generated when the signal 121 has travelled the head space over the coffee beans 10 in the compartment 110, where the signal 121 is reflected by the coffee beans 10 and as such is an indication of the head space, i.e. the height H of the free volume, in the compartment 110 over the coffee beans 10.”, para. [0044]-[0045]; “FIG. 2 will lead to a reduction of the free volume or head space, i.e. a reduction of the height H to H′, this reduction in head space can be determined from a reduction of the time-of-flight of the signal 121 and its reflection 123 from the transmitter 122 to the receiver 124: H=(V*t)/2 wherein V is the signal speed and t is the time-of-flight of the signal 121 and its reflection 123.”, para. [0046] (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 2, Tan teaches the light sensor (220) is for measuring a reflectance from the coffee bean (“the sensor arrangement may comprise a sensor adapted to transmit a signal into the compartment towards said coffee beans and to detect a reflection of said signal. From the detected reflection, a time-of-flight of the signal for instance may be derived, which can be translated into a distance the signal has travelled through the compartment, which distance is a measure of the aforementioned head space. Such a signal for instance may be an optical signal or an acoustic signal….”, para. [0016])
With regard to claim 3, Tan teaches the distance sensor comprises a time of flight sensor (“transmitter 122 and receiver 124 may cooperate in any suitable manner. For instance, the receiver 124 may be arranged to detect a single signal pulse transmitted by the transmitter 122 or may be arranged to detect a series of signal pulses transmitted by the transmitter 122, wherein t or At is determined using an average time of flight of the series of pulses.”, para. [0049].
With regard to claim 4, Tan teaches the time of flight sensor comprises a light source, and wherein the time of flight sensor uses the light sensor to determine a time of flight (“The signal 121 may be any suitable signal, such as an optical signal, an acoustic signal or any other suitable type of electromagnetic signal. An optical signal such as a laser signal or an infrared signal affords more accurate determination of the coffee bean volume but may be relatively expensive to realize, whereas an acoustic signal such as an ultrasound signal can be produced more cheaply but may be less accurate than an optical signal. The signal 121 may have any suitable shape, such as a single pulse or a series of pulses per coffee bean volume determination….”), para. [0050]. Furthermore, the citation additionally teaches in an alternative embodiment the aforementioned limitation(s): “An example alternative embodiment is schematically depicted in FIG. 7, in which the sensor arrangement 120 is replaced by a sensor arrangement 310 having a plurality of optical sensors 320 along a side wall of the compartment 110. Such optical sensors 320 may for instance be arranged to detect a light level at the height of the sensor 320 in the compartment 110, with the optical sensor 320 being covered by the volume of coffee beans 10 indicating a diminished light level. The controller 130 may be arranged to detect which of the optical sensors 320 report such a diminished light level, which information may be translated into a volume of the coffee beans 10 due to the fact that the optical sensors 320 have a fixed (height) position along the side wall of the compartment 110….”, para. [0067]-[0068].
With regard to claim 5, Tan teaches the light source comprises an infrared laser, and wherein the light sensor is adapted to sense infrared light (“The signal 121 may be any suitable signal, such as an optical signal, an acoustic signal or any other suitable type of electromagnetic signal. An optical signal such as a laser signal or an infrared signal affords more accurate determination of the coffee bean volume but may be relatively expensive to realize, whereas an acoustic signal such as an ultrasound signal can be produced more cheaply but may be less accurate than an optical signal. The signal 121 may have any suitable shape, such as a single pulse or a series of pulses per coffee bean volume determination….”), para. [0050].
With regard to claim 6, Tan teaches the processor is adapted to output a roast level from the calibrated level of darkness (“The set period of time may correspond to a user-defined degree of roasting of the coffee beans 10, where a longer period of time typically corresponds to a darker roast of the coffee beans 10. To this end, the controller 130 may include or may have access to a look-up table or the like in which a time period is defined as a function of roasting degree. The controller 130 may further include a timer for controlling the heating arrangement in accordance with the set period of time.”, para. [0064]).
With regard to claim 7, Tan teaches a coffee machine (“The coffee roasting apparatus 100 may be integrated in a coffee brewing apparatus”, para. [0073]) comprising: a water reservoir; a water heater; a water pump (each of the aforementioned elements are implicitly disclosed as being essential elements for a coffee machine as detailed in para. [0073]); a coffee bean reservoir (110)(“coffee beans 10 in the compartment 110”, para. [0065]); a coffee grinder having a ground coffee outlet (“coffee bean grinder”, para. [0065]; “the coffee brewing apparatus may be arranged to automatically transfer a portion of the roasted coffee beans into the coffee bean grinder for grinding, after which the ground coffee is automatically transported into the coffee brewing stage for brewing a fresh cup of coffee”, para. [0073]); a coffee vessel for receiving ground coffee from the coffee grinder (“coffee bean grinder”, para. [0065]; “the coffee brewing apparatus may be arranged to automatically transfer a portion of the roasted coffee beans into the coffee bean grinder for grinding, after which the ground coffee is automatically transported into the coffee brewing stage for brewing a fresh cup of coffee”, para. [0073]); a water delivery system for delivering heated water to the coffee vessel (implicitly taught by every coffee brewing apparatus); the analyzing system of claim 6 for determining a roast level of coffee beans in the coffee bean reservoir (see comments above for claims 6 and 1); and a controller (130) for controlling coffee brewing (para. [0065] & [0073]).
With regard to claim 8, Tan teaches the controller (130) is adapted to control, in dependence on the determined roast level, at least one of: coffee brewing parameters; coffee grinding parameters; and the dosing of ground coffee to the coffee vessel (“the controller 130 may terminate the roasting process if the volume of the coffee beans 10, or the increase of this volume, exceeds a defined threshold, e.g. a predefined threshold or a user-defined threshold, in order to prevent the beans becoming too darkly roasted. For instance, the controller 130 may terminate the roasting process if, after completion of the first cracking stage, as for instance indicated by a reduction in the rate of volume expansion of the coffee beans 10, the volume of the coffee beans 10 has expanded by a predefined or user-defined amount to ensure that the coffee beans 10 have the desired degree of roasting. Alternatively, the controller 130 may terminate roasting process upon the initial volume of the coffee beans 10 having increased by a set amount, i.e. having increased to a target volume that is larger than the initial volume, as the amount of volume increase is indicative of the degree of roasting of the coffee beans 10….”, para. [0062])
With regard to claim 9, Tan teaches the controller is adapted to provide an output to a user indicating one or more of: the determined roast level; coffee recipe advice for the determined roast level; coffee taste options for the determined roast level; and a detected change in the coffee bean type (“The controller 130 may be responsive to a user interface 150, which for instance may facilitate a user specifying the desired roasting degree of the coffee beans 10 in any suitable manner, e.g. using a dial, a series of buttons, a programmable display, which may be a touch-screen display and so on. Any suitable type of user interface 150 may be used for this purpose.”, para. [0055]).
With regard to claim 10, Tan teaches the processor of the analyzing system is further adapted to determine a quantity of coffee beans in the coffee bean reservoir based on the determined distance (“As the head space can be associated with a volume Vhead of the compartment 110, the total volume Vtat of the compartment 110 can be expressed as Vtot=Vbeans+Vhead, wherein Vbeans is the volume portion of the compartment volume occupied by the coffee beans 10. As any change, i.e. reduction, in the measured head space volume Vhead is caused by a change in the coffee bean volume Vbeans, the measured Vhead can be directly translated into the coffee bean volume: Vtat−Vhead=Vbeans, given that the total volume Vtot of the compartment 110 is typically known. In other words, H˜Vhead, such that the determination of H can de directly translated into Vhead.”, para. [0047]).
With regard to claim 11, Tan teaches the controller is adapted to control, in dependence on the determined quantity of coffee beans, coffee grinding (“The coffee roasting apparatus 100 may be integrated in a coffee brewing apparatus further comprising a coffee bean grinder and a coffee brewing stage. For instance, the coffee brewing apparatus may be arranged to automatically transfer a portion of the roasted coffee beans into the coffee bean grinder for grinding, after which the ground coffee is automatically transported into the coffee brewing stage for brewing a fresh cup of coffee.”, para. [0073]).
With regard to claim 12, Tan teaches the controller is adapted to determine, in dependence on the determined quantity of coffee beans, which coffee recipes can be completed (“n an embodiment, the coffee roasting apparatus 100 may further comprise a data storage element such as a RAM or Flash memory, look-up table or the like that is communicatively coupled to the controller 130 for storing a roasting profile of the coffee beans 10. The coffee roasting apparatus 100, e.g. by means of the controller 130 or by means of a separate signal processor, may be adapted to program a roasting profile as detected by the monitored volume changes of the coffee beans 10 into the data storage element. Such a stored roasting profile may be used during later roasts, e.g. to verify the desired roasting level by comparing the determined relative or absolute volume change against the stored roasting profile, to determine how far advanced the actual roasting process has progressed.”, para. [0071]).
With regard to claim 13, Tan teaches the controller is adapted to implement automatic bean ordering, in dependence on the determined quantity of coffee beans (“In an embodiment, the coffee roasting apparatus 100 may further comprise a data transmission device, e.g. a wireless or wired transmitter, for transmitting roasting data to an external source, e.g. over a wireless link and/or over the Internet or the like. This information for instance may be used to improve the embedded roasting profiles of future coffee roasting apparatuses.”, para. [0072]).
With regard to claim 14, Tan teaches the controller is adapted to provide an output signal indicating remaining quantity of coffee beans (“The controller 130 may be arranged to detect which of the optical sensors 320 report such a diminished light level, which information may be translated into a volume of the coffee beans 10 due to the fact that the optical sensors 320 have a fixed (height) position along the side wall of the compartment 110. Alternatively, the sensor arrangement 310 may include a signal processor communicatively coupled to the optical sensors 320 to convert the sensor signals of the optical sensors 320 into a signal indicative of the volume of the coffee beans 10 and to forward this indicative signal to the controller 130.”, para. [0068]).
With regard to claim 15, Tan teaches a coffee grinding system (“coffee bean grinder”, para. [0065]; “the coffee brewing apparatus may be arranged to automatically transfer a portion of the roasted coffee beans into the coffee bean grinder for grinding, after which the ground coffee is automatically transported into the coffee brewing stage for brewing a fresh cup of coffee”, para. [0073]), comprising: a coffee bean reservoir (110) for coffee beans (“coffee beans 10 in the compartment 110”, para. [0065]); a coffee grinder (“coffee bean grinder”, para. [0065]; “the coffee brewing apparatus may be arranged to automatically transfer a portion of the roasted coffee beans into the coffee bean grinder for grinding, after which the ground coffee is automatically transported into the coffee brewing stage for brewing a fresh cup of coffee”, para. [0073]); the analyzing system of claim 6 for determining a roast level of coffee beans in the coffee bean reservoir (see comments above for claims 6 and 1; and a controller for controlling the coffee grinder settings based on the roast level (para. [0065] & [0073]).
Response to Arguments
The following comments were presented in response to the arguments presented by the Applicant in the response of 08/05/26 and are reproduced hereafter as they may be relevant to the instant office action. The prior art rejections have been adapted as appropriate in view of the newly presented claim amendments.
The Applicant states at pg. 6 of the office action response: “according to claim 1, both the light sensor and the distance sensor operate on a common “reflected IR pulse” as clearly established by the claim language and antecedent basis”. As indicated above and as reproduced hereafter, the primary prior art citation teaches the limitations of claim 1 of the instant patent application: “The signal 121 may be any suitable signal, such as an optical signal, an acoustic signal or any other suitable type of electromagnetic signal. An optical signal such as a laser signal or an infrared signal affords more accurate determination of the coffee bean volume … The signal 121 may have any suitable shape, such as a single pulse or a series of pulses per coffee bean volume determination … the sensor arrangement 120 is arranged to convert the determined time-of-flight of the signal 121 and its reflection 123 into the volume of the coffee beans 10 for instance as explained above..”, para. [0050]-[0051]. Additionally, it should be stressed that separate structural elements of the system (e.g., emitter, receive, light sensor, and distance sensor) of claim 1 of the instant patent application are individually taught by the primary prior art citation as detailed above. Assuming it was determined that Tan did not utilize the “common reflected IR pulse”, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine experimentation as the citation explicitly indicates that coffee bean colour determination sensors are incredibly well known in the art: “The further sensor 220 is communicatively coupled to the controller 130 such that the controller 130 can further control the heating arrangement of the coffee roasting apparatus 100 in response to the further sensor 220. As the process of coffee bean colour determination is well-known per se, this will not be explained in any further detail for the sake of brevity only. It is simply noted that any suitable coffee bean colour determination sensing arrangement may be used.”, para. [0065]. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it must be stressed (as indicated in MPEP 2141) that the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex particularly emphasized: "’the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that ‘[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. The Supreme Court stated that there are ‘[t]hree cases decided after Graham [that] illustrate this doctrine.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (1) ‘In United States v. Adams, . . . [t]he Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (2) ‘In Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., . . . [t]he two [pre-existing elements] in combination did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation.’Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (3) ‘[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.’ Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.). The principles underlining these cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent application claiming the combination of elements of prior art would have been obvious. The Supreme Court further stated that: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396…..”
The following comments were presented in response to the office action of 01/30/26, and are reproduced hereafter as they are considered relevant to the instant office action. At pg. 6 of the Applicant’s response of 04/23/26 it is asserted: “Tan further teaches utilizing a separate sensor arrangement referred to as “further sensor” for determining the color of the coffee beans stored in the compartment. Because two separate sensor arrangements are utilized, Tan inherently uses two separate signals for the head space and color measurements. Therefore, Tan fails to teach utilizing the same “reflected IR pulse” for sensing. As an initial matter, the limitation which Applicant is imparting to the “light sensor” limitation is not recited within the claim as the light sensor is not explicitly claimed as using the reflected IR pulse, instead the claim only states that the sensor is “in a line of sight of the reflected IR pulse”. As illustrated in FIGS. 2a/b, the further sensor 220 would be “in a line of sight” of the reflected signal 123. Additionally, as the receiver 124 of Tan extends across an entirety of the upper surface of compartment 110, the further sensor 220 would necessarily be “in a line of sight” of this signal as the reflected signal extends along an entirety of receiver 124. It must be stressed that because the aforementioned features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s), and although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
At pgs. 6-11 of Applicant’s response various arguments are presented regarding the processor limitation of claim 1 of the instant application. As an initial matter, the Examiner maintains their rejection over this limitation as detailed above. Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that as the claim is directed toward an apparatus (system for analyzing coffee beans) as is therefore directed toward an apparatus, assuming it was determined that the functional limitations being claimed are not taught by the subject prior art (which the Examiner maintains that the prior art does indeed teach this limitation), With respect to the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps/functional limitations as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01(I)".
The following comments were presented in response to the offie action response of 12/29/25 and are reproduced hereafter as they are considered relevant to the instant office action. As an initial matter, it is submitted that the Examiner’s prior arguments and claim limitation correlations are applicable to the newly amended claim limitations. Assuming it was determined that the Applicant’s arguments regarding the “processor” of claim 1 were determined to be persuasive, it is submitted that claim 1 is directed toward a system for analyzing coffee beans, and as such, is directed toward multiple structural components or elements. In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that a patentability analysis upon a system claim in directed toward the structural limitations of the claim. Furthermore, the arguments presented at pgs. 6-8 of Applicant’s office action response of 12/29/25 are directed toward the “processor” limitation related to functional limitations. It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114. Furthermore, the structural limitations (e.g, emitter, receiver, light sensor, distance sensor, etc.) are taught by the cited prior art as detailed above and in prior office action(s).
The following comments were presented by the Examiner in response to Applicant's arguments filed 02/14/25, and are reproduced hereafter as they are considered relevant to the instant office action. The Applicant asserts at pg. 6 of the Office Action Response of 02/14/25 with regard to the cited prior art (Tan) that “the coffee roasting apparatus includes a color sensor that is used to monitor roasting progress … Tan also describes a distance sensor for measuring a beans volume and distance ….” (emphasis added). The Applicant additionally contends at pg. 6 of the Office Action Response of 02/14/25 that: “Tan further describes a graph showing changes in the volume of coffee beans and changes in the color of the coffee beans as a function of roasting time. The graph demonstrates that the roasting color may be used as an auxiliary parameter to determine the progress of the roasting process of the coffee beans. Thus, although Tan uses both parameters color and volume to determine the progress of the roasting process, Tan nowhere suggests that the volume parameter is used to calibrate the color parameter.” (emphasis added). The Examiner respectfully maintains their instant position with the previously presented prior art rejections.
As an initial matter, the written description of the instant patent application was reviewed in its
entirety to determine whether a specific definition has been provided for the term “calibrate” and the Examiner determined that a specific definition was not provided. The written description expressly states: “The processor calibrates the sensed level of darkness using the determined distance, thereby to obtain a calibrated level of darkness. The calibrated level of darkness then represents a roasting intensity of the coffee beans” (para. [0097]; “The calibration with distance makes the darkness level measurement more accurate”, para. [0103]. Accordingly, the Examiner’s interpretation of the subject claim 1 recitation of “a processor adapted to calibrate the sensed level of darkness using the determined distance, thereby to obtain a calibrated level of darkness” is consistent with the aforementioned cited portions of the instant patent application’s written description. Furthermore, the cited prior art provides such a teaching, namely: “in an embodiment, the coffee roasting apparatus 100 may be controlled by a combination of the aforementioned volume monitoring and at least one other parameter, such as time, bean color and/or temperature” (emphasis added), para. [0063].
With regard to independent claims 7 and 15 the Applicant indicated the aforementioned claims recite similar recitations and the presented arguments are applicable herein, and somewhat similarly, the Examiner’s arguments presented above are also applicable toward independent claims 7 and 15. With regard to the dependent claims, the Applicant did not present any new arguments regarding the dependent claims, and as such, the Examiner maintains their position with regard to these claims as presented in the Office Action of 10/30/24.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon – Fri: 7:30-5:00.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
