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/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 22 May 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 May 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 at the third bulleted clause “the housing of the first fixed unit” should be corrected to –the housing-- to maintain consistent wording.
In claim 1 after the fourth bulleted clause, “a device for detecting” should be corrected to –a detection device for detecting-- to maintain consistent wording with later recitations.
In claim 1 at lines 2-3 of the last bullet, “the housing of the first extraction unit” should be corrected to --the housing-- to maintain consistent wording.
In claim 1 at lines 4-5 of the last bullet, “slidable along the first extraction unit” should be corrected to -- slidable along the first fixed extraction unit-- to maintain consistent wording.
In claim 1 at line 7 of the last bullet, “protruding surface of contact” should be corrected to --protruding contact surface--.
In claim 2 at line 4, “outer contact surfaces” should be corrected to --protruding contact surfaces--.
In claim 2 at line 5, “linear trajectory” should be corrected to --trajectory-- to maintain consistent wording--.
In claim 2 at the last line “outer contact surface” should be corrected to --protruding contact surface-- to maintain consistent wording.
In claim 3 at line 1, “the two” should be corrected to --the at least two--.
In claim 3 at lines 5-6, “protruding surface of contact” should be corrected to --protruding contact surface--.
In claim 3 at the last line, :protruding surface” should be corrected to --protruding contact surface--.
In claim 4 at lines 3-4, “protruding outer surface of contact” should be corrected to --protruding contact surface--.
In claim 4 at lines 4-5, “housing of the fixed extraction unit” should be corrected to --housing-- to maintain consistent wording.
In claim 4 at line 6, “fixed extraction unit” should be corrected to --first fixed extraction unit-- to maintain consistent wording.
In claim 4 at line 7, “command and control unit” should be corrected to --control unit-- to maintain consistent wording.
In claim 4 at the last line, “second withdrawn operating contact position” should be corrected to -- second withdrawn position-- to maintain consistent wording.
In claim 6 at end of the claim, “first non-operating position” should be corrected to --first advanced non-operating position-- to maintain consistent wording.
In claim 7, “the outer profile” should be corrected to --an outer profile--.
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 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.
“means for perforating and passage of the mixture” recited in claim 1. The specification does not describe this means. The drawings show a pointed protrusion 10, which may achieve perforation, but it is not clear from the disclosure how this provides for “passage of the mixture.”
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:
“command and control unit configured to activate/deactivate the pressurised fluid for extracting the beverage” recited in claim 1. The specification gives no structure for this limitation. The drawings show a schematic box 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “means for perforating and passage of the mixture,” which is interpreted under 112(f). Although the drawings generally show a pointed object that may be capable of perforating, there is no further detail or description for the structure capable of “passage of the mixture.”
Claim 1 recites “a command and control unit configured to activate/deactivate the pressurised fluid for extracting the beverage,” which is interpreted under 112(f). The specification provides no structure capable of the claimed function.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “means for perforating and passage of the mixture” and “command and control unit “ invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of the command and control unit and) the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function of the “means for perforating and passage of the mixture.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 at the end of the second bulleted clause recites “the mixture.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 at the last bullet recited “at least two contact elements…configured to intercept… a corresponding and different… surface.” It is not clear what the different surface is different from. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to -- at least two contact elements…each configured to intercept… a corresponding and different… surface--.
Claim 2 at line 5 recites “the relative two contact elements.” This limitation is unclear. The meaning of “relative” is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to --the at least two contact elements--.
Claim 4 recites “a respective enabling signal.” Claim 4 depends from claim 1, which recites “at least one corresponding enabling signal.” It is not clear how the signal of claim 4 is related to the signal of claim 1, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “a first contact element” and “the second contact element.” First, the relation of these contact elements to the “at least two contact elements” of claim 1 is not clear, rendering the claim indefinite. Second, “the second contact element” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 6 at line recites “the seat.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. A seat is introduced in claim 3.
Claim 6 recites “fitted on each contact element, and configured to maintain or restore each contact element.” It is not clear whether each spring act on all of the contact elements, or only the respective one. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to --fitted on the respective contact element, and configured to maintain or restore the respective contact element--.
Claim 7 recites “the frame (6) has an inlet opening.” Claim 7 depends from claim 1, which recites an inlet opening. It is not clear whether claim 7 requires an additional inlet opening or is further modifying the opening of claim 1.
The remaining rejected claims are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldo (US 20130239820) in view of Ozanne (US 2013/0095214).
Regarding claim 1, Baldo (US 20130239820) discloses:
A machine for preparing and extracting a hot beverage (¶1, ¶63) from a capsule (C, ¶60) comprising a capsule body forming a chamber having a bottom and an upper opening delimited by an annular collar (flange F, ¶108) protruding transversely relative to the capsule body on which a sheet for sealing the chamber is positioned (Baldo does not disclose these particular details about the capsule, but is appropriate for use with such a capsule due to the ability to perforate a top sheet, ¶108); a dose of product being housed in said chamber (¶2); the machine comprising:
a load-bearing frame (11, 12, ¶60 “frame formed by flanks 11 and by an upper block 12 constrained to one another and mounted in a fixed position”) having an inlet opening (81, ¶71 “A channel 81 for inserting the capsules C, implemented inside the fixed block 12”) for the capsule;
a first fixed extraction unit (“mobile” brewing chamber portion 13, ¶60, in the embodiment of ¶15 “the brewing chamber portion towards which the mobile deviator directs the capsule is the fixed chamber portion and is in turn provided with a brewing recess.” This embodiment may not be pictured, but is clearly disclosed.) associated with the frame and comprising a matching housing (“an inner wall 15A having a shape reproducing the shape of the outer side surface of the capsule C,” ¶61) for the capsule and means for perforating (19) and passage of the mixture, to obtain the extraction of the beverage (¶62 “a perforator 19 is fastened to the bottom 13B of the mobile brewing chamber portion 13, which perforator, in the illustrated example, has a plurality of apertured or hollow conical projections, where through the beverage produced inside the brewing chamber is dispensed”);
a second movable extraction unit (“fixed” brewing chamber portion 16, ¶60 in the embodiment of ¶15, “only one of said first and second brewing chamber portions is mobile and the other one is fixed”), positioned inside the frame, and movable inside the frame along a linear trajectory (¶67, see linear path of pin 49 in Fig 5), in both directions, between a first non-operating end position away from the first fixed extraction unit (open position, see Fig 6), wherein the second movable extraction unit is positioned close to the inlet opening, and a second operating end position wherein the second movable extraction unit is moved towards the first fixed extraction unit in such a way as to move the capsule from an inlet position to a position for insertion in the housing of the first fixed unit for extracting the beverage by feeding a pressurised hot fluid (closed position, see Fig 9);
Baldo does not disclose:
a command and control unit configured to activate/deactivate the pressurised fluid for extracting the beverage, characterised in that it comprises a device for detecting the capsule having:
at least two contact elements positioned on the first fixed extraction unit and configured to intercept, at the insertion of the capsule body in the housing of the first extraction unit, a corresponding and different protruding outer surface of contact of the capsule body; each contact element being slidable along the first extraction unit, parallel to the trajectory, between a first advanced non-operating position, and a second withdrawn contact position, at the intercepting of the corresponding protruding surface of contact of the capsule body inserted in the housing;
the detection device being connected to the control unit and configured to send at least one corresponding enabling signal for activating the pressurised fluid by the control unit.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ozanne teaches:
a beverage making machine with a receiving chamber having one or two enclosing members (¶65), similar to Baldo. In the receiving chamber (¶66), there is a sensor 8 comprising a plurality of pins 18 biased toward the capsule. “[D]epending on the specific shape of the surface structure of the identification member 2 at a contact area between a pin 18 in the identification member 2, a pin 18 will thus be allowed to protrude more or less… This relative displacement of the pins 18 is converted into electrical signals by a detection unit (not shown). The thus generated electrical detection signals can then be processed by the control unit 20.” (¶60). Information from the sensor controls the fluid supply (¶62). The probe 18 is located in the capsule receiving chamber (¶66) to interface with an outlet side of the capsule (¶75, ¶21). The probe interacts in an axial direction with an end face of the capsule (¶70) on the outlet side. The system provides automatic control of beverage parameters to improve the quality of the beverages (¶1, ¶3, ¶9).
Ozanne teaches:
a command and control unit (20, ¶62) configured to activate/deactivate the pressurised fluid for extracting the beverage (¶62 “Examples for parameters to be controlled by the control means 20 are the water temperature, flow rate and/or pause times of the brewing process of a tea or other beverage to be prepared by the machine.”), characterised in that it comprises a device for detecting the capsule having:
at least two contact elements (probe/pin 18, ¶60) positioned on the first fixed extraction unit (this position allows the probe to interact with the outlet side, as taught by Ozanne ¶75) and configured to intercept, at the insertion of the capsule body in the housing of the first extraction unit, a corresponding and different protruding outer surface of contact of the capsule body (¶44 “a difference in depth or height of a plurality of localized recesses/holes or protruding members.”); each contact element being slidable along the first extraction unit, parallel to the trajectory (see Fig 1), between a first advanced non-operating position, and a second withdrawn contact position (¶60 “a more protruding and a less protruding position for the pins 18”), at the intercepting of the corresponding protruding surface of contact of the capsule body inserted in the housing;
the detection device being connected to the control unit and configured to send at least one corresponding enabling signal for activating the pressurised fluid by the control unit (¶62).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beverage machine of Baldo by incorporating the probe and controller of Ozanne to obtain the benefit of automatic control of beverage parameters to improve the quality of the beverages (Ozanne: ¶1, ¶3, ¶9).
Regarding claim 7, the beverage machine of Baldo as modified by the probe and controller of Ozanne teaches:
the frame has an inlet opening (360, see Fig 43) having a profile shaped to match the outer profile of the capsule.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldo (US 20130239820) in view of Ozanne (US 2013/0095214) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Krüger (US 20240327108, which is effectively filed 30 July 2021, which provisional application does show the relied upon Fig 16).
Regarding claim 2, the beverage machine of Baldo as modified by the probe and controller of Ozanne does not teach:
the capsule comprises at least two different annular portions protruding from the capsule body and made at different distances from the bottom of the capsule body and in such a way as to define the two corresponding different outer contact surfaces, positioned, in use, transversal to the linear trajectory, for the relative two contact elements configured to intercept a corresponding outer contact surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
285
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Krüger teaches:
a beverage capsule (see Fig 16) with “one or a plurality of grooves, steps, ribs or rings,” i.e. annular portions, to serve as identification features (¶138). The features are intended to be sensed optically.
Ozanne teaches that surface features can be sensed either optically or mechanically (¶60 “Preferably such detection is carried out by means of a physical mechanical contact or an electric contact, although as surface modulation can also be read optically.”) Ozanne teaches that a separate piece for capsule identification is attached to a capsule, although Krüger teaches identification features integrated directly into the capsule.
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beverage machine of Baldo as modified by the probe and controller of Ozanne to sense the capsule of Krüger with multiple annular portions protruding because Krüger teaches that stepped annular portions are a known way of marking a capsule for detection by a machine. In the combinations, the multiple stepped portions are at different axial positions and different distances from the extraction unit as shown in Krüger Fig 16, and thus the contact elements are different lengths.
Regarding claim 5, the beverage machine of Baldo as modified by the probe and controller of Ozanne and the capsule of Krüger, for the same reasons described above with reference to claim 2, teaches:
a first contact element has a length which is different from the length of the second contact element (see combination statement for claim 2, the stepped portions are at different axial positions, so the contact elements are different lengths).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldo (US 20130239820) in view of Ozanne (US 2013/0095214) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Castellani (US 2014/0224130).
Regarding claim 3, Baldo and Ozanne disclose:
…each contact element between the first advanced non-operating position and the second withdrawn position being always in contact (Ozanne: ¶60 “pins, which during the information reading process are biased against the identification member 2”) with the corresponding protruding surface.
Baldo and Ozanne do not disclose:
the two contact elements are housed in a corresponding seat made in the first fixed extraction unit and slidable inside the corresponding seat, parallel to the trajectory of movement between the first advanced non-operating position and the second withdrawn position, at the intercepting of the corresponding protruding surface of contact of the capsule body inserted in the housing.
Ozanne is silent on the specific structure of the biased pins.
Castellani teaches:
a beverage machine with a mechanical probe comprising an axially oriented spring pin in a seat formed in the frame to sense a pod with a recognition element having varying thickness. Thereby, the machine may determine whether a pod is suitable for the beverage machine, and adjust brewing parameters appropriate to the contents as determined by the recognition element (¶78). The recognition element may be on the annular flange of the pod or on the filtering body (¶54), rather than on a tab as shown.
PNG
media_image3.png
420
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
235
376
media_image4.png
Greyscale
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beverage machine of Baldo as modified by the probe and controller of Ozanne by providing the biased pins of Ozanne as spring pins mounted in seats in the frame, as taught by Castellani because Castellani teaches that this is appropriate for forming biased pins for sensing surface features on a pod.
Regarding claim 6, the beverage machine of Baldo as modified by the probe and controller of Ozanne, and as modified by the seat and spring pin of Castellani for same reasons as described above with reference to claim 3, teaches:
each contact element is provided with a spring positioned inside the seat (see Castellani Fig 4), fitted on each contact element, and configured to maintain or restore each contact element in the first non-operating position (upward).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldo (US 20130239820) in view of Ozanne (US 2013/0095214) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Schuoecker (AT 401246)
Regarding claim 4, the beverage machine of Baldo as modified by the probe and controller of Ozanne teaches:
each contact element comprises a rod (Ozanne: “pin 18,”see Fig 1, ¶60) having a proximal operating end (right end in Fig 1) for intercepting the corresponding protruding outer surface (Ozanne: 2) of contact of the capsule body and positioned inside the housing of the fixed extraction unit (see rejection of claim 1); each rod having a distal end positioned close to a foot located in the fixed extraction unit; …[for electrical contact] (Ozanne: ¶60 “Preferably such detection is carried out by means of a physical mechanical contact or an electric contact“) configured to send a respective enabling signal to the command and control (¶62) unit upon contact with the distal end of the corresponding contact element in said second withdrawn operating contact position.
The combination does not explicitly teach:
said foot being provided with a contact pushbutton
PNG
media_image5.png
295
750
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Schuoecker teaches using a distance sensor to ensure that a machine, in this case a laser welder, is operated only when suitable components are in place (p.3 ¶3), and is thus pertinent to the problem at hand. Schuoecker teaches that the spring pin (13, 17) has a pushbutton (15) at the foot to provide electrical contact.
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beverage machine of Baldo as modified by the probe and controller of Ozanne by providing a pushbutton at the foot, as taught by Schuoecker, as means of providing the electrical contact taught by Ozanne.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Evers (US 20080148948) discloses a beverage capsule with stepped sides.
PNG
media_image6.png
313
369
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Jarisch (US 20130114089) discloses a beverage machine that has a spring pin 5 that moves axially to sense a size of capsule (¶33). The size is used to control the brewing parameters (¶47).
PNG
media_image7.png
485
328
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fanzutti (US 20030066431) mechanically senses a shape of a coffee capsule from a lateral side to control the brewing parameters.
PNG
media_image8.png
672
822
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, 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 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights