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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6, 8-11 and 14-18 in the reply filed on 7/1/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-23 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and due to being dependent from claim 3, claims 4-6 and 8 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 3 is rejected due to the phrase “the coffee product comprises coffee beans” and the marker comprises one or more of the group consisting of: an instant coffee. It is unclear if the coffee product is limited to coffee beans, if the coffee product comprising coffee beans further includes “instant coffee”, if the “instant coffee” is in the form of beans or if the claimed “consisting of” is with respect to something different altogether.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 9-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansen et al. (GB2509081ids 6/27/24).
Hansen teaches with respect to Independent claim 1, a method of determining the brewing parameters for preparing a coffee beverage with a coffee brewing apparatus (pg. 7 lines 18-24), comprising:
Receiving (pg. 7 lines 14-15), at a sensing arrangement (pg. 7 lines 16-18; pg. 11 lines 15-26), a coffee product (pg. 7 lines 7-88) for brewing a coffee beverage (pg. 7 lines 18-24)
obtaining, with the sensing arrangement, a characteristic of the coffee product (pg. 7 lines 16-18) and,
using the characteristic to determine one or more brewing parameter for the coffee product (pg. 7 lines 18-22).
Claim 2, the coffee product comprises a marker added (pg. 9 lines 12-14, pg. 9 lines 22-23, lines 30-32) or applied (pg. 9 lines 22-23, lines 30-32) to the coffee product, and the characteristic relates to the marker (pg. 9 lines 12-14, pg. 9 lines 22-23, lines 30-32)
Claim 3 the coffee product comprises coffee beans (pg. 6 lines 20-23) and the marker comprises one or more of the group consisting of: a surface coating of an instant coffee (pg. 7 line 8).
Claim 4, wherein, when the marker comprises one or more surface coating, the surface coating is organic (pg. 9 line 13, pg. 9 lines 30-32).
Claim 9, the sensing arrangement is configured to obtain spectral data from the coffee product (pg. 12 lines 1-10).
Claim 10, the brewing parameters comprise one or more of water temperature (pg. 2 lines 30), the water flow rate (pg. 2 line 31).
Claim 11, the coffee product is stored within a hopper of the coffee brewing apparatus (pg. 7 lines 14-15; hopper with respect to same sensing prior to brewing) and the sensing arrangement senses the coffee product whilst in the hopper (col. 7 lines 14-15).
Claim 14, further comprising:
preparing coffee beans for use in a coffee beverage apparatus, comprising:
roasting green coffee beans in a roaster (pg. 6 lines 18-25) to provide roasted coffee beans (pg. 7 line 8) and,
applying a marker to the roasted coffee beans (pg. 9 lines 12-14, pg. 9 lines 22-23, lines 30-32; where it is noted ground comprises roasted coffee beans, not limited to whole) and,
providing the coffee beans to a coffee beverage apparatus (pg. 7 lines 13-16)
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (GB2509081) in view of Fishter et al. (20200100521).
Hansen teaches a beverage ingredient for coffee brewing which may comprise a mixture of ingredients and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of coffee compositions for brewing as taught by Fishter.
With respect to claim 5, Hansen teaches the coating, in addition to teaching the coffee beverage ingredient may further comprise additional ingredients in varying proportions (pg. 5 lines 16-24). Fishter teaches the coffee beverage product further comprising organic coatings including a coffee-based substance (par. 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known coating ingredient with that of a coffee-based extract and/or further incorporating the coffee-based extract of Fishter into the coffee product of Hansen comprising additional ingredients thus achieving its art recognized advantage of achieving a noticeable improvement in property binding strength, increased brewing efficiency and staling resistance as taught by Fishter (par. 0088).
With respect to claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known coating ingredient with that of a coffee-based extract and/or further incorporating the coffee-based extract from the group consisting of a high temperature extract or a green coffee extract as taught by Fishter (par. 0085) into the coffee product of Hansen comprising additional ingredients thus achieving its art recognized advantage of achieving a noticeable improvement in property binding strength, increased brewing efficiency and staling resistance as taught by Fishter (par. 0088).
Claims 8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (GB2509081) in view of Shepard (WO9718720).
Hansen teaches a beverage ingredient for coffee brewing which may comprise a mixture of ingredients and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of coffee compositions for brewing as taught by Shepard.
With respect to claim 8, Hansen teaches roasting of the beans, though silent to teaching quenching, an art recognized cooling after roasting. Hansen teaches the coating, in addition to teaching the coffee beverage ingredient may further comprise additional ingredients in varying proportions (pg. 5 lines 16-24). Shepard teaches application of an additional ingredient to the roasted coffee bean during cooling (pg. 7 2nd last par.).
Thus since both teach roasting, since both teach the addition of ingredients including in the case of Shepard the ingredient providing a marking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a surface coating such as in the instant case to achieve a residue from a quenching agent used to quench the coffee beans following roasting relative the liquid application as taught by Shepard thus achieving a same roasted coffee which further comprises additional additives which achieve a same marking agent which provides identification characteristics which can be detected as desired by Hansen.
Claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the marker within a quenching agent since both teach roasting, since Shepard teaches cooling using a liquid thus achieving a same roasted coffee which further comprises additional additives which achieve a same marking agent which provides identification characteristics which can be detected as desired by Hansen.
With respect to claim 16, Hansen teaches applying the marker after roasting. Though silent to quenching an art recognized cooling after roasting. Shepard teaches application of a liquid during cooling after roasting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach quenching following roasting for its art recognized purpose of cooling the bean to prevent additional heating which influences the finally desired roasted bean characteristics.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (GB2509081) in view of Shepard (WO9718720) and Fishter et al. (20200100521).
Hansen and Shepard teach a beverage ingredient for coffee brewing which may comprise a mixture of ingredients and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of coffee compositions for brewing as taught by Fishter.
Hansen teaches preparing a water based marking solution (col. 9 line 13). Shepard teaches a solution for applying to a coffee bean also comprising water (pg. 4 last par.). Fishter teaches it is known to coat coffee such that after drying an amount of residue remains (par. 0103) and the final water content of the coffee product (par. 0104 last 4 lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the moisture level of the roasted coffee beans as taught by Fishter (par. 0104) following quenching as taught by Shepard and preparing a water based marking solution having a predetermined amount of marker for its art recognized purpose of providing a marking for identification as desired by Hansen as a result of a residue which remains as further desired by Hansen thus providing the desired marking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach applying the marker to the coffee beans comprises applying the solution as taught by Shepard, wherein the predetermined amount of marker within the marker solution is determined based on a required final moisture content of the roasted coffee beans and a predetermined amount of required residue as taught by Fishter (par. 0104) thus achieving the art recognized purpose of providing a coffee composition having a desired water content as taught by Fishter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach applying the marker to the coffee beans comprises applying the solution as taught by Shepard, the coffee product comprises a moisture value between 3% and 5% w/w, and the coating comprises between 0.5% and 1.5% w/w solids as taught by Fishter (par. 0103, 0104) thus achieving the art recognized purpose of providing a coffee composition having a desired water content and a remaining amount of residue as taught by Fishter (par. 0103).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
10004249, 20140370181 and 20140199441 directed to coated coffee products
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights