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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12004680 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Instant claims
Reference claims
Claim 1. A beverage brewer comprising:
a proximity sensor to detect a beverage server being within a reference range of the beverage brewer;
a brewing assembly to create a brewed beverage;
a communication device to wirelessly read brewed beverage data stored on the beverage server;
one or more processors;
one or more data storage devices having stored therein a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the beverage brewer to:
read, using the communication device,
at least a portion of the brewed beverage data stored on the beverage server in response to the proximity sensor detecting the beverage server coming within the reference range of the beverage brewer; and
initiate one or more actions based on the brewed beverage data read from the beverage server.
Claim 15. A beverage brewing system…
a beverage brewer comprising:
a proximity sensor to detect the beverage server being within a reference range of the beverage brewer;
a brewing assembly to create a brewed beverage;
a communication device to wirelessly read the brewed beverage data from the information device of the beverage server;
one or more processors;
one or more data storage devices having stored therein a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the beverage brewer to:
read, using the communication device, the brewed beverage data from the information device of the beverage server; and
send control signals to the brewing assembly to create the brewed beverage according to the beverage recipe.
Claim 16. The beverage brewing system of claim 15, further comprising instructions to read, using the communication device, the brewed beverage data from the information device of the beverage server in response to the proximity sensor detecting that the beverage server is within the reference range of the beverage brewer.
Claim 1…. send control signals to the brewing assembly to create the brewed beverage according to the beverage recipe.
Claims 2-20
Claims 2-18
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “bean type bean,” this should be –bean type--.
Claim 17 recites “modify the beverage recipe based on input received to create…” this sentence is confusing and should be changed into something like –modify the beverage recipe based on input to create--.
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.
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 4, 9, 10, 15, and 17-19 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 10 recites “the beverage recipe of the beverage server,” this should be --a beverage recipe of the beverage server--.
Claim 15 recites “the reference range,” this should be –a reference range--.
Claim 18 and 19 recites “the user interface,” this should be –a user interface--.
Claims 4, 9, and 17 recites “a brewed beverage” when claim 1 already recites “a brewed beverage” and it is unclear which brewed beverage is being referred to.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 14-15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ost (US 9334150 B1).
Claim 1. Ost discloses a beverage brewer (liquid dispensing system 91, Fig. 9, wherein the dispenser can dispense hot beverages as part of the customized drink, col 8, lines 25-26; the broadest reasonable interpretation of “brewer or brewing” includes preparing a hot drink) comprising:
a proximity sensor (infrared proximity sensor, Fig. 10) to detect a beverage server (infrared proximity sensor detects the position of the cup, col 11, lines 20-25) being within a reference range of the beverage brewer (infrared proximity sensor detects the position of the cup, col 11, lines 20-25);
a brewing assembly (liquid dispensing system 91) to create a brewed beverage (dispensing system dispenses a beverage, abstract);
a communication device to wirelessly read brewed beverage data stored on the beverage server (RFID reader 1411 reads the RFID tag on the container, claim 1);
one or more processors (controller board may have a CPU, Fig. 14);
one or more data storage devices having stored therein a plurality of instructions that (controller stores data corresponding to the liquid type, size of the container, and drink selections associated with each container, col 6, lines 15-30), when executed by the one or more processors, cause the beverage brewer to:
read, using the communication device (reader 32 reads the tag 28 through RFID, col 4, lines 30-40),
at least a portion of the brewed beverage data stored on the beverage server in response to the proximity sensor detecting the beverage server coming within the reference range of the beverage brewer (RFID data is read and the extracted from a unique pre-set ID stored in memory, if they match, then the liquid is dispensed based on the size of the container, claim 1); and
initiate one or more actions based on the brewed beverage data read from the beverage server (RFID data is read and the extracted from a unique pre-set ID stored in memory, if they match, then the liquid is dispensed based on the size of the container, claim 1).
Claim 2. Ost discloses the beverage brewer of claim 1, wherein the brewed beverage data comprises at least one beverage recipe (customized drink selection, claim 8), and further comprising instructions to send control signals to the brewing assembly to create the brewed beverage according to the beverage recipe (customized drink selection shared by the user can be created, claim 8).
Claims 4 and 17. Ost discloses the beverage brewer of claim 2, further comprising instructions to:
modify the beverage recipe based on input received from a user interface to create a modified beverage recipe (consumer selects and customizes their beverage, col 5, lines 50-55); and
send control signals to the brewing assembly to create a brewed beverage according to the modified beverage recipe (after consumer selects a final option, the drink is made, col 5, lines 55-60).
Claim 6. Ost discloses the beverage brewer of claim 4, further comprising instructions to store the modified beverage recipe on the beverage server using the communication device (customized beverage is stored on the application server, claim 8).
Claim 14. Ost discloses the beverage brewer of claim 2, further comprising a display (display screen 142, claim 1), and instructions to present at least a portion of the beverage recipe on the display (controller displays the options that the customer can select for creating the drink on the display screen, claim 1).
Claim 15. Ost discloses one or more non-transitory data storage devices comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon that (controller board has CPU which can store data, Fig. 14), in response to being executed, cause a beverage brewer (liquid dispensing system 91, Fig. 9) to:
read, using a communication device of the beverage brewer (reader 32 reads the tag 28 through RFID, col 4, lines 30-40), a beverage recipe stored on a beverage server (customized beverage is stored on the application server, claim 8) in response to a proximity sensor of the beverage brewer detecting the beverage server coming within the reference range of the beverage brewer (infrared proximity sensor detects the position of the cup and then the RFID tag is read, col 11, lines 20-25); and
send control signals to create a brewed beverage according to the beverage recipe (RFID data is read and the extracted from a unique pre-set ID stored in memory, if they match, then the liquid is dispensed based on the size of the container, claim 1).
Claim 20. Ost discloses a beverage dispenser (liquid dispensing system 91, Fig. 9) comprising:
a proximity sensor (infrared proximity sensor, Fig. 10) to detect a beverage container (infrared proximity sensor detects the position of the cup, col 11, lines 20-25) being within a reference range of the beverage dispenser (infrared proximity sensor detects the position of the cup, col 11, lines 20-25);
a dispensing assembly (liquid dispensing system 91) to dispense a beverage (dispensing system dispenses a beverage, abstract);
a communication device to wirelessly read a beverage recipe stored on the beverage container (RFID reader 1411 reads the RFID tag on the container, claim 1);
one or more processors (controller board may have a CPU, Fig. 14);
one or more data storage devices having stored therein a plurality of instructions that (controller stores data corresponding to the liquid type, size of the container, and drink selections associated with each container, col 6, lines 15-30), when executed by the one or more processors, cause the beverage dispenser to:
read, using the communication device (reader 32 reads the tag 28 through RFID, col 4, lines 30-40),
at least a portion of the beverage recipe stored on the beverage container in response to the proximity sensor detecting the beverage container coming within the reference range of the beverage dispenser (RFID data is read and the extracted from a unique pre-set ID stored in memory, if they match, then the liquid is dispensed based on the size of the container, claim 1); and
send control signals to the dispensing assembly to dispense the beverage according to the beverage recipe (RFID data is read and the extracted from a unique pre-set ID stored in memory, if they match, then the liquid is dispensed based on the size of the container, claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ost as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kuempel (US 2015/0201796 A1).
Claims 3 and 16. Ost does not disclose the beverage brewer of claim 2, further comprising instructions to:
prompt for confirmation to brew according to the beverage recipe; and
in response to receiving confirmation, send control signals to the brewing assembly to create the brewed beverage according to the beverage recipe.
Kuempel discloses a coffee machine wherein the user can select a brew recipe and then once the parameters are selected and the user confirms the selection, the machine begins to brew the drink (par. 135).
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 Ost to incorporate the teachings of Kuempel and provide a confirmation of the selected recipe. Doing so would have the benefit of ensuring that the user confirms the brewing recipe.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 9, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ost as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Knepler (US 2003/0129286 A1).
Claims 5 and 18. Ost does not disclose the beverage brewer of claim 4, wherein to modify the beverage recipe comprises to modify one or more of bean type, brewed volume, ground setting, water temperature, by-pass volume, drip-out time, pulse rate, pre-wet volume, initial pre-infusion volume, or spray head operation based on input received from the user interface.
Knepler discloses a coffee brewer with a reader can read information on a data storage device 20a (Fig. 1, par. 77), wherein the user or controller can modify the recipe of the drink (par. 61), wherein the adjustments can include type of grounds, volume for various quantities of coffee brewed, etc (par. 74).
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 Ost to incorporate the teachings of Knepler and provide that the coffee type and brewed volume be included in the recipe parameters. Doing so would have the benefit of brewing different types of coffee (par. 74, Knepler).
Claims 7 and 19. Ost does not disclose the beverage brewer of claim 4, further comprising instructions to determine whether the modified beverage recipe is invalid, and
in response to a determination that the modified beverage recipe is invalid, to: prevent creation of the brewed beverage; and/or
presenting a message indicating the modified beverage recipe is invalid.
Knepler discloses a coffee brewer with a reader can read information on a data storage device 20a (Fig. 1, par. 77), wherein different funnels are restricted for different types of coffee and if the funnel is missing or improperly positioned the system may lockout or prevent dispensing (par. 77 and 88). Additional alerts, such as, flashing lights or words on the display screen may be used (par. 88).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ost to incorporate the teachings of Knepler and prevent brewing or include alerts when the funnel is improperly placed or if the wrong funnel is being used with the wrong recipe. Doing so would have the benefit of preventing errors when brewing (par. 77, Knepler).
Claim 9. Ost does not disclose the beverage brewer of claim 1, further comprising a funnel assembly connectable with the brewing assembly to create a brewed beverage and dispense the brewed beverage into the beverage server, wherein the funnel assembly is configured to store brewed beverage data comprising a beverage recipe.
Knepler discloses a coffee brewer with a reader can read information on a data storage device 20a that is attached to a funnel (Fig. 1, par. 77). The funnel’s data storage device may contain the brewing parameters associated with the funnel such as the substance type and quantity (par. 79).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ost to incorporate the teachings of Knepler and using a funnel for brewing coffee and retaining data on the funnel. Doing so would have the benefit of preventing errors when brewing coffee with different funnels (par. 77, Knepler).
Claim 13. Ost does not disclose the beverage brewer of claim 2, wherein the beverage recipe comprises one or more of a bean type bean, brewing parameters for the bean type, or a beverage volume to be brewed.
Knepler discloses a coffee brewer with a reader can read information on a data storage device 20a that is attached to a funnel (Fig. 1, par. 77). The funnel’s data storage device may contain the brewing parameters associated with the funnel such as the substance type and quantity (par. 79).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ost to incorporate the teachings of Knepler and using a funnel for brewing coffee and retaining data on the funnel. Doing so would have the benefit of preventing errors when brewing coffee with different funnels (par. 77, Knepler).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ost in view of Knepler as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lussi (US 2015/0027315 A1).
Claim 8. Ost in view of Knepler discloses the beverage brewer of claim 7, wherein the determination that the modified beverage recipe is invalid comprises to:
different funnels may be dedicated to different flavors of coffee as well as different quantities of coffee and the communication device reading the storage device prevents mismatching recipe, par. 77, Knepler).
Lussi discloses a beverage machine wherein the RFID code is used to check and determine whether a suitable or correct ingredient container is being used (par. 52).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ost in view of Knepler to incorporate the teachings of Lussi and determine if the correct container is being used. Doing so would have the benefit of preventing the wrong funnel from being used with the wrong flavor.
Claim 10. Ost in view of Knepler does not explicitly disclose the beverage brewer of claim 9, further comprising instructions to detect a conflict between the beverage recipe of the funnel assembly and the beverage recipe of the beverage server.
Knepler discloses the possibility of the user using the wrong funnel for a set recipe (par. 81)
Lussi discloses a beverage machine wherein the RFID code is used to check and determine whether a suitable or correct ingredient container is being used (par. 52).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ost in view of Knepler to incorporate the teachings of Knepler and Lussi and determine if the wrong funnel is being used for the set recipe. Doing so would have the benefit of preventing errors when brewing coffee (par. 52, Lussi).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ost in view of Knepler and Lussi as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hart (US 7268698 B2).
Claim 11. Ost in view of Knepler and Lussi discloses the beverage brewer of claim 10, further comprising instructions to
Ost in view of Knepler and Lussi does not disclose determining whether to make the brewed beverage based on the funnel’s recipe or the beverage recipe of the server in response to a conflict.
Knepler further discloses that the user can decide if the system chooses if the recipe is read from the funnel or from the brewer’s own memory (par. 122 and 131). And additionally, it was disclosed that in a situation where there is a conflict in recipe, that the system will just read the recipe from the funnel (par. 81).
Hart discloses a beverage machine that detects if the container is full or above the desired level to prevent overflow (col 6, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ost in view of Knepler and Lussi to incorporate the teachings of Knepler, Lussi, and Hart and determine which recipe to use in order to prevent overflow in the container. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the batch size resides in the data storage of the funnel (par. 125, Knepler) is different from the batch size residing in the data of the container, a determination must be made to prevent overflow in the container.
Claim 12. Ost in view of Knepler, Lussi, and Hart discloses the beverage brewer of claim 11, wherein to determine which of the beverage recipes to create the brewed beverage comprises to determine a default preference between the funnel assembly and the beverage server (system creates the brewed beverage based on the data from the funnel instead of the user’s recipe, par. 81, Knepler).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
