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 .
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.
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: brewing unit, detection unit, evaluation unit, control unit, measuring unit in claim 1-12.
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 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 1-12 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 1-12 recite an “evaluation unit” and a “control unit”. It is not clear what these elements actually are. It is not clear if they are simply algorithms within a generic control device, or not. The application fails to disclose what these elements are, other than their function.
Claim 3 recites “may be….”. It is not clear if the following limitations are optional, or not.
Claim 4 recites “the selectable parameters comprise values which directly or indirectly indicate a performance, a coffee quality and a coffee waste”. It is not clear what meaning this phrase is meant to convey. It is not clear what is required by this phrase.
Claims 4, 10 recite “transition modes may also be set between these operating modes”. It is not clear what “transition modes” are. The application is silent on what these elements are. It is not clear if the “transition modes” are optional, or not.
Claims 5, 11 recite a “measuring unit”. It is not clear if the “measuring unit” is simply a timer/calendar, or not. Claims 5, 11 also recite “ambient parameters”. It is not clear what would constitute “ambient parameters”. In general, it is not clear what claims 5, 11 require.
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 1-6, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewitt [US 4,790,239] in view of Anson [US 6,155,158].
Hewitt teaches a system for brewing and serving a hot beverage (title) comprising a brewing unit (Figure 1, #10), beverage storage containers 9Figure 1, #42A-C), detection units for detecting a fill level in the containers (Figure 2, #68A-C, 70A-C), a control panel receiving data from the detection units and indicating to the user to begin brewing new beverage (Figure 1-2, #94; column 7, lines 57 to column 8, line 2), the user then dispensing new brewed beverage to refill the container in a fresh operation mode (column 8, lines 5-16), adjusting the heights of the detection unit to account for the brew time (column 8, lines 17-30), monitoring the beverage temperature in the containers, discarding it if the temperature falls too low, and refilling the container with new brewed beverage in a full load operation al mode (column 8, lines 31-39), and the detection units being active fill level sensors (Figure 3, #68, 70).
Hewitt does not explicitly recite an evaluation unit receiving data from the detection units and determining the amount of new beverage to be brewed and a control unit for the brewing unit (claim 1, 8), the control unit storing basic settings which can be manually adjusted and set to an operating mode (claim 3, 9), making a prediction of future consumption using mathematical calculations by a measuring unit using parameters such as season, day, and time (claim 5, 11), determining the amount of new beverage based upon input from the detection unit and measuring unit (claim 6, 12).
The present application fails to provide any guidance as to a physical structure for the “evaluation unit” and “control unit”, they appear to simply be algorithms within a generic control device.
Anson teaches a beverage brewing system (title) comprising a brewing unit (Figure 1, #30), beverage storage containers (Figure 1, #60), detection units which detect fill level of the containers (Figure 3 & 7, #150), the detection units being weight sensors (column 7, line 5), an controller which receives data from the detection units (Figure 7, #100), the controller determining how much new beverage to brew (column 7, lines 4-15), the controller sending a signal to the brewing device to begin brewing new beverage (Figure 7, #105), the controller including stored programs in its memory (column 10, line 30), the controller providing the function of both an evaluation unit and control unit as discussed above (Figure 7, #100), a measuring unit or timer which provides data to the controller (Figure 7, #140), the timer and controller monitoring the beverage age and determining via mathematical calculations when to dump beverage if it is too old (column 10, lines 38-47), a keyboard for entering user inputs (Figure 1, #145), the device programmed to monitor and store the consumption rate as a function of day of the week, date, and time of day (column 12, lines 12-19), an algorithm to automatically brew beverage at a predicted time in the future based upon stored consumption data and mathematical calculations (column 12, line 20-25), and remote control of the brewing device via a modem (column 12, line 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed evaluation unit and control unit features into the invention of Hewitt, in view of Anson, since both are directed to beverage brewing systems, since Hewitt already included manual control of beverage brewing and storage based upon monitored storage levels to accommodate refilling due to user consumption as discussed above, since Anson disclosed an automated beverage brewing system which automatically monitored fill level and automatically refilled the storage containers as describe above, since automated monitoring and control of brewing would have ensured more accurate, precise, and efficient use of resources in the method of Hewitt, in view of Anson; and since the ability to predict and preset brew times and amounts would have better ensured that there was an adequate amount of beverage on hand in the system of Hewitt, in view of Anson.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewitt, in view of Anson, as applied above, and further in view of Pfeifer et al [US 2019/0313840A1].
Hewitt and Anson teach the above mentioned concepts. Hewitt does not explicitly recite insulation (claim 7). Pfeifer et al teach a beverage system including a storage container with insulation (Figure 2, #33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed insulation into the invention of Hewitt, in view of Pfeifer et al, since both are directed to beverage brewing systems, since Hewitt already included storage containers (Figure 1, #42) as well as dumping beverage if it gets too cold (column 8, lines 30-39), since beverage systems commonly included a storage container with insulation (Figure 2, #33) as shown by Pfeifer et al, and since insulation would have enabled the storage container of Hewitt to maintain warm beverage temperatures for a longer period of time and thus prevented unnecessary waste.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brandsma teaches autonomous rapid batch beverage maker, Forti teaches a hot beverage maker with a level indicator, Knepler teach a digital brewer controller, Helbling teaches a coffee machine with product selectivity, Barraclough teach a coffee maker with level indicator, Dahmen teach a brewing and dispensing system, Stover teach a beverage brewing apparatus, DeLonghi teach a coffee beverage system, Lassota teach a beverage dispensing urn with electronic display, Bunn teach a temperature control system for beverages, banning teach a beverage system with automatic scheduling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, 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 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights