DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 17/597540, filed on 01/11/2022, which is a 371 of PCT/EP2020/069482, filed on July 10, 2020, which claims priority to European Patent Application No. 19185813.3, filed on July 11, 2019.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 07/11/2019.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because
reference characters "10" and "20" have both been used to designate base.
reference characters "500a" and "502a" have both been used to designate end phase.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both tank and base. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “regulation of frothing of a liquid food substance”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Specification cites “a homogenising device for homogenizing”. The examiner requests the applicant to maintain the same spelling for the same term throughout the disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites “a homogenising device for homogenizing”. The examiner requests the applicant to maintain the same spelling for the same term throughout all claims.
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 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
control unit in claims 1-3, 8-9 interpreted as a controller as described in page 5, lines 25-30 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
homogenising device in claim 14, interpreted as arms as described in page 24, lines 3-7 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
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(b)
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 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is not clear if 10 to 45 sec is part of the claim.
Claim 5 recites “and/or”. It is not clear if the limitations following and/or are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “and/or”. It is not clear if the limitations following and/or are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "for instance" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites “and/or”. It is not clear if the limitations following and/or are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites “and/or”. It is not clear if the limitations following and/or are part of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magatti, WO 2017216133 (hereafter Magatti) and further in view of Boussemart et al., US 8528468 (hereafter Boussemart).
Regarding claim 1,
“A machine comprising:” (Fig. 3 in Magatti teaches machine 10)
PNG
media_image1.png
488
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Magatti
“a tank having a cavity for containing and processing a batch of liquid food substance;” (chamber 11 in Fig. 3)
“a stirring tool in the cavity having a stirring surface for imparting a mechanical effect on the food substance in the cavity to froth the food substance;” (Page 23, lines 25-30 of the attached foreign patent teaches “The foaming insert 13 is preferably a rotatable whisk or stirrer suitable for creation of foam on the liquid when being rotated within the beverage preparation chamber 11.”)
“an actuator configured to rotate the stirring tool in the cavity;”(Page 24, lines 5-7 teaches “The foaming insert 13 and/or the support insert 14 may be selectively driven in rotation by a motor 15 of the machine 10.” Here motor corresponds to the actuator in the instant claim.)
“and a control unit configured to control the actuator”(Page 25, lines 3-5 teaches “The machine 10 further comprises a control unit 17 that is operable to execute a beverage preparation process comprising control of the 5 motor 15 and/or the heating means 16.”)
“ so that the rotational speed of the stirring tool is changeable,” (Page 29, lines 25-30 teaches “The actuation profile 9a of the motor preferably comprises values for the rotational direction, rotational speed and acceleration ("RPM" and "RPM/s") of the motor over time ("Duration").” It is implied here that rotational speed is changeable over time.)
Magatti is silent about “the control unit has a mode in which the actuator is controlled by the control unit so that: during a first phase of processing the batch, the stirring tool is rotated below a low frothing rotational speed; and thereafter during a second phase of processing the batch, the rotational speed of the stirring tool is increased from the low frothing rotational speed to above a high frothing rotational speed; and thereafter during a third phase of processing the batch, the stirring tool is rotated above the high frothing rotational speed.”
Boussemart teaches “the control unit has a mode in which the actuator is controlled by the control unit so that: during a first phase of processing the batch, the stirring tool is rotated below a low frothing rotational speed;” (Column 6, lines 55-62 teaches “During a first phase of the preparation cycle, control means 24 respectively switch on heating element 8 and motor 18 to supply the quantity of calorific energy necessary to bring the quantity of liquid selected to a desired temperature level and to mechanically stir the quantity of liquid at a first stirring speed, lower than the foam creating speed.”)
“and thereafter during a second phase of processing the batch, the rotational speed of the stirring tool is increased from the low frothing rotational speed to above a high frothing rotational speed;” (Column 7, lines 9-12 teaches “the microcontroller sends a signal to motor 18 to drive the latter at a second stirring speed suitable for forming foam.” Column 7, lines 45-50 teaches “passage from a first stirring speed to a second stirring speed in the method according to the invention can occur gradually”. Here gradual change in speed corresponds to the second phase in the instant claim.)
“and thereafter during a third phase of processing the batch, the stirring tool is rotated above the high frothing rotational speed.” (Column 7, lines 9-12 teaches “the microcontroller sends a signal to motor 18 to drive the latter at a second stirring speed suitable for forming foam.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the controller with different phases as taught in Boussemart to the machine in Magatti. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “a method of preparing foam from a milk-based alimentary liquid that is simple, economical, and easy to use and that produces rapidly high quality foam in a reproducible manner” as taught in column 2, lines 5-10 in Boussemart.)
Regarding claim 2,
“The machine of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured in the mode such that the second phase is engaged after at least one of: a predetermined period of time corresponding to the first phase, such as a period of time in the range of 10 to 45 sec.; and a resistance against rotation of the stirring tool has increased while the stirring tool has been rotated below the low frothing rotation speed by at least 10%.” (The claim is interpreted as the first phase has a certain duration. Page 8, lines 25-30 in Magatti teaches “Each phase preferably comprises a duration value.”)
Regarding claim 4,
“The machine of claim 1, wherein during the second phase in the mode, the rotational speed of the stirring tool is increased from the low rotational speed to reach the third phase within a period of time in the range of 5 to 30 sec.” (Table 1, column 8 on page 34 in Magatti teaches a duration of 15 sec for phase 1, 15 sec for phase 2, and 15 sec for phase 3. Thus, it takes 15 sec to go from phase 1 to phase 3. Here the claimed range of 5 to 30 sec overlaps the range taught by Magatti. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Regarding claim 5,
“The machine of claim 1, wherein in the mode: during the first phase,
the rotational speed is maintained within a span of 3 or 5% of the low rotational speed immediately below the low rotational speed ;
and/or during the third phase the rotational speed is maintained within a span of 2 to 4% of the high rotational speed immediately above the high rotational speed;
and/or the first and third phases lasting for a cumulated period of time that is in the range of: 45 to 90 sec.;
and/or 50 to 95% of a total length of time of imparting a mechanical effect with the stirring tool on said-the batch in the cavity;” (The claim is interpreted as “the first and third phases lasting for a cumulated period of time that is in the range of: 45 to 90 sec.” Table 1, column 8 in Magatti teaches a duration of 15 sec for phase 1, 15 sec for phase 2, and 15 sec for phase 3. Thus, phase 1 and 3 are 30 sec. Here the claimed range of 45 to 90 sec is close to the range 30 sec taught in Magatti. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%).”)
“and a total length of time of imparting a mechanical effect with the stirring tool on the batch in the cavity being in the range of 60 to 120 sec.” ( Table 1, column 8 in Magatti teaches a duration of 15 sec for phase 1, 15 sec for phase 2, and 15 sec for phase 3. Thus, phase 1,2, and 3 are 45 sec in total. Here the claimed range of 60 to 120 sec is close to the range 45 sec taught in Magatti. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%).”)
Regarding claim 6,
“The machine of claim 1, wherein the high rotational speed and the low rotational speed have a ratio that is in the range of 1.02 to 5.” (Magatti is silent about this.
Boussemart teaches “the second predetermined speed is at least twice, preferably three times higher than the first predetermined speed” in column 3, lines 10-15.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to set the speed ratio in the range of 1.02 to 5 as taught in Boussemart to the machine in Magatti. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “a method of preparing foam from a milk-based alimentary liquid that is simple, economical, and easy to use and that produces rapidly high quality foam in a reproducible manner” as taught in column 2, lines 5-10 in Boussemart.)
Regarding claim 7,
“The machine of claim 1, wherein: the low rotational speed is in the range of 10 to 50 Hz; and/or the high rotational speed is in the range of 15 to 75 Hz.” (Magatti is silent about this.
Boussemart teaches a low speed of 500 to 1500 rpm in column 6, lines 60-65. This converts to a speed of 8 to 25 Hz. Here the claimed range of 10 to 50 Hz overlaps the range taught by Boussemart. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to set the low rotational speed in the range of 10 to 50 Hz as taught in Boussemart to the machine in Magatti. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “a method of preparing foam from a milk-based alimentary liquid that is simple, economical, and easy to use and that produces rapidly high quality foam in a reproducible manner” as taught in column 2, lines 5-10 in Boussemart.)
Regarding claim 8,
“The machine of claim 1, wherein the control unit has a different mode in which the actuator is controlled by the control unit so that: during an initial phase of processing the batch, for instance an initial phase lasting a period of time in the range of 0.5 to 15 sec., stirring tool is rotated from zero to a constant frothing rotational speed;” (Page 34, column 3 in Magatti teaches the motor runs at a constant speed of 2600 RPM for 50 sec. It is implied that the motor starts from zero when the machine is started.)
“ and thereafter during a main phase of processing the batch, for instance a main phase lasting a period of time in the range of 50 to 250 sec., the rotational speed of the stirring tool is maintained substantially at the constant rotational speed;” (Page 34, column 3 in Magatti teaches the motor runs at a constant speed of 2600 RPM for 50 sec.)
“ and thereafter during an end phase of processing the batch, for instance an end phase lasting a period of time in the range of 0.5 to 10 sec., the rotational speed of the stirring tool is allowed to drop to zero.” (Page 34, column 3 in Magatti teaches that the motor runs at a constant speed of 2600 RPM for 50 sec. It is implied that the motor is stopped after 50 sec.)
Regarding claim 9,
“The machine of claim 1, which comprises a base supporting the tank,” (Fig. 3 in Magatti)
“the base containing the actuator and the control unit.” (Fig. 3 in Magatti)
Regarding claim 14,
“The machine of claim 1, wherein the stirring tool comprises a homogenising device for homogenizing the batch of liquid food substance during thermal conditioning thereof.” (Please see claim interpretation. Fig. 3 in Magatti teaches stirring tool with arms.)
Regarding claim 15,
“The machine of claim 1, which has a central upright axis along which at least one of the tank, the cavity, and when present the base and/or the foot, extends, the cavity and, when present, the base and/or the foot having a shape of revolution about the central upright axis such as a cylindrical and/or conical shape and/or spherical shape.” (Fig. 3 in Magatti.)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magatti and Boussemart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujiwara et al., US 4541573 (hereafter Fujiwara).
“The machine of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured in the mode to control the actuator so as to drive during a start-up phase the stirring tool from rest, at a rotational speed of zero, to reach the first phase within a period of time in the range of 2 to 25 sec.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Fujiwara teaches a duration of about 5 to 10 sec in Fig. 10 for a rotor to go from zero to a certain low speed. Here the claimed range of 2 to 25 sec overlaps the range taught by Fujiwara. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the controller to control the motor to drive the stirrer from zero to a low speed in 2 to 25 sec as taught in Fujiwara to the machine in Magatti. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the material 20 put into the container 4 is uniformly stirred and gradually crushed in the process where the rotational speed of the rotor increases gradually from a low speed to a medium speed and further to a high speed” as taught in column 10, lines 15-22 in Fujiwara. )
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magatti and Boussemart as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cahen et al., US 20100300301 (hereafter Cahen).
Regarding claim 10,
“The machine of claim 9, wherein the base has an upright outside gripping surface, located under the tank” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Cahen teaches milk frother 8a. Paragraph [53] teaches “an upright wall of container 80'' has a textured outer surface 80' to improve hand-holding thereof, in particular a corrugated or undulated upright surface 80'. The presence in surface 80' of generally horizontally extending parallel, alternating ridges and grooves improves the gripping of the appliance for lifting, holding and manipulation thereof.”)
“and seizable by an adult human hand such that the base with the supported tank can be carried and displaced single-handed by seizure of the upright outside gripping surface,” (The claim is interpreted as the base is sized to carry by hand.
Paragraph [53] in Cahen teaches “Milk frother 8a is handle-free but is holdable and liftable single-handed. In particular, an upright wall of container 80'' has a textured outer surface 80' to improve hand-holding thereof, in particular a corrugated or undulated upright surface 80'. The presence in surface 80' of generally horizontally extending parallel, alternating ridges and grooves improves the gripping of the appliance for lifting, holding and manipulation thereof. To allow comfortable holding, single-handed, of the appliance, the diameter of the gripping part may be of the order of 8 to 10 cm.”)
“the tank extending horizontally beyond the outside gripping surface.”(The claim is interpreted as the tank has a larger diameter than the gripping surface. However, the original disclosure does not describe any criticality of the proportion.
Cahen teaches upper tank 80 that is smaller in diameter than the outside gripping surface.
Even though Cahen is silent about the tank being larger in diameter than the outside gripping surface, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the tank to be larger in diameter than the outside gripping surface of the base. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “a handle-free milk frother that has a tank for containing milk to be frothed and an outer generally upright surface forming a grip arrangement that is seizable by a human hand. Hence such an appliance can be held and lift single-handed by seizure of this grip arrangement” as taught in paragraph [20] in Cahen.
Additionally, the tank may be similar or smaller or larger than the outside gripping surface. MPEP 2144.04-IV-A teaches “In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” In this case, the claimed device with larger tank would not perform differently than Cahen’s device.)
Regarding claim 11,
“The machine of claim 10, which has a foot that has a bottom side configured to be placed on a substantially horizontal external support surface, such as a surface formed by a table or a shelf, during processing of the batch of liquid food substance, and to support the base during such processing.”(Fig. 3 in Magatti teaches docking station 24.)
Regarding claim 12,
“The machine of claim 11, wherein the base is removably mounted to the foot,” (Page 25, lines 15-20 in Magatti teaches “The machine 10 may comprise a docking station 24 from which the upper part of the machine 10 comprising the beverage preparation chamber 11 is selectively disconnectable.”)
“ the base and the foot having a connection that is configured to: inhibit or prevent relative pivoting of the base and the foot about an axis extending along the external support surface during such processing; and/or conduct electric power from the foot into the base; and/or be connectable in a plug and socket fashion.” (Fig. 3 and page 25, lines 19-22 teaches “The docking station 24 preferably comprises electric power supply means such as a connector for connection to the mains or to a battery.”)
Regarding claim 13,
“The machine of claim 11, wherein the foot extends horizontally beyond the outside gripping surface.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Annotated Fig. 3 in Cahen teaches foot 91 extends horizontally beyond the outside gripping surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
369
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Cahen
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the foot to be larger in diameter than the outside gripping surface of the base. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The housing face 91 with connector 30 is generally planar and horizontally arranged so as to support mechanically such an appliance 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8f. Moreover, the connection means 30 is disconnectably connectable by a user to such an appliance. Housing 9 and appliances 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8f are so arranged that any such appliance is removably mountable onto such housing face 91 by a user. Hence a user can easily interchange such appliances or, when applicable, remove them for dispensing their content” as taught in paragraph [40] in Cahen.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761