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 .
The status of the 08/26/2025 claims, is as follows: Claims 40, 48-50, and 57 have been amended; Claims 51-56 have been withdrawn; Claims 1-39, and 47 have been canceled; and Claims 40-46, and 48-57 are pending.
Note: updated figure 2 has been provided and is found acceptable.
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 limitations are:
In claim 43:
The limitation “a control device” in line 2
“device” is the generic placeholder.
“control” is the functional language.
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.
A review of the specification shows that, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The limitation “a control device" in line 2 of claim 43 has been described in originally-filed specification on p. 11, lines 21-30 as control device 9. As best understood, the control device 9 is the conventional computer that is configured to control various components of the apparatus (i.e. valves) in response to signal from sensors. The control device 9 contains a man-machine interface in the form of buttons, knobs, and a screen to interact with the user.
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 § 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.
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.
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.
Claims 40, 42-44, and 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De’Longhi (US 20180103792) in view of Steiner (US 20180098659), Locher (WO 2017063936, published on 04/20/2017), and Holten (US 20160015206)
Regarding Claim 40, De’Longhi discloses an apparatus (emulsifying device 1; figs. 1 and 3-4) for heating and foaming a liquid (the limitation “for heating and foaming a liquid” is an intended use statement), the apparatus comprising:
a steam line (section 4a of circuit 4 for supplying steam) connected to a steam generator (coffee machine 20) supplying a steam flow (para. 0037 and 0039);
a gas line (manifold 42) supplying a flow of gas (para. 0042);
a conveying means (fig. 3) connected to the steam flow and the flow of gas (para. 0062),
wherein the conveying means (fig. 3) comprises a cylindrical expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2) having an expansion chamber diameter (annotated fig. 1) (it is noted chamber 2 has cylindrical shape as evident in fig. 1) and a nozzle (dispensing line 37) arranged downstream relative to the expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2) (fig. 4),
wherein the compressed gas line (manifold 42) is connected to the conveying means (fig. 3) at an upstream inlet (air outlet 22) having an upstream inlet diameter (annotated fig. 1) (abstract),
wherein the expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2) and the nozzle (dispensing line 37) cooperate to control the pressure of steam introduced into the expansion chamber and generate a heated steam and gas mixture (mixture of steam and air) in the conveying means (fig. 3) (para. 0062) (it is noted the steam and gas expands in the mixing chamber 2 because the cross-section of the chamber 2 and dispensing line 37 is larger than the cross-section of circuit 4, that would result in the pressure being changed. Steam and gas expand as they enter the chamber 2, therefore the chamber 2 is the expansion chamber),
wherein the nozzle (dispensing line 37) delivers the heated steam and gas mixture (mixture of steam and air) into the liquid (para. 0062) (it is noted the cup 35 is capable of liquid i.e. espresso coffee. The mixture of steam and air is ejected into the espresso coffee held in the cup 35).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
1083
media_image1.png
Greyscale
De’Longhi does not disclose:
the compressed gas line connected to a compressed gas source supplying a flow of gas at a predetermined constant pressure;
a controllable switching valve connected to the compressed gas line and operative to generate a series of pressure pulses (p) in the flow of gas, and
the expansion chamber diameter is larger than the upstream inlet diameter.
However, Steiner discloses an apparatus (froth generating device; fig. 1) comprising a compressed gas line (supply line 4) connected to a compressed gas source (compressed air source 2) supplying a flow of gas at a predetermined constant pressure (constant air pressure) (para. 0025-0026).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas line of De’Longhi to be connected to the compressed gas source for supplying the flow of gas at the predetermined constant pressure as taught by Steiner, in order to provide desired porosity of the milk froth (para. 0026 of Steiner).
The modification does not disclose a controllable switching valve connected to the compressed gas line and operative to generate a series of pressure pulses (p) in the flow of gas.
However, Locher discloses a controllable switching valve (controlled switching valve 2b; fig. 2) connected to the compressed gas line (compressed gas line) and operative to generate a series of pressure pulses (p) (pressure pulses) in the flow of gas (para. 0011 and 0028).
PNG
media_image3.png
488
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressed gas line of De’Longhi in view of Steiner to include the controllable switching valve connected to the compressed gas line and operative to generate a series of pressure pulses (p) in the flow of gas as taught by Locher, in order to allow the user to control the consistency of the foam produced by controlling the valves to produce suitable pressure pulses to yield desired foam consistency (para. 0010 of Locher).
The modification would result in the expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2) and the nozzle (dispensing line 37) cooperate to control the pressure pulses (p) introduced into the expansion chamber (it is noted the steam and the pressure pulses of gas expand in the mixing chamber 2 to produce pulsed steam-air mixture and to be ejected through the dispensing line 37 of De’Longhi (para. 0050 of Locher).
PNG
media_image4.png
530
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modification does not disclose the expansion chamber diameter is larger than the upstream inlet diameter.
However, Holten discloses the expansion chamber diameter (diameter of settling chamber 10) is larger than the upstream inlet diameter (diameter of inlet 40) (fig. 3) (para. 0040 and 0050) (it is noted air enters the chamber 10 through inlet 40 to mix with the steam entered through 30 in the chamber 10) (figs. 2-3).
PNG
media_image5.png
320
280
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upstream inlet of De’Longhi in view of Steiner and Locher (i.e. modify the air outlet 22 of De’Longhi) such that its diameter is smaller than the diameter of the expansion chamber as taught by Holten, in order to generate strong kinetic energy to produce froth when mixed with the steam because the compressed air would exit through the small diameter of the air outlet 22 at sufficient speed for having good mixture of steam and gas and thereby yielding fine-bubbled froth (para. 0040 and 0050 of Holten).
Regarding Claim 42, the modification discloses the controllable switching valve (controlled switching valve 2b; fig. 2 of Locher) operates at a predetermined frequency (f) (pulse frequency) to generate the series of pressure pulses (p) (pressure pulses; figs. 5a-5b), and wherein the controllable switching valve opens and closes according to the predetermined frequency (f) (para. 0011 of Locher).
Regarding Claim 43, the modification discloses the apparatus, further comprising a control device (controller 40 of De’Longhi) coupled to the controllable switching valve (controlled switching valve 2b; fig. 2 of Locher) (para. 0046 of De’Longhi), wherein the control device is operable to open and close the controllable switching valve according to a predetermined frequency (f) (para. 0011 of Locher).
Regarding Claim 44, De’Longhi discloses the apparatus (emulsifying device 1; figs. 1 and 3-4), wherein the conveying means (fig. 3) further comprises an annular channel (section 4b) which is arranged coaxially with the expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2) and is in communication with the steam line (first section 4a of the circuit 4) (para. 0051) (it is noted according to attached Vocabulary, https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/coaxial, “coaxially” is interpreted to mean having a common axis. The section 4b and the mixing chamber 2 have the same axis as shown in fig. 3).
PNG
media_image6.png
638
851
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 48, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the nozzle is characterized by a flow cross-section smaller than the diameter of the expansion chamber.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the nozzle having the flow cross-section smaller than the diameter of the expansion chamber, is merely a design choice. The specification of the instant application does not explain why having cross-section of the nozzle smaller than the diameter of the expansion chamber solves further problem in the art. It is expected the nozzle of De’Longhi (dispensing line 37) is expected to perform equally well to dispense the heated mixture of steam, air, and milk from the mixing chamber 2 into the cup to be consumed.
Regarding Claim 49, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein the pulsed steam-air mixture of the modification flows through the dispensing line 37 (para. 0050 of Locher).
Regarding the limitations “the heated steam and gas mixture flowing through the nozzle has a pressure characteristic p(t) over time and a series of damped, periodically repeating pressure peaks (p0)”, the limitations recite functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. According to MPEP 2114 II, when the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In this case, the apparatus of the modification is capable of generating the heated steam and gas mixture having the pressure characteristic p(t) over time and the series of damped, periodically repeating pressure peaks (p0) by adjusting the parameter of pressure pulses of the compressed gas and mix with the steam to adjust the foam consistency to desired preferences of the user (para. 0010 of Locher).
Regarding Claim 50, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein the pulsed steam-air mixture of the modification flows through the dispensing line 37 (para. 0050 of Locher).
Regarding the limitations “the heated steam and gas mixture flowing through the nozzle has a pressure characteristic p(t) over time and a constant pressure offset (p1).”, the limitations recite functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. According to MPEP 2114 II, when the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In this case, the apparatus of the modification is capable of generating the heated steam and gas mixture having the pressure characteristic p(t) over time and a constant pressure offset (p1) by adjusting the parameter of pressure pulses of the compressed gas and mix with the steam to adjust the foam consistency to desired preferences of the user (para. 0010 of Locher).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the motivation of De’Longhi (US 20180103792), Steiner (US 20180098659), Locher (WO 2017063936 published on 04/20/2017), and Holten (US 20160015206) as applied to claim 40, further in view of Panciera (US 20220257046)
Regarding Claim 41, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the controllable switching valve is arranged in the conveying means upstream relative to the expansion chamber.
However, Panciera discloses a valve (adjustment valve 16) is arranged in the conveying means (mixing chamber 2) upstream relative to the expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2) (para. 0076-0077).
PNG
media_image7.png
582
258
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controllable switching valve of De’Longhi in view of Steiner , Locher, and Holten (i.e. controllable switching valve 2b of Locher) such that it is arranged in the conveying means upstream relative to the expansion chamber as taught by Panciera, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art for the motivation to control the pressure pulses by opening and closing the valve such that the desired foam consistency is obtained. The resultant structure is shown below.
PNG
media_image8.png
572
592
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the motivation of De’Longhi (US 20180103792), Steiner (US 20180098659), Locher (WO 2017063936), and Holten (US 20160015206) as applied to claim 40, further in view of Schlee (US 20150150408)
Regarding Claim 45, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the expansion chamber and the nozzle are made of a thermally conductive material.
However, Schlee discloses the expansion chamber and the nozzle (cylindrical body of the actual steam lance 1, which forms the two portions 9 and 10) are made of a thermally conductive material (stainless steel) (para. 0055) (it is noted according to p. 12 lines 34-35 of the original specification, chamber and the nozzle are made of good thermal conductivity, in particular stainless steel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the expansion chamber and the nozzle of De’Longhi in view of Steiner and Locher to be made of stainless steel as taught by Schlee because it is known that the stainless steel has good thermal conductivity properties.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the motivation of De’Longhi (US 20180103792), Steiner (US 20180098659), Locher (WO 2017063936), and Holten (US 20160015206) as applied to claim 44, further in view of Locher’755 (US 20170238755)
Regarding Claim 46, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein the conveying means further comprises a mixing channel (annotated fig. 1) in communication with the annular channel (annotated fig. 1),
wherein the expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2), the nozzle (dispensing line 37), the annular channel (annotated fig. 1) and the mixing channel (annotated fig.1) are arranged as shown.
PNG
media_image9.png
624
772
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The modification does not disclose the expansion chamber, the nozzle, the annular channel and the mixing channel are arranged in a reactor block which is at least partly made of plastic.
However, Locher’755 discloses a reactor block (reactor block 4) is at least partly made of plastic (plastic material) (para. 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the expansion chamber, the nozzle, the annular channel and the mixing channel of De’Longhi in view of Steiner and Locher such that they are arranged within the reactor block which is at least partly made of plastic as taught by Locher’755, in order to insulate the channels to prevent heat loss (para. 0010 of Locher’755).
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the motivation of De’Longhi (US 20180103792), Steiner (US 20180098659), Locher (WO 2017063936), and Holten (US 20160015206) as applied to claim 40, further in view of Beretta (US 20050005780)
Regarding Claim 57, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, further comprising:
a mixing vessel (cup 35; fig. 1 of De’Longhi) holding the liquid (para. 0062 of De’Longhi) (it is noted cup 35 is capable of holding the liquid),
wherein the nozzle (dispensing line 37 of De’Longhi) operates to introduce the pressure pulses (p) (pressure pulses of Locher) of the heated steam and gas mixture into the liquid.
The modification does not disclose an immersion tube at least partly submerged in the liquid, wherein the immersion tube operates to introduce the pressure pulses (p) of the heated steam and gas mixture into the liquid.
However, Beretta discloses an immersion tube (conveyor pipe 3) at least partly submerged in the liquid (para. 0036), wherein the immersion tube operates to introduce the pressure pulses (p) of the heated steam and gas mixture (jet of steam and pressurized air) into the liquid (para. 0036-0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the apparatus of De’Longhi in view of Steiner and Locher to include the immersion tube that is attached to the nozzle of De’Longhi, wherein the immersion tube at least partly submerged in the liquid and operate to introduce the heated steam and gas mixture into the liquid as taught by Beretta. Doing so would prevent accidental spillage of foamed beverage as it exits the immersion tube because the immersion tube would be partly submerged in the liquid.
Response to Amendment
With respect to specification objection: since amendments made to the specification, the specification objection is withdrawn.
With respect to claim objections: since amendments made to the claims, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections filed on 08/26/2025 have been fully considered but are respectfully considered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571)272-9059. 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.
/BONITA KHLOK/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights