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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
The status of the 02/17/2026 claims, is as follows: Claim 40 has been amended; Claim 58 has been added; Claims 51-56 have been withdrawn; Claims 1-39, and 47 have been canceled; and Claims 40-46, and 48-58 are pending.
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 § 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 44, and 46 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 44:
The limitation "an annular channel" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because there is a previous instance of “annular channel” recited in line 10 of claim 40. It is unclear if the “annular channel” in line 2 of claim 44 is intended to refer to the “annular channel” previously recited.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that the “annular channel” refers the same channel as recited in line 10 of claim 40.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 48 requires “wherein the nozzle is characterized by a flow cross-section smaller than the expansion chamber diameter.” Claim 40 requires “wherein the nozzle is characterized by a flow cross-section smaller than the expansion chamber diameter,” in lines 14-15. In this case, claim 40 already requires the subject matter found in claim 48.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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’936 (WO 2017063936, published on 04/20/2017), and Turi (US 20110014329)
Regarding Claim 40, De’Longhi discloses an apparatus (coffee machine 20; 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 (emulsifying device 1) 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; figs. 1 and 3-4),
wherein the conveying means (fig. 3) comprises a cylindrical expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2) having an expansion chamber diameter (it is noted the chamber 2 allows the steam to expand because the diameter of the chamber 2 is larger than the diameter of section 4a), an annular channel (annotated fig. 3) arranged coaxially with the cylindrical expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2) (fig. 3), and a nozzle (dispensing line 37) arranged downstream relative to the expansion chamber (fig. 4),
wherein the annular channel (annotated fig. 3) is connected to the steam flow and at least partly surrounds the cylindrical expansion chamber (annotated fig. 3) (para. 0062) (it is noted according to fig. 3, the annular channel at least partially surrounds the end portion of the mixing chamber 2),
wherein the compressed gas line (manifold 42) is connected to the conveying means (fig. 3) at an upstream inlet (annotated fig. 1) having an upstream inlet diameter (annotated fig. 1),
wherein the expansion chamber diameter (diameter of mixing chamber 2) is larger than the upstream inlet diameter (see annotated fig. 1),
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),
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
624
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
618
865
media_image2.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
wherein the nozzle is characterized by a flow cross-section smaller than the expansion chamber 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_image3.png
492
632
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 gas line of De’Longhi (i.e. manifold 42) 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’936 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_image4.png
488
652
media_image4.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 (i.e. manifold 42 of De’Longhi) 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’936, 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’936).
The modification would result in the expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2) and the nozzle (dispensing line 37) configured to deliver the pressure pulses (p) introduced into the expansion chamber onto a cup for consumption (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’936).
PNG
media_image5.png
530
608
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modification does not disclose the nozzle is characterized by a flow cross-section smaller than the diameter of the expansion chamber.
However, Turi discloses the nozzle (outlet 5a) is characterized by a flow cross-section smaller than the diameter of the expansion chamber (foaming chamber 5) (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
548
390
media_image6.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 nozzle of De’Longhi (i.e. dispensing line 37) such that its flow-cross section is smaller than the diameter of the expansion chamber (i.e. mixing chamber 2) because it is known in the art to provide the sufficiently large chamber in which steam, air, and milk is mixed and to provide nozzle whose diameter is smaller than the mixing chamber such that resultant beverage is delivered onto the cup for consumption.
Regarding the limitation “the expansion chamber and the nozzle cooperate to control the pressure pulses (p) introduced into the expansion chamber and generate a heated steam and gas mixture in the conveying means” in lines 19-20, the modification De’Longhi, Steiner, Locher’936, and Turi would have this feature because Turi discloses the diameter of the nozzle is smaller than the diameter of the expansion chamber would result in the pressure of the pulses of the fluid being varied to some degrees based on the relative diameters of the expansion chamber and the downstream nozzle. Therefore, the expansion chamber and the nozzle cooperate to control the pressure pulses (p) introduced into the expansion chamber and generate a heated steam and gas mixture in the conveying means.
Regarding Claim 42, the modification discloses the controllable switching valve (controlled switching valve 2b; fig. 2 of Locher’936) 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’936).
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’936) (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’936).
Regarding Claim 44, De’Longhi discloses the apparatus (emulsifying device 1; figs. 1 and 3-4), wherein the conveying means (fig. 3) further an annular channel (annotated fig. 3) arranged coaxially with the cylindrical expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2) (fig. 3) and is in communication with the steam line (section 4a of circuit 4 for supplying steam) (fig. 1) (it is noted the annular channel is in fluid communication with the section 4a).
PNG
media_image7.png
600
741
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 48, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein the nozzle is characterized by a flow cross-section smaller than the expansion chamber diameter (based on rejection to claim 40, the feature would be present).
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’936).
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’936).
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’936).
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’936).
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’936 (WO 2017063936 published on 04/20/2017), and Turi (US 20110014329) 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_image8.png
582
258
media_image8.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’936, and Turi (i.e. controllable switching valve 2b of Locher’936) 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_image9.png
572
592
media_image9.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’936 (WO 2017063936), and Turi (US 20110014329) 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 para. 0020 of the published specification of the instant application, 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’936 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’936 (WO 2017063936), and Turi (US 20110014329) 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. De’Longhi discloses the conveying means (fig. 3) further comprises a mixing channel (annotated fig. 3) in communication with the annular channel (annotated fig. 3),
wherein the expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2), the nozzle (dispensing line 37), the annular channel (annotated fig. 3) and the mixing channel (annotated fig.3) are arranged as shown.
PNG
media_image10.png
624
874
media_image10.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’936 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’936 (WO 2017063936), and Turi (US 20110014329) 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’936) 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).
PNG
media_image11.png
348
544
media_image11.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 the apparatus of De’Longhi in view of Steiner and Locher’936 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.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De’Longhi (US 20180103792) in view of Steiner (US 20180098659), Locher’936 (WO 2017063936, published on 04/20/2017), Turi (US 20110014329), and Beretta (US 20050005780)
Regarding Claim 58, De’Longhi discloses an apparatus (coffee machine 20; figs. 1 and 3-4) for heating and foaming a liquid located in an open vessel, (the limitation “for heating and foaming a liquid located in an open vessel” is an intended use statement. The apparatus can be used to foam liquid contained in the open vessel i.e. cup), the apparatus comprising:
a steam line (section 4a of circuit 4 for supplying steam) connected to a steam generator (emulsifying device 1) supplying a steam flow (para. 0037 and 0039);
a gas line (manifold 42) supplying a flow of gas (para. 0042); and
a conveying means (fig. 3) connected to the steam flow and the flow of gas (para. 0062; figs. 1 and 3-4),
wherein the conveying means (fig. 3) comprises a cylindrical expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2) having an expansion chamber diameter (diameter of mixing chamber 2) (it is noted the chamber 2 allows the steam to expand because the diameter of the chamber 2 is larger than the diameter of section 4a), an annular channel (annotated fig. 3) arranged coaxially with the cylindrical expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2), and a nozzle (dispensing line 37) arranged downstream relative to the expansion chamber (fig. 4),
wherein the annular channel (annotated fig. 3) is connected to the steam flow and at least partly surrounds the cylindrical expansion chamber (annotated fig. 3) (para. 0062) (it is noted according to fig. 3, the annular channel at least partially surrounds the end portion of the mixing chamber 2),
wherein the compressed gas line (manifold 42) is connected to the conveying means (fig. 3) at an upstream inlet (annotated fig. 1) having an upstream inlet diameter (annotated fig. 1),
wherein the expansion chamber diameter (diameter of mixing chamber 2) is larger than the upstream inlet diameter (see annotated fig. 1),
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), and
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
624
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
618
865
media_image2.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
wherein the nozzle is characterized by a flow cross-section smaller than the expansion chamber diameter, and
wherein the nozzle delivers the heated steam and gas mixture through a discharge line immersed in the liquid.
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_image3.png
492
632
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 gas line of De’Longhi (i.e. manifold 42) 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’936 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_image4.png
488
652
media_image4.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 (i.e. manifold 42 of De’Longhi) 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’936, 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’936).
The modification would result in the expansion chamber (mixing chamber 2) and the nozzle (dispensing line 37) configured to deliver the pressure pulses (p) introduced into the expansion chamber onto a cup for consumption (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’936).
PNG
media_image5.png
530
608
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modification does not disclose the nozzle is characterized by a flow cross-section smaller than the diameter of the expansion chamber.
However, Turi discloses the nozzle (outlet 5a) is characterized by a flow cross-section smaller than the diameter of the expansion chamber (foaming chamber 5) (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
548
390
media_image6.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 nozzle of De’Longhi (i.e. dispensing line 37) such that its flow-cross section is smaller than the diameter of the expansion chamber (i.e. mixing chamber 2) because it is known in the art to provide the sufficiently large chamber in which steam, air, and milk is mixed and to provide nozzle whose diameter is smaller than the mixing chamber such that resultant beverage is delivered onto the cup for consumption.
Regarding the limitation “the expansion chamber and the nozzle cooperate to control the pressure pulses (p) introduced into the expansion chamber and generate a heated steam and gas mixture in the conveying means” in lines 19-20, the modification De’Longhi, Steiner, Locher’936, and Turi would have this feature because Turi discloses the diameter of the nozzle is smaller than the diameter of the expansion chamber, that would result in the pressure of the pulses of the fluid being varied to some degrees based on the relative diameters of the expansion chamber and the downstream nozzle. Therefore, the expansion chamber and the nozzle cooperate to control the pressure pulses (p) introduced into the expansion chamber and generate a heated steam and gas mixture in the conveying means.
The modification does not disclose the nozzle delivers the heated steam and gas mixture through a discharge line immersed in the liquid.
However, Beretta discloses the nozzle (conveyor pipe 3) delivers the heated steam and gas mixture (jet of steam and pressurized air) through a discharge line (pipe 3) immersed in the liquid (para. 0036; fig. 1).
PNG
media_image11.png
348
544
media_image11.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 the nozzle of De’Longhi (i.e. dispensing line 37) 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections filed on 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but are respectfully considered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights