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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 22 December 2025 has been entered.
New Drawing objections have been provided in the present Office action.
A new 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 29 May 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Claims 4 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and for claim 18, if the intervening 35 USC 112(b) rejection was also overcome for claim 12.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 22 December 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1 and 4-11 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 4-18 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 0111, recommend amending the paragraph to state: “…with the air pump 150 turned off...”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
The lead lines in the drawings are not black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined (37 CFR 1.84.l / evident in the publication of US-20220192417-A1).
In fig. 3A, the letters in diamonds 318 and 320 cross or mingle with the lines in the diamonds (37 CFR 1.84.p.3).
In fig. 3B, the letters in diamond 328 cross or mingle with the lines in the diamond (37 CFR 1.84.p.3).
In fig. 4A, the numbers, letters, and reference characters interfere with the comprehension of the graph shown in the figure (37 CFR 1.84.p.3). Figure 4A also refers to green, blue, and red colors, but the drawing is in black and white.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 12-18 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.
Claim 12 recites: “A milk frothing apparatus including the temperature sensor assembly according to claim 1…” The metes and bounds of claim 12 are indefinite because it is unclear how much structure from claim 1 is being incorporated within claim 12. For example, claim 1 includes a “drip tray reservoir.” Is the drip tray reservoir a required element within claim 12? If a “drip tray reservoir” is not a required element, does the claim 1 limitation “an upper surface of the temperature sensor assembly is adapted to promote liquid movement into the drip tray reservoir” still apply in claim 12? Because claim 1 requires a “milk frothing apparatus,” recommend amending claim 12 to be a claim that is clearly dependent on the “milk frothing apparatus” of claim 1.
Claims 13-18 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 12.
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glucksman et al. (US-20070119308-A1) in view of Hegedis et al. (US-20130112683-A1), Wang et al. (US-20090277535-A1), and Upston et al. (US-20140069279-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Glucksman teaches an apparatus (fig. 1), comprising:
a drip tray reservoir (drip pan 8, fig. 1) disposed beneath a support surface (top surface of drip pan cover 9, annotated in fig. 1 below); and
a temperature sensor assembly (sensor 21, fig. 7) including:
a temperature sensor element (temperature sensor 31, fig. 7; para. 0020) and a resilient support element (cap 27, fig. 7) that receives and biases the temperature sensor element towards thermal communication with an underside of a vessel (the cap 27 receives and biases the sensor 31 toward the carafe 7, figs. 3 and 7; temperature sensor 31 senses the temperature of the carafe, para 0020, which is construed as “thermal communication”) such that the temperature sensor assembly is biased toward a position above the support surface (with the carafe removed, the sensor 21 would be biased toward a position above the construed “support surface,” annotated fig. 7 below; “when the carafe 7 is lifted from the warming tray as the spring 32 will then urge the cap 27 upwards and the contact will connect to the warming plate 20,” para 0020);
wherein the temperature sensor assembly is located towards an end of a protruding portion (the temperature sensor is located on the right end above the construed bottom “protruding portion” in annotated fig. 1 below, i.e., under the carafe 7; fig. 2) that extends from a body of the milk frothing apparatus (water container 3, figs. 1-2); and
wherein an upper surface of the temperature sensor assembly (upper surface of the casing of the sensor 21; annotated in fig. 7 below) is adapted to promote liquid movement into the drip tray reservoir (the annotated upper surface has an affine or linear shape, which is construed as being convex; the Specification of the Instant Application discloses that “the top surface of the temperature sensor assembly is convex to promote liquid or fluid movement into the drip tray reservoir;” construed such that because the upper surface has a convex shape that it is “adapted to promote liquid movement into the drip tray reservoir”);
wherein a void space (annotated in fig. 7 below) is disposed below the resilient support element (cap 27, fig. 7), the void space sized to accommodate downward travel of the resilient support element (cap 27 travels downward into the construed “void space” when the carafe 7 is placed on top of the sensor 21, fig. 7; para 0020);
wherein the resilient support element (cap 27, fig. 7) includes a cover (top portion 28 and sidewalls 29, fig. 7);
wherein the upper surface of the temperature sensor assembly (annotated in fig. 7 below) has an aperture (hole between the ends of the construed “upper surface” that the cap 27 fits into, annotated fig. 7); and
wherein the resilient support element (cap 27, fig. 7) is held in compression, by way of a compression spring (spring 32, fig. 7), between the protruding portion and the upper surface of the temperature sensor (the “protruding portion” is construed as being the bottom of the coffee making apparatus, under the sensor 21, fig. 7; the spring 32 hold the cap 27 in compression between the bottom of the apparatus and the construed “upper surface,” annotated fig. 7 below).
Glucksman, figs. 1 and 7 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
987
1158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
828
1123
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Glucksman does not explicitly disclose a milk frothing apparatus, a flexible cover that forms a seal between the protruding portion and the upper surface of the temperature sensor assembly; wherein the resilient support element is arranged to form the seal for limiting ingress of fluid through the aperture; a water tight seal.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of temperature control in cooking appliances, Hegedis teaches flexible cover (elastomer element 256, fig. 17D; an elastomer is construed as being elastic or flexible) that forms a seal (“sealingly engages,” para 0124) between the protruding portion (bottom of fixed part 214, fig. 17D) and the upper surface (upper surface 216, fig. 17D) of the temperature sensor assembly (temperature assembly 204, fig. 17D); wherein the resilient support element (cover element 212, fig. 17D) is arranged to form the seal (“sealingly engages,” para 0124).
Hegedis, fig. 17D
PNG
media_image3.png
442
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Glucksman, in view of the teachings of Hegedis, by using an elastomer 256, as taught by Hegedis, around the sidewalls 29 of the cap 27, as taught by Glucksman, in order to use an elastomer component that can be bonded, moulded, and pressed to create a seal, for the advantage of preventing foreign material from degrading or deteriorating the electrical connections of the temperature sensor (Hegedis, para 0121).
Glucksman/ Hegedis do not explicitly disclose a milk frothing apparatus, a seal for limiting ingress of fluid through the aperture; creating a water tight seal (although Hegedis teaches a “seal,” Hegedis does not explicitly disclose that the seal is “water tight”).
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of temperature control in cooking appliances, Wang teaches a seal (seals 501 formed by elastomer leak stop mechanism 500, fig. 19) for limiting ingress of fluid through the aperture (“prevent water leaks,” para 0063); creating a water tight seal (“provide tight sealing and prevent water leaks,” para 0063).
Wang, fig. 19
PNG
media_image4.png
334
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Glucksman/ Hegedis, in view of the teachings of Wang, where the elastomer element 256, as taught by Hegedis, had seals 501, which were used to provide tight sealing, as taught by Wang, in order to provide sealing locations in the elastomeric material, for the advantage of preventing water leaks, for the advantage of preventing foreign material from degrading or deteriorating the electrical connections of the temperature sensor (Wangs, paras 0009 and 0063).
Glucksman/Hegedis/Wang doe not explicitly disclose a milk frothing apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor of milk frothing devices, Upston teaches a milk frothing apparatus (the coffee machine 100 in fig. 1 includes a steam wand 130, fig. 1, which is used from “frothing milk,” para 0112).
Upston, fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
770
735
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Glucksman, in view of the teachings of Upston, by adding a steam wand 130, as taught by Glucksman, to the coffee making apparatus 1, as taught by Glucksman, in order to froth milk such that a milky air foam is created, for the advantage of adding a textured milky foam to the coffee product after it has been brewed and produced (Upston, para 0208).
Regarding claim 5, Glucksman teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a shoulder of the protruding portion supports the resilient support element, such that the resilient support element is captured and abuttingly held by the protruding portion and the upper surface of the temperature sensor assembly.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of temperature control in cooking appliances, Hegedis teaches in a different embodiment (fig. 17E) wherein a shoulder of the protruding portion (crevice of the fixed part 214 that the membrane 266 fits into, fig. 17E) supports the resilient support element (elastomer membrane 266 and cover element 212, fig. 17E; the elastomer membrane 266 is construed as being the “flexible cover” of claim 1), such that the resilient support element is captured and abuttingly held by the protruding portion (bottom of fixed part 214, fig. 17E; the elastomer membrane 266 is held by the fixed part 214, fig. 17E) and the upper surface of the temperature sensor assembly (“sealably coupled to the upper surface 216,” para 0125).
Hegedis, fig. 17E
PNG
media_image6.png
382
649
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Glucksman, in view of the teachings of Hegedis, by using a fixed part 214, as taught by Hegedis, that was part of the bottom the coffee maker 1, as taught by Glucksman, and by using an elastomer membrane 266, as taught by Hegedis, to connect the cap 27 to casing of the sensor 21, as taught by Glucksman, in order to use an elastomer component that is sealably connected to both the upper surface as well as the cover element, for the advantage of using two seals that ensure that foreign material does not degrade or deteriorate the electrical connections of the temperature sensor (Hegedis, para 0125).
Regarding claim 6, Glucksman teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the protruding portion has an aperture for receiving the temperature sensor element, which is covered by the resilient support element.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of temperature control in cooking appliances, Hegedis teaches wherein the protruding portion (bottom of fixed part 214, fig. 17D) has an aperture (hole in fixed part 214 where the spring 236 sits, fig. 17D) for receiving the temperature sensor element (sensor 210, fig. 17D), which is covered by the resilient support element (the hole inside the portion 252 is covered by the elastomer 256 and the cover element 212, fig. 17D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Glucksman, in view of the teachings of Hegedis, by using a fixed part 214, as taught by Hegedis, that was part of the bottom the coffee maker 1, as taught by Glucksman, and by creating a hole, as taught by Hegedis, in the bottom of the coffee maker 1, as taught by Glucksman, in order to create a hole so that and electrical connection can between the thermal sensor and the electrical lead (Hegedis, para 0061).
Regarding claim 7, Glucksman teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature sensor element is retained within the resilient support element, and a U clip engages both the temperature sensor element and the resilient support element.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of temperature control in cooking appliances, Hegedis teaches in a different embodiment (fig. 17E) wherein the temperature sensor element (temperature sensor 210, fig. 17E) is retained within the resilient support element (sensor 210 is inside the cover element 212, the membrane 266, and the center assembly 266, fig. 17E), and a U clip (cover element 212 and centre assembly 264, fig. 17E; construed as an upside-down U-clip) engages both the temperature sensor element (the centre assembly 264 and the cover element 212 engage the sensor 210, fig. 17E) and the resilient support element (the centre assembly 264 also engages the spring 236 along its sides, fig. 17E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Glucksman, by using a fixed part 214, as taught by Hegedis, that was part of the bottom the coffee maker 1, as taught by Glucksman, and by using an elastomer membrane 266, cover element 212, and a centre assembly 264, as taught by Hegedis, instead of using a cap 27, as taught by Glucksman, in order to use an elastomer component that is sealably connected to both the upper surface as well as the cover element, for the advantage of using two seals that ensure that foreign material does not degrade or deteriorate the electrical connections of the temperature sensor (Hegedis, para 0125).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Glucksman in view of Hegedis, Wang, and Upston as set forth above regarding claim 7 teaches the invention of claim 8. Specifically, Hegedis teaches wherein the U clip (cover element 212 and centre assembly 264, fig. 17E) prevents the temperature sensor element (sensor 210, fig. 17E) from being pulled upward (the cover element 212 prevents the sensor 212 from being pulled upwards, fig. 17E), and prevents the temperature sensor element from being deflected downward past a point where the U clip engages a portion of the body (the sensor 212 is prevented from moving downwards due to the centre assembly 264, fig. 17E).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Glucksman in view of Hegedis, Wang, and Upston as set forth above regarding claim 7 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Hegedis teaches using a rib to limit downward deflection of the temperature sensor element (please see annotated figure below).
Hegedis, fig. 17E (annotated)
PNG
media_image7.png
488
668
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Glucksman in view of Hegedis, Wang, and Upston as set forth above regarding claim 6 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Hegedis teaches wherein a sleeve (please see the annotated figure below) defined by the protruding portion (bottom of fixed part 214, fig. 17D) captures a downwardly extending outer wall of the resilient support element (bottom wall of covering element 212, fig. 17D).
Hegedis, fig. 17D (annotated)
PNG
media_image8.png
450
687
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glucksman et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0119308) in view of Hegedis et al. (US-20130112683-A1), Wang et al. (US-20090277535-A1), and Upston et al. (US-20140069279-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tonelli et al. (U.S. Publication 2012/0297989).
The primary combination, as applied in claim 1, teaches each claimed limitation except as detailed below.
Glucksman further teaches wherein the temperature sensor element (31) is thermally coupled to the vessel (as detailed in claim 1 above), wherein the temperature sensor element (31) is further coupled to a processor module (para. 0020; temperature sensor 31 is connected to control circuit of the coffee machine) that receives a temperature signal (para. 0022, electronic controller; paragraphs 29-32 discloses receiving temperature values).
Glucksman is silent on the processor controlling a steam generation module for generating steam delivered to the vessel.
PNG
media_image9.png
726
562
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Tonelli teaches that it is known in the art of coffee machines (para. 0001) (figures 1 and 2A, module 7 including nozzles 7A provide coffee) (para. 0028; “One or two coffee containers…may be positioned beneath these nozzles 7A and are supported on a support surface 9 below. The surface 9 is advantageously formed by a grate 9A arranged above a reservoir 9B for collecting refluent liquids….”) (Here, grate 9A and reservoir 9B correspond to the drip cover 9 and drip pan 8 of Glucksman) for the coffee machine to include a milk frothing apparatus (steam nozzle 11, which “…may be used to supply steam and/or hot water to a mug or to a pitcher (for the production of tea), or else to manually emulsify milk contained in said mug or pitcher in a conventional manner”-para. 0029) (see also paragraph 0030-0032; container/pitcher 15 is filled with milk to be heater or emulsified. Paragraph 0002 discloses that the heating/emulsifying of the milk produces frothed milk).
Tonelli teaches that coffee machines equipped with such milk frothing devices allow for the production of milk based beverages, such as latte macchiatos, cappuccinos or the like (para. 0001).
Tonelli further teaches generating steam delivered to a vessel and further teaches control over the same (para. 0027; programmable electronic control unit). That is, Tonelli states, in paragraph 0029, providing “steam supplier that may be used to supply steam and/or hot water to a mug or to a pitcher (for the production of tea), or else to manually emulsify milk contained in said mug or pitcher in a conventional manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Glucksman, as modified by Kern, with Tonelli by adding to the coffee machine of Glucksman, the milk frothing device of Tonelli, in order to provide a means for producing milk based beverages, thereby allowing for greater variety over the beverages being produced. Still further, it would have been obvious to further modify Glucksman, modified to include a milk frothing apparatus for delivering steam to the vessel of Tonelli, to add to the controller functionality of Glucksman, the programmable control unit of Tonelli, in order to provide an automatic means for controlling steam generation.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glucksman et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0119308) in view of Hegedis et al. (US-20130112683-A1), Wang et al. (US-20090277535-A1), and Upston et al. (US-20140069279-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Carbonini (US2010/0047407) as evidenced by Tonelli et al. (U.S. Publication 2012/0297989).
Regarding claim 12, Glucksman does not explicitly disclose a steam source; an air source coupled to an air injector module for mixing the air and steam; a user interface for receiving input from a user; and wherein the apparatus includes a controller that is configured to receive-input parameters through the user interface, whereby the parameters include final milk temperature, and an indication of froth amount.
Carbonini relates to a coffee machine for preparing hot milk cappuccinos (para. 0002) (Fig. 1) and teaches a milk frothing apparatus including a steam source (boiler 12 for generating steam-para. 0028); an air source coupled to an air injector module for mixing the air and steam (venturi element 22a is coupled to valve 33, which allows air to inter and mix with the generated steam) (air mixed with steam arrives at nozzle 14 to forth milk 19 within the vessel-para. 0053); a user interface (command unit 39 including keys 39a/39b and parameter setting unit 37) for receiving input from a user (para. 0042 and 0066); and wherein the apparatus includes a controller (microcontroller 51, fig. 1) that is configured to receive input parameters through the user interface (39/37), whereby the parameters includes final milk temperature (para. 0068, T3 corresponding to max. milk temperature of 70°-para. 0062), and an indication of froth amount (key 39b for heated milk phase-para. 0059 vs. pressing key 39a for heated and frothed beverage-para. 0046) (see also para. 0066; “According to one of the three possible embodiments, it is envisaged that the third temperature t3 is set and possibly stored into the control unit through parameter setting unit (ancillary keyboard) 37, and that the first and second temperatures, t1 and t2, respectively, are determined by control unit 25 and stored based on froth level parameters (e.g. low, medium, high) set through ancillary keyboard 37.”).
Tonelli teaches that it is known in the art of coffee machines (para. 0001) (figures 1 and 2A, module 7 including nozzles 7A provide coffee) (para. 0028; “One or two coffee containers…may be positioned beneath these nozzles 7A and are supported on a support surface 9 below. The surface 9 is advantageously formed by a grate 9A arranged above a reservoir 9B for collecting refluent liquids….”) (Here, grate 9A and reservoir 9B correspond to the drip cover 9 and drip pan 8 of Glucksman) for the coffee machine to include a milk frothing apparatus (steam nozzle 11, which “…may be used to supply steam and/or hot water to a mug or to a pitcher (for the production of tea), or else to manually emulsify milk contained in said mug or pitcher in a conventional manner”-para. 0029) (see also paragraph 0030-0032; container/pitcher 15 is filled with milk to be heater or emulsified. Paragraph 0002 discloses that the heating/emulsifying of the milk produces frothed milk).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Glucksman/Upston, by adding to the coffee machine of Glucksman and the steam wand 130 of Upston, the mechanism for frothing mechanism of Carbonini, in order to provide a means for producing milk based beverages, thereby allowing for greater variety over the beverages being produced (as suggested by Tonelli, who teaches a beverage machine having both a coffee machine and a milk frothing apparatus).
Regarding claim 13, the primary combination, as applied to claim 12, teaches each claimed limitation and further teaches [Carbonini] including the indication of froth amount (see also para. 0066; “According to one of the three possible embodiments, it is envisaged that the third temperature t3 is set and possibly stored into the control unit through parameter setting unit (ancillary keyboard) 37, and that the first and second temperatures, t1 and t2, respectively, are determined by control unit 25 and stored based on froth level parameters (e.g. low, medium, high) set through ancillary keyboard 37.”) (para. 0067; “As the skilled in the art can readily realize, as the froth level having been set increases, the control unit is arranged to determine, according to the programs developed during the design phase of device 10, increasing temperature intervals t1-t2, so as to broaden the temperature range and, consequently, to increase the time during which air is mixed with steam”).
Carbonini does not explicitly state such indication being represented in the user interface by a scale for user selection. However, Carbonini does teach that the froth level is set by a user and, as such, implies that the user interface provides some indication as a scale regarding the froth amount.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Glucksman, as modified by Kern, with Carbonini, by adding to the user interface of Glucksman, as modified to include the milk frothing device of Carbonini, to further provide an indication of the froth amount to be represented in the user interface by a scale, for in doing so would provide a simple way of allowing a user to select a desired froth amount.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glucksman et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0119308), in view of Hegedis et al. (US-20130112683-A1), Wang et al. (US-20090277535-A1), Upston et al. (US-20140069279-A1), and Carbonini (US2010/0047407) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of Caswell (US2008/0181985), as evidenced by Blondel (US2011/0262606).
The primary combination, as applied to claim 12, teaches each claimed limitation except for wherein the input parameter further includes milk type.
Caswell teaches a beverage machine/process in which a beverage is produced by frothing milk (abstract). Caswell teaches that a user can select (via input device 480) (Fig. 4, 530) a milk type (reduced fat milk, skim milk, 1% milk, 2% milk, whole milk and heavy cream-para. 0021) as an input parameter (para. 0032-0033).
Blondel teaches that it is known in the art of beverage making involving foamed milk that the quality of foam generated during foaming is dependent, at least partially, on the fat content of the milk (para. 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Glucksman, as modified above, with Caswell by adding to the input parameters of Glucksman, modified to include the milk frothing apparatus of Carbonini, with the milk type selection of Caswell, in order to allow a user to specify the milk type to be used in producing a beverage such that the beverage can be made to their preference. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the quality of foam produced during the making of a foamed milk based beverage is dependent on the fat content of the milk (See Blondel, detailed above). Allowing for the milk type to be an input parameter would provide a further means, other than temperature, of regulating the foam quality and amount.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glucksman et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0119308), in view of Hegedis et al. (US-20130112683-A1), Wang et al. (US-20090277535-A1), Upston et al. (US-20140069279-A1) and Carbonini (US2010/0047407) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of Dollner (US20130145936).
Regarding claim 15, the primary combination, as applied to claim 12, teaches each claimed limitation [Carbonini] including wherein the apparatus further includes: a steam path (conduit from boiler 12 to nozzle 14) for providing heated steam to heat the milk, an air path (conduit from 13 to 22a) including an air source (13 open to atmosphere to allow air in); the air injection module for guiding air from the air path into the steam path, resulting in an air steam mixture (22a allows for air and steam to mix and flow to nozzle 14); a steam output (output of nozzle 14) to provide egress of the air steam mixture for healing the milk (as detailed in claim 12).
Carbonini further teaches that the boiler operates in a pressure range of 0.8 to 1.4 bars and that the controller (25) functions to control valves 31-33, thereby preventing/allowing operation of the steam path and air path during use (para. 0031, 0032, 0034). Carbonini further teaches the controller including a microcontroller (51) and a multiple port input/output interface (55) and that the controller operates through stored programs (para. 0039). Carbonini, therefore, teaches the controller in communication with memory storing operating and frothing parameters.
Carbonini further teaches a sensor (27) coupled to the controller for calculating temperature and that the controller provides control signals controlling operation according to parameters/signals from the sensor (para. 0050; 0054, 0057).
Carbonini is silent on the air source being an air pump and the apparatus further including a plurality of sensors, including a steam and/or air path pressure sensor; the controller adapted to: calculate a pressure set point from the operating parameters and signals.
Dollner teaches a frothing apparatus having an air source for mixing with steam and including an air pump (para. 0050; “a compressed air pump or a compressed gas cartridge. An air supply conduit 103 leads from the compressed air source 102 to the steam generator so as to conduct compressed air from the compressed air source into the steam generator.”).
Dollner further teaches using a pressure sensor and/or temperature sensor for detecting the pressure in the steam generator and that the compressed air source is controlled in response to the detected pressure/temperature (para. 0039) and that the controller (114) is adapted to calculate a pressure set point from the signals (para. 0061; “For controlling the valves 104 and 110 as well as the steam generator 101 itself (in particular a heating element contained in the steam generator) a temperature sensor and/or pressure sensor may also be provided in the steam generator 101. By using Dalton's law (law of partial pressures) it is possible to detect from the pressure and the temperature in the steam generator the partial pressure of the introduced compressed air. On this basis the control device 114 can induce the valve 104 to be opened or closed so as to make the air quantity necessary for a desired foam consistency available”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Glucksman, as modified above, with Dollner by replacing the air valve and adding to controller of Glucksman, modified to include the milk frothing apparatus of Carbonini, the air pump controlled by the controller of Dollner, for in doing so would provide an alternative an air source that is controllable by the controller. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to further modify Glucksman, as modified above, to include the pressure sensor and feedback control of Dollner so that the pressure in the steam generator can be determined and, which, would allow for the steam generator and air supply conditions to be adapted to provide stable and uniform steam generation.
While the above combination does not explicitly teach using a plurality of pressure sensors, the prior art does teach using a plurality of sensors including a pressure sensor. It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Glucksman, as modified above, by duplicating the number of pressure sensors of Glucksman, modified to include the milk frothing apparatus of Carbonini and the pressure sensor of Dollner, for in doing so would amount to the mere duplication of parts, which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04-VI-B.
Regarding claim 17, the primary combination, as applied to claim 15, teaches each claimed limitation including [in combination], wherein the controller [programmable microcontroller of Carbonini] is adapted to log the sensed pressure signal [as modified by Dollner using feedback control from pressure sensors] over time during the frothing process, and to determine whether the sensed pressure signal exceeds a maximum pressure threshold (Dollner).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glucksman et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0119308) in view of Hegedis et al. (US-20130112683-A1), Wang et al. (US-20090277535-A1), Upston et al. (US-20140069279-A1), Carbonini (US2010/0047407), and Dollner (US20130145936), as applied to claims 1, 12, and 15 above and further in view of Caswell (US2008/0181985), as evidenced by Blondel (US2011/0262606).
The primary combination, as applied to claim 15, teaches each claimed limitation including [Dollner] using a froth consistency parameter (para. 0061; “For controlling the valves 104 and 110 as well as the steam generator 101 itself (in particular a heating element contained in the steam generator) a temperature sensor and/or pressure sensor may also be provided in the steam generator 101. By using Dalton's law (law of partial pressures) it is possible to detect from the pressure and the temperature in the steam generator the partial pressure of the introduced compressed air. On this basis the control device 114 can induce the valve 104 to be opened or closed so as to make the air quantity necessary for a desired foam consistency available).
Caswell teaches a beverage machine/process in which a beverage is produced by frothing milk (abstract). Caswell teaches that a user can select (via input device 480) (Fig. 4, 530) a milk type (reduced fat milk, skim milk, 1% milk, 2% milk, whole milk and heavy cream-para. 0021) as an input parameter (para. 0032-0033).
Blondel teaches that it is known in the art of beverage making involving foamed milk that the quality of foam generated during foaming is dependent, at least partially, on the fat content of the milk (para. 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Glucksman, as modified above, with Caswell by adding to the input parameters of Glucksman, modified to include the milk frothing apparatus of Carbonini, with the milk type selection of Caswell, in order to allow a user to specify the milk type to be used in producing a beverage such that the beverage can be made to their preference. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the quality of foam produced during the making of a foamed milk based beverage is dependent on the fat content of the milk (See Blondel, detailed above). Allowing for the milk type to be an input parameter would provide a further means, other than temperature, of regulating the foam quality and amount.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and for claim 18, if the intervening 35 USC 112(b) rejection was also overcome for claim 12.
Reasons for Allowance
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach each claimed limitation including “wherein the upper surface of the temperature sensor assembly is coupled to the protruding portion by one or more press clips extending from an underside of the upper surface of the temperature sensor assembly, the press clips arranged to engage cooperating recesses in the protruding portion.” The closest prior art of record is Kern (US4812624A). Although Kern was previously used to cover these limitations, the examiner agrees with the Applicant that Kern can no longer applied because of how the limitations that are now attributed to the “resilient support element” in claim 1, specifically the “flexible cover” and the “spring” (see page 8 of arguments filed 29 May 2025). Other prior art that was considered includes Hegedis (US-20130112683-A1). Hegedis teaches embodiments for temperature sensors using support brackets (e.g., support brackets 218 in fig. 17A), which can be construed as “clips.” However, these clips are for fixed support brackets and are presented as alternatives to the elastic spring elements in the embodiments of fig. 17B, 17C, 17D, and 17E. It would not nonobvious to modify the temperature sensor to use a spring (elastic element) with a fixed element (brackets) that was connected to both the upper surface and the bottom (protruding portion) of a temperature assembly, as required in claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record fails to teach each claimed limitation including the controller being “adapted to provide a signal indicating a blocked steam wand to the user interface for display, and wherein the signal indicating that the steam wand based is blocked is based on whether a maximum pressure threshold and/or a maximum pump power threshold have been exceeded.”
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 USC 103
Pages 7-8 of the arguments reference Glucksman (US20070119308A1) and state that Glucksman fails to teach liquid movement from the top portion of sensor 21 into the drip pan 8. The examiner agrees with the Applicant. However, claim 1 is an apparatus claim and not a method claim. What is important in claim 1 is the structure of the claimed apparatus. Claim 1 recites: “wherein an upper surface of the temperature sensor assembly is adapted to promote liquid movement into the drip tray reservoir.” In trying to understand what this limitation means, the examiner reviewed the Specification, which disclose that “the top surface of the temperature sensor assembly is convex to promote liquid or fluid movement into the drip tray reservoir.” Thus, based on what is disclosed, if top surface is convex, then it is “adapted to promote liquid movement into the drip tray reservoir.” Glucksman teaches that the top of the sensor 21 is affine or linear:
PNG
media_image10.png
828
980
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that if a shape is affine, then it must also be convex. A flat or linear upper surface element 1023 is also shown in fig. 14 from the drawings in the Instant Application. Therefore, the top of the sensor 21 can be used to teach this limitation based on how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this limitation in view of the Specification.
Page 8 of the arguments argues that the temperature sensor of the Instant Application is in a wet environment inside the drip tray as opposed to the temperature senor of Glucksman, which is located in a dry environment, i.e., not the drip tray. The examiner agrees with the Applicant. However, respectfully submit that the Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 1 does not require locating the temperature sensor assembly within the drip tray reservoir. As a result, the examiner is still able to use Glucksman based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Recommend positively reciting that the temperature sensor assembly is located within the drip tray reservoir in order to overcome the Glucksman reference.
Page 9 of the arguments states that Glucksman does not explicitly disclose that the resilient member is held in compression by way of a compression spring. The examiner disagrees. In fig. 7 and in paragraph 0020, Glucksman teaches that “the cap 27 is urged upwards towards the carafe 7 by a spring 32.”
Pages 9-10 of the arguments state that Glucksman does not teach using the brass or aluminum cap 27 to create a seal. The examiner agrees. However, the examiner does not rely on Glucksman to teach the sealing limitations but instead relies on Hegedis (US-20130112683-A1) and Wang (US-20090277535-A1).
Page 10 of the arguments states that Glucksman teaches using the brass or aluminum material of cap 27 to form an electrical circuit. The examiner disagrees. Instead, Glucksman teaches that “the cap 27 is made of a thermally conductive material such as brass or aluminum” (paragraph 0020). Although there is a separate electrical contact 33 that is connected to a “control circuit” and which causes the circuit to “close,” the electrical contact 33 is an element that is separate from the cap 27. There is no mention in Glucksman of using the cap 27 as an electrical conductor. Further, as evidenced by fig. 17D of Hegedis, a cap for a temperature sensor can be surrounded by an elastomer element, and the temperature sensor can still be able to perform its function of temperature detection.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grassia et al. (US-11751717-B2, effective filing date of 30 Sep 2013) teach a temperature sensor similar to the claimed invention in fig. 23. This reference qualifies as prior art per 35 USC 102(a)(2). Recommend providing a statement of common ownership in order to overcome this reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/7/2026