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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 03/01/2026. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 16-22 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 3, 16 have been amended; claims 7, 9, 11-15 cancelled.
With respect to Drawings Objections: Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Drawings Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/02/2025, except for the limitation “R represents an outer radius of the diffuser at a center of one steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes” as recited in claim 8, see details in the Drawings Objections section below.
With respect to Specification Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Abstract filed on 03/01/2026 have overcome the Specification Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/02/2025.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims dated 03/01/2026 have not overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/02/2025, see details in the Claim Objections section below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims dated 03/01/2026 have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/02/2025. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections is maintained in this Office Action, see details in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 03/01/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Specifically, the newly added limitation “wherein the first non-threaded section is arranged between the upper threaded section and the cylindric bottom section” to the independent claim 1, and the newly added limitations “wherein the longitudinal hole includes an upper threaded section, a first non-threaded section with a first diameter and a cylindric bottom section having a diameter larger than the first diameter, wherein the first non-threaded section is arranged between the upper threaded section and the cylindric bottom section” to the independent claim 16 have changed scope of the claims. Therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. Accordingly, the newly cited prior art Siccardi (U.S. Patent No. 5,233,915 A) has been added as secondary reference in the rejections of claims.
However, Examiner would like to note that in response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior arts on record Mahlich (U.S. Patent No. 5,785,256 A) and Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0230646 A1), Applicant’s arguments filed 03/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following reasons:
Applicants’ arguments: (Regarding the prior art Mahlich, see details on pages 9-11 of the Remarks dated 03/01/2026)
Applicant alleged that the combination of Cingolani and Mahlich is improper and a person of ordinary skill in the art would see Cingolani and Mahlich as two distinct and incompatible approaches and would not be motivated to combine these two prior art references; furthermore, Applicant alleged that Cingolani and Mahlich recite incompatible longitudinal hole geometries, and thus, the modification is not obvious – see details on pages 9-11 of the Remarks dated 03/01/2026.
Examiner’s response:
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Cingolani discloses substantially all limitations recited in the independent claim 1, including a diffuser comprises a longitudinal hole, wherein the longitudinal hole comprises a first non-threaded section with a first diameter and a cylindric bottom section having a diameter, Cingolani also discloses the skew configuration of the steam outlet holes and the angle range of each steam outlet hole with respect to a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the diffuser. However, Cingolani does not explicitly disclose the diameter of cylindric bottom section is larger than the first diameter of the first non-threaded section. Mahlich is applied to teach the feature of the diameter of the cylindric bottom section is larger than the first diameter of the first non-threaded section. See details in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below. Both Cingolani and Mahlich are directed to steam diffuser structures for controlling the discharge of steam for beverage preparation. Each reference addresses modification of internal geometry of the diffuser and outlet structure to influence fluid behavior, including mixing, turbulence, and distribution. Differences in flow patterns represent alternative design approaches rather than incompatibility. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Mahlich’s expanded bottom cavity into Cingolani would predictably influence steam distribution. Therefore, in this instant case, the purpose of combining Cingolani and Mahlich is not defeated, for, at least, the benefit of allowing the fluid to spread out and equalize pressure before being forced through small steam outlet holes. The larger diameter cavity at the bottom would reduce turbulence inside of the diffuser and ensure more controlled jets at the outlets, this helps create fine bubbles and microfoam needed in milk frothing. Additionally, the expanded cavity at the bottom portion of the diffuser would also give a buffer space that reduces the chance of milk being sucked back into the steam wand and clogging. It would further reduce the steam’s pressure and velocity in a controlled manner, preventing a sudden and disruptive pressure drop that could lead to loud noise or damage to equipment. Therefore, the expanded cavity at the bottom portion of the diffuser would improve pressure distribution, optimize jet velocity, reduce turbulence, and enhance milk aeration; thus, improving frothing efficiency and foam texture. Therefore, the modification does not change the principle of operation of Cingolani but instead improves performance characteristics of the diffuser as explained above. As the obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, MPEP § 2144.01, suggests that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)”. As such, Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Cingolani and Mahlich are not persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments: (Regarding the rejection of claim 22, see details on page 11 of the Remarks dated 03/01/2026)
Applicant alleged that “In rejecting claim 22, the non-final office action asserts that Cingolani's holes communicate with the longitudinal hole at a lateral wall of the cylindric bottom section (Office Action, page 29). However, as amended, the independent claims recite the lateral wall as part of a combination of features that are not taught or suggested in the applied prior art references.” – see details on page 11 of the Remarks dated 03/01/2026.
Examiner’s response:
In response to Applicant’s argument that the independent claims recite the lateral wall as part of a combination of features that are not taught or suggested in the applied prior art references, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the primary reference Cingolani properly discloses the limitation “wherein the plurality of steam outlet holes communicate with the longitudinal hole at a lateral wall of the cylindric bottom section” as recited in the independent claim 1 and claim 22, see detailed rejections of this limitation in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below. Furthermore, Examiner would like to note that the combination of Cingolani and Mahlich does not change the location where the plurality of steam outlet holes communicates with the longitudinal hole of the diffuser, the modification only enlarges the diameter of the longitudinal hole of the diffuser at the cylindric bottom section of the longitudinal hole. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding the limitation “wherein the plurality of steam outlet holes communicate with the longitudinal hole at a lateral wall of the cylindric bottom section” as recited in the independent claim 1 and claim 22 are not persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments: (Regarding the prior art Kim, see details on pages 11-12 of the Remarks dated 03/01/2026)
Applicant also traverses the rejections of claims 6, 16, and 20 because Applicant alleged that “Kim is from a non-analogous field of art, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine its teachings”, and “the combination with Kim constitutes impermissible hindsight” – see details on pages 11-12 of the Remarks dated 03/01/2026.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 03/01/2026 regarding the prior art Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0230646 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following reasons:
In response to Applicant’s argument that Kim is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kim is analogous art because the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of designing and modifying outlet hole geometries in a diffuser/nozzle structure to influence performance and durability. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
It is noted that Kim outlet hole with enlarged/filleted section inherently affects fluid flow characteristics, including pressure and distribution, velocity, and turbulence at the outlet. Changes in cross-sectional geometry at the outlet directly influence fluid discharge behavior. Thus, Kim’s teachings are relevant not only for structure but also for fluid flow performance.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Kim teaches that the outlet hole with enlarged/filleted section reduces stress concentrations and improves structural integrity. Such teachings are directly applicable to diffuser outlet design. Specifically, any changes in outlet geometry such as diameter, fillet, expansion, etc., directly affect pressure drop, flow velocity, turbulence, and Reynolds number. These effects are a direct consequence of basic fluid dynamics and would have been readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, in the instant case, the purpose of combining modified Cingolani with Kim is not defeated, for, at least, the benefit of reducing stress concentration at outlet openings, improving durability and service life of the diffuser, and influencing fluid discharge characteristics including pressure distribution and turbulence. As the obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, MPEP § 2144.01, suggests that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)”. As such, Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of modified Cingolani and Kim are not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “R represents an outer radius of the diffuser at a center of one steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes” as recited in claim 8 (lines 2-3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that Figs.4A, 5A and 7 show that R represents an outer radius of the diffuser itself; R as shown in Figs.4A, 5A and 7 does not represent an outer radius of the diffuser at a center of one steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes. No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 16-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 7) and claim 16 (line 13) recite the limitation “its steam outlet hole axis”. This should be changed to “[[its]] steam outlet hole axis”.
Claim 1 (lines 15-16) and claim 8 (lines 4, 6) recite the limitation “the longitudinal axis”. This should be changed to “the diffuser longitudinal axis” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 4).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “said longitudinal axis” in line 2. This should be changed to “said diffuser longitudinal axis” or “the diffuser longitudinal axis” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 4).
Claims 2-6, 8, 10, 20-22 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 17-19 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 19, 22 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 8 recites the limitation “R represents an outer radius of the diffuser at a center of one steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear how the outer radius of the diffuser is defined at the center of one steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes. Because the outer radius is the distance from the center of a circular, spherical, or cylindrical object to its outermost edge or boundary; thus, in this case, the outer radius of the diffuser is supposed to be the distance from the center of the diffuser (i.e., from the central longitudinal axis of the diffuser) to the outer surface of the diffuser, as shown in Figs.4A, 5A and 7 of the Instant Application. Figs.4A, 5A and 7 of the Instant Application show that R represents an outer radius of the diffuser from the center of the diffuser (i.e., from the central longitudinal axis of the diffuser) to the outer surface of the diffuser. R as shown in Figs.4A, 5A and 7 of the Instant Application does not represent an outer radius of the diffuser at a center of one steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes as required by the claim. Therefore, it is unclear how R is defined. Thus, for examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as R represents an outer radius of the diffuser, according to the definition of R in Figs.4A, 5A and 7 of the Instant Application.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the diffuser” in lines 5-6. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 8 depends on claim 1, however, claim 1 recites the limitation “a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the diffuser” in lines 15-16. Therefore, it is unclear if the plane recited in claim 1 and the plane recited in claim 8 are the same plane or different planes. For examination purposes, the plan recited in claim 8 (line 5) will be interpreted as the same plane as recited previously in claim 1 (line 15).
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the exit” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “exit” recited previously.
Claim 22 recites “a lateral wall of the cylindric bottom section” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 22 depends on claim 1; however, claim 1 recites “a lateral wall of the cylindric bottom section” in lines 13-14. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same lateral wall or different lateral walls. For examination purposes, the limitation “a lateral wall of the cylindric bottom section” recited in claim 22 will be interpreted as to refer to the limitation “a lateral wall of the cylindric bottom section” recited in claim 1.
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 22 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 22 recites “wherein the plurality of steam outlet holes communicate with the longitudinal hole at a lateral wall of the cylindric bottom section.” in lines 1-3. Claim 22 depends on claim 1; however, the currently amended claim 1 recites “wherein the plurality of steam outlet holes communicate with the longitudinal hole at a lateral wall of the cylindric bottom section” in lines 12-14. Therefore, claim 22 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. 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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cingolani (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0299003 A1, previously cited) in view of Siccardi (U.S. Patent No. 5,233,915 A, newly cited), and further in view of Mahlich (U.S. Patent No. 5,785,256 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Cingolani discloses a diffuser (dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.1-4) for a steam wand (steam wand 8, Cingolani Fig.1) for frothing a quantity of milk for preparation of a beverage (Cingolani Pars.0022-0024 discloses the dispensing head for the steam wand for frothing a quantity of milk for preparation of beverage such as cappuccinos),
wherein the diffuser (dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.1-4) is configured to be connected to the steam wand (steam wand 8, Cingolani Fig.1) which receives steam from a steam tank and/or from a steam generator (boiler 70, Cingolani Fig.1) (Cingolani Par.0030 discloses: “Said steam wand (8) is fed with pressurized steam by a boiler (70) provided in a coffee machine.”. It is noted that the limitation “from a steam tank and/or from a steam generator” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Cingolani teaches the steam wand 8 receives steam from steam generator, i.e., boiler 70, as disclosed in Cingolani Fig.1 & Par.0030), wherein the diffuser (dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.1-4) comprises
a diffuser longitudinal axis (diffuser longitudinal axis is the axis of the axial conduit 2, see Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) and a plurality of steam outlet holes (channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Figs.2-4), each steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes (each channel of channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Figs.2-4) having steam outlet hole axis (channel 3 a has axis a, channel 3 b has axis b, channel 3 c has axis c; Cingolani Fig.4), wherein at least one of the plurality of steam outlet holes (channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Figs.2-4) has its steam outlet hole axis (axes a, b, c, of the channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c, respectively; Cingolani Fig.4) which is skew with respect to the diffuser longitudinal axis (axis of the axial conduit 2, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) (Cingolani Par.0038 discloses: “The channels (3 a, 3 b, 3 c) have axes intersecting the periphery of the cylindrical duct (2)”, and as shown in Cingolani Fig.4, thus, Cingolani discloses each of the axes of channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c is skew with respect to the axis of the axial conduit 2 because each of the axes of channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c and the axis of the axial conduit 2 are neither incident nor parallel separate nor parallel coincident, according to the definition of “skew” defined by the Instant Application [see the Instant Application on page 9 lines 4-13 describes: “According to the present invention, at least one steam outlet hole 21 has its own axis 23 which is skewed with respect to the longitudinal axis 22 of the diffuser 20. In the case of a plurality of holes 21, preferably all the holes 21 have their own axis 23 which is skewed with respect to the longitudinal axis 22 of the diffuser 20. For the purposes of the present description, it is intended that the axis 22 of the diffuser 20 and the axis 23 of an outlet hole 21 are skew when they do not lie on a common plane, i.e. they are not coplanar. In other words, the axis 22 of the diffuser 20 and the axis 23 of an outlet hole 21 are neither incident nor parallel separate nor parallel coincident.”]),
wherein the diffuser (dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.1-4) comprises a longitudinal hole (inner cavity of the conduit 2, Cingolani Figs.2-3) including a first non-threaded section (first non-threaded section, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) with a first diameter (diameter of the annotated first non-threaded section, see the annotated first non-threaded section in Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) and a cylindric bottom section (cylindric bottom section, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) (it is noted that the definition of “cylindrical” is “having straight parallel sides and a circular or oval cross-section” – according to Oxford Languages Dictionary; in this case, the cylindric bottom section as shown in Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below having straight parallel sides and circular cross-section) having a diameter (diameter of the cylindric bottom section, see the annotated cylindric bottom section in Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below), and
wherein the plurality of steam outlet holes (channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Fig.3) communicate with the longitudinal hole (inner cavity of the conduit 2, Cingolani Fig.3) at a lateral wall (lateral walls, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) of the cylindric bottom section (cylindric bottom section, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below), and
wherein an angle of inclination of the axis (axes a, b, c, of the channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c, respectively; Cingolani Fig.4) of each steam outlet hole (each of channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Fig.3) of the plurality of steam outlet holes (channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Fig.3) with respect to a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (axis of the axial conduit 2, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) of the diffuser (dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.1-4) is between 20° and 70° instead of between 25° and 40° as required by the claim (Cingolani Par.0040 teaches: “Preferably each channel (3 a, 3 b, 3 c) is sloped of an angle between 20°-70° with respect to a plane orthogonal to the axis of the axis of the axial conduit (2)”).
PNG
media_image1.png
836
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation the angle of inclination being between 25° and 40° as required by the claim,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of Cingolani from between 20° and 70° to between 25° and 40° since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP 2144.05 I. In this case, the claimed range of between 25° and 40° lies inside the range of between 20° and 70° disclosed by the prior art Cingolani, and therefore, the prior art is evidence of a prima facie case obviousness. Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Specification of the Instant Application on page 4 lines 5-10 indicating “The Applicant has identified the optimal angle as a compromise between the two needs equal to about 30°. With this angle, the triggered vortex is sufficiently powerful, and the risk of hitting the barista with the jet of steam is reduced. However, the range of angles that can be used is between 20° and 45°; according to other embodiments 25°-45°; according to other embodiments 25°-40°”, and Instant Application on page 4 lines 5-10 on page 10 lines 25-30 further indicating “According to the present invention, the inclination angle A is between 20° and 45°, measured as shown in Figures 4 and 5. According to embodiments, the inclination angle A is between 25° and 45°. According to further embodiments, the inclination angle A is between about 25° and about 40°. According to further embodiments, the inclination angle A is between about 25° and about 35°, for instance about 30°.”. Thus, according to the Specification of the Instant Application, the angle of 30° is identified as the optimal angle. However, the range of between 25° and 40° as claimed is not critical since there can be other ranges such as between 25° and 35°, or between 20° and 45° as disclosed by the Instant Application would also cover the optimal angle of 30°. Therefore, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range since Applicant does not provide criticality why the claimed range of between 25° and 40° is better than other ranges such as between 25° and 35°, or between 20° and 45°.).
Cingolani does not explicitly disclose:
the longitudinal hole of the diffuser including an upper threaded section, the diameter of the cylindric bottom section is larger than the first diameter of the first non-threaded section, and
wherein the first non-threaded section is arranged between the upper threaded section and the cylindric bottom section
Siccardi teaches a diffuser (body 1, Siccardi Figs.3-4) for a steam wand (steam delivery duct 4, Siccardi Fig.6) for frothing a quantity of milk for preparation of a beverage, comprising:
the longitudinal hole (chamber 2, Siccardi Fig.4) of the diffuser (body 1, Siccardi Figs.3-4) including an upper threaded section (open end 3, Siccardi Figs.3-4) (Siccardi Col.2 lines 35-36 teaches: “The open end 3 is at least partially internally threaded”.), and
wherein the first non-threaded section (first non-threaded section, Siccardi annotated Fig.4 below) is arranged between the upper threaded section (open end 3, Siccardi Figs.3-4) and the cylindric bottom section (cylindric bottom section, Siccardi annotated Fig.4 below) (It is noted that by adding the Siccardi open end 3 (i.e., threaded section) to the top end of the Cingolani longitudinal hole of the dispensing head 1, the threaded section is located at where the Cingolani steam wand 8 directly engages with or connects to the Cingolani dispensing head 1, see Cingolani Fig.1; and the first non-threaded section is arranged between the upper threaded section and the cylindric bottom section.)
PNG
media_image2.png
1003
1024
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cingolani, by adding upper threaded section to the longitudinal hole of the diffuser, and the first non-threaded section is arranged between the upper threaded section and the cylindric bottom section, as taught by Siccardi, in order to better secure the diffuser directly onto the end of the steam wand, thereby ensuring a tight and high-pressure seal and preventing the diffuser from shooting off due to pressure. The modification facilitates easy installation for use, and easy removal for cleaning; thus, prevents steam leaks that cause weak foam, and maintains intense steam pressure for proper milk aeration.
Cingolani in view of Siccardi does not explicitly teach:
the diameter of the cylindric bottom section is larger than the first diameter of the first non-threaded section
Mahlich teaches a diffuser (nozzle head 1, Mahlich Fig.1) for a steam wand (steam tube 2, Mahlich Fig.1) for frothing a quantity of milk for preparation of a beverage (Mahlich Col.1 lines 10-30 discloses steam outlet tube and steam nozzle for the purpose of heating liquids and for preparing milk foam for cappuccino coffee),
wherein the diffuser (nozzle head 1, Mahlich Fig.1) comprises a longitudinal hole (longitudinal hole is the interior hollow space inside of the nozzle head 1, i.e., the space where the steam tube 2 is fitted into the nozzle head 1, see Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) including a first non-threaded section (first non-threaded section, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) with a first diameter (first diameter, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) and a cylindric bottom section (cylindric bottom section, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) (it is noted that the definition of “cylindrical” is “having straight parallel sides and a circular or oval cross-section” – according to Oxford Languages Dictionary; in this case, the cylindric bottom section as shown in Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below having straight parallel sides and circular cross-section) having a diameter (second diameter, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) larger than the first diameter (first diameter, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) of the first non-threaded section (first non-threaded section, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) (Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below shows the second diameter of the cylindric bottom section is larger than diameter of any section of the rest of the longitudinal hole; in other words, Mahlich teaches the second diameter of the cylindric bottom section is largest compared to the rest of the longitudinal hole).
PNG
media_image3.png
725
810
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cingolani in view of Siccardi, by making the cylindric bottom section having the diameter larger than the first diameter of the first non-threaded section, as taught by Mahlich, in order to allow the fluid to spread out and equalize pressure before being forced through small steam outlet holes. The larger diameter cavity at the bottom would reduce turbulence inside of the diffuser and ensure more controlled jets at the outlets, this helps create fine bubbles and microfoam needed in milk frothing. Additionally, the expanded cavity at the bottom portion of the diffuser would also give a buffer space that reduces the chance of milk being sucked back into the steam wand and clogging. It would further reduce the steam’s pressure and velocity in a controlled manner, preventing a sudden and disruptive pressure drop that could lead to loud noise or damage to equipment. Therefore, the expanded cavity at the bottom portion of the diffuser would improve pressure distribution, optimize jet velocity, reduce turbulence, and enhance milk aeration; thus, improving frothing efficiency and foam texture.
Regarding claim 2, Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Cingolani also discloses
further comprising a base (second portion 6, Cingolani Figs.2-3) and wherein the plurality of steam outlet holes (channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Fig.3) opens on the base (second portion 6, Cingolani Figs.2-3) (Cingolani Par.0037 discloses: “The channels (3 a, 3 b, 3 c) have respective inlets (30 a, 30 b, 30 c) on the axial conduit (2) and respective outlets (31 a, 31 b, 31 c) on the second portion (6)”; therefore, Cingolani discloses the channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c open on the second portion 6).
Regarding claim 4, Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Cingolani also discloses
wherein all axes of the plurality of steam outlet holes (axes a, b, c, of the channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c, respectively; Cingolani Fig.4) are skew with respect to said longitudinal axis (axis of the axial conduit 2, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) of the diffuser (dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.1-4) (Cingolani Par.0038 discloses: “The channels (3 a, 3 b, 3 c) have axes intersecting the periphery of the cylindrical duct (2)”, and as shown in Cingolani Fig.4, thus, Cingolani discloses each of the axes of channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c is skew with respect to the axis of the axial conduit 2 because each of the axes of channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c and the axis of the axial conduit 2 are neither incident nor parallel separate nor parallel coincident, according to the definition of “skew” defined by the Instant Application [see the Instant Application on page 9 lines 4-13 describes: “According to the present invention, at least one steam outlet hole 21 has its own axis 23 which is skewed with respect to the longitudinal axis 22 of the diffuser 20. In the case of a plurality of holes 21, preferably all the holes 21 have their own axis 23 which is skewed with respect to the longitudinal axis 22 of the diffuser 20. For the purposes of the present description, it is intended that the axis 22 of the diffuser 20 and the axis 23 of an outlet hole 21 are skew when they do not lie on a common plane, i.e. they are not coplanar. In other words, the axis 22 of the diffuser 20 and the axis 23 of an outlet hole 21 are neither incident nor parallel separate nor parallel coincident.”]).
PNG
media_image4.png
857
968
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Cingolani also discloses
wherein the plurality of steam outlet holes (channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Fig.3) have a same cross section (as shown in Cingolani Figs.2-4).
Regarding claim 8, Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Cingolani also discloses
R represents an outer radius of the diffuser (dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.1-4) at a center of one steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes (see the 112(b) rejections for this claimed limitation in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section above; in this case, as best understood, R is being interpreted as the outer radius of the diffuser as shown in Cingolani annotated Fig.4 below, according to the definition of R in Figs.4A, 5A and 7 of the Instant Application),
B represents an arm (Cingolani annotated Fig.4 below shows B), calculated as a distance between the longitudinal axis of the diffuser (axis of the axial conduit 2, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) and a projection of the axis of said one steam outlet hole on a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (axis of the axial conduit 2, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) of the diffuser (dispensing head 1, Cingolani Fig.4) (Cingolani annotated Fig.4 below shows projection of the axis b of the channel 3b on a plane perpendicular to the axis of the axial conduit 2 of the dispensing head 1; Cingolani Fig.3),
B/R represents a ratio between the arm B and the outer radius R (Cingolani discloses the arm B and the outer radius R, as explained previously; therefore, B/R represents a ratio between the arm B and the outer radius R), and
PNG
media_image4.png
857
968
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
822
823
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Cingolani does not explicitly disclose
the B/R ratio is greater than or equal to 0.5
Regarding the limitation that the B/R ratio is greater than or equal to 0.5, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Cingolani annotated Fig.4 above where Cingolani discloses certain dimensions of B and R, and thus, B/R), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Cingolani discloses certain dimensions of B and R, and thus, B/R, and having a specific B/R ratio is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the dimensions of B and R is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying dimensions of B and R would affect the length of the steam outlet holes, and the distance from the opening of the steam outlet holes to the outer most surface of the diffuser, thus, it would affect the pressure, speed, and turbulence of the steam; therefore, affecting the frothing efficiency. A diffuser with an optimized B/R ratio would achieve high-quality microfoam needed to produce beverage; thus, the B/R ratio is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Cingolani dimensions of B and R, by making the B/R ratio to be greater than or equal to 0.5 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 10, Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Cingolani also discloses: “Likewise, the dispensing head (1) may have a different number of nozzles (or one nozzle only) with respect to the version with three nozzles that is shown in the figures” in Par.0047. However, Cingolani does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of steam outlet holes are in even number.
Mahlich teaches a diffuser (nozzle head 1, Mahlich Fig.3) for a steam wand (steam tube 2, Mahlich Fig.3):
wherein the plurality of steam outlet holes (five nozzle bores 3 and one nozzle bore 3', Mahlich Fig.3) are in even number (Mahlich Fig.3 teaches the nozzle head 1 has six nozzle bores because there are five nozzle bores 3 and an additional central nozzle bore 3' provided; Mahlich Col.2 lines 43-44 discloses: “The nozzle head 1 is provided with five nozzle bores 3 which are circumferentially uniformly distributed.” and Mahlich Col.2 lines 49-53 discloses: “In another embodiment of the invention illustrated in FIG. 3, an additional central nozzle bore 3' is provided having an axis which defines the direction of flow through the nozzle bore 3' and which is in alignment with the central steam tube axis A.”; therefore, Mahlich Embodiment Fig.3 teaches six nozzle bores. Thus, by adding an additional central nozzle bore to the Cingolani diffuser, as taught by Mahlich, in combination, Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich teaches the Cingolani diffuser would have four steam outlet holes, which is in even number)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich, by adding an additional central nozzle bore, as taught by Mahlich, in order to ensure steam is still properly ejected from the steam nozzle head in a case the beverage making machine operates with a steam generator of small power. To be more specific, by having an additional central nozzle bore having an axis which defines the direction of flow through the nozzle bore and which is in alignment with the central steam tube axis would provide advantage in case the beverage making machine operates with a steam generator of small power, as recognized by Mahlich [Mahlich Col.2 lines 49-57]. Thus, ensuring frothing efficiency and foam texture needed to produce beverage.
Regarding claim 21, Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Cingolani does not explicitly disclose
wherein the cylindric bottom section comprises a flat cylindrical inner bottom surface.
Mahlich teaches a diffuser (nozzle head 1, Mahlich Fig.1) for a steam wand (steam tube 1, Mahlich Fig.3):
wherein the cylindric bottom section (cylindric bottom section, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) comprises a flat cylindrical inner bottom surface (flat cylindrical inner bottom surface, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
725
810
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich, by making the center of the bottom of the cylindric bottom section flat, as taught by Mahlich, in order to distribute steam pressure more widely, reducing the risk of large, unstable bubbles and allowing for better control over the desired silky microfoam texture for beverage. Since a bottom with a sharp, pointy section [as shown in Cingolani Fig.3] causes a larger and more sudden pressure drop than a bottom with a gradually decreasing diameter with flat bottom surface [as shown in Malich Fig.1], thus, the bottom with gradually decreasing diameter with flat bottom surface creates a smoother and more efficient flow due to less severe pressure drop. The gradual, continuous constriction allows the steam to accelerate smoothly. This design minimizes energy loss from turbulence and results in a less severe pressure drop, which is ideal for creating a consistent vortex in the milk, thus, providing the fine, silky microfoam needed for producing beverage.
Regarding claim 22, Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Cingolani also discloses
wherein the plurality of steam outlet holes (channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Fig.3) communicate with the longitudinal hole (inner cavity of the conduit 2, Cingolani Figs.2-3) at a lateral wall (lateral wall, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) of the cylindric bottom section (cylindric bottom section, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
836
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 3, 6 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cingolani (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0299003 A1, previously cited) in view of Siccardi (U.S. Patent No. 5,233,915 A, newly cited), Mahlich (U.S. Patent No. 5,785,256 A, previously cited), and further in view of Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0230646 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, Cingolani also discloses
further comprising a base (bottom 60, Cingolani Fig.3), a side wall (side wall, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) and a curved surface (curved surface is the side wall of the second section 6, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below; it is noted that Cingolani Figs.1-3 and Cingolani Par.0033 discloses: “second section (6) with overturned truncated-conical profile”; thus, the side wall of the section 6 is curved surface) connecting the base (bottom 60, Cingolani Fig.3) and the side wall (side wall, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below), and wherein the plurality of steam outlet holes (channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Fig.3) opens at the curved surface (curved surface is the side wall of the second section 6, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) (Cingolani Par.0037 discloses: “The channels (3 a, 3 b, 3 c) have respective inlets (30 a, 30 b, 30 c) on the axial conduit (2) and respective outlets (31 a, 31 b, 31 c) on the second portion (6)”; it is noted that the curved surface shown in annotated Fig.3 below is side wall of the second section 6; therefore, Cingolani discloses the channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c open at the curved surface).
PNG
media_image7.png
796
967
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich does not teach:
wherein each of the steam outlet holes comprises a flared trailing edge at the curved surface
Kim teaches a diffuser (50, Kim Fig.2):
wherein each of the steam outlet holes (orifices 101, 102, 103, 104; Kim Fig.2) comprises a flared trailing edge (flared trailing edge at each of fillet surfaces 171, 172, 173, 174; Kim Fig.2) at the curved surface (outer surface of 50, Kim annotated Fig.2 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
1088
1165
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich, to fillet the outlet opening of each steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes at the outer surface of the diffuser body, as taught by Kim, in order to help increase the useful life of the diffuser because the fillet surfaces can be configured to help reduce the stresses imposed upon the diffuser body surfaces that define the plurality of steam outlet holes, thereby diminishing the deleterious effects caused by the passage of the steam/hot fluid through the plurality of steam outlet holes and the steam/hot fluid discharge therefrom. The advantage of the fillet surface at each outlet of holes is recognized by Kim [Kim, Par.0039].
Regarding claim 6, Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, but Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich does not teach
wherein a cross-section of the plurality of steam outlet holes is enlarged in proximity of an outer surface of the diffuser.
Kim teaches a diffuser (50, Kim Fig.2):
wherein a cross-section of the plurality of outlet holes (orifices 101, 102, 103, 104; Kim Fig.2) is enlarged (section of enlarged diameter at each of fillet surfaces 171, 172, 173, 174; Kim Fig.2) in proximity of an outer surface (outer surface, Kim annotated Fig.2 below) of the diffuser (50, Kim Fig.2) (Kim Fig.2 shows that the cross-section of the plurality of orifices 101, 102, 103, 104 is enlarged in proximity [at each of fillet surfaces 171, 172, 173, 174; Kim Fig.2] of the outer surface of the diffuser 50).
PNG
media_image8.png
1088
1165
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich, to fillet the outlet opening of each steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes at the outer surface of the diffuser body, as taught by Kim, in order to help increase the useful life of the diffuser because the fillet surfaces can be configured to help reduce the stresses imposed upon the diffuser body surfaces that define the plurality of steam outlet holes, thereby diminishing the deleterious effects caused by the passage of the steam/hot fluid through the plurality of steam outlet holes and the steam/hot fluid discharge therefrom. The advantage of the fillet surface at each outlet of holes is recognized by Kim [Kim, Par.0039].
Regarding claim 16, Cingolani discloses a diffuser (dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.1-4) for a steam wand (steam wand 8, Cingolani Fig.1) for frothing a quantity of milk for preparation of a beverage (Cingolani Pars.0022-0024 discloses the dispensing head for the steam wand for frothing a quantity of milk for preparation of beverage such as cappuccinos),
wherein the diffuser (dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.1-4) is configured to be connected to the steam wand (steam wand 8, Cingolani Fig.1) which receives steam from a steam tank and/or from a steam generator (boiler 70, Cingolani Fig.1) (Cingolani Par.0030 discloses: “Said steam wand (8) is fed with pressurized steam by a boiler (70) provided in a coffee machine.”. It is noted that the limitation “from a steam tank and/or from a steam generator” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Cingolani teaches the steam wand 8 receives steam from steam generator, i.e., boiler 70, as disclosed in Cingolani Fig.1 & Par.0030), wherein the diffuser (dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.1-4) comprises:
a diffuser body (body of the dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.1-4) comprising a longitudinal hole (inner cavity of the conduit 2, Cingolani Figs.2-3) along a longitudinal axis (axis of the axial conduit 2, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) of the diffuser body (body of the dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.1-4), wherein the longitudinal hole (inner cavity of the conduit 2, Cingolani Figs.2-3) including a first non-threaded section (first non-threaded section, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) with a first diameter (diameter of the first non-threaded section, see the annotated first non-threaded section in Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) and a cylindric bottom section (cylindric bottom section, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) (it is noted that the definition of “cylindrical” is “having straight parallel sides and a circular or oval cross-section” – according to Oxford Languages Dictionary; in this case, the cylindric bottom section as shown in Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below having straight parallel sides and circular cross-section) having a diameter (diameter of the cylindric bottom section, see the annotated cylindric bottom section in Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below);
a plurality of steam outlet holes (channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Figs.2-4) which extend from the longitudinal hole (inner cavity of the conduit 2, Cingolani Figs.2-3) to an outer surface of the diffuser body (outer surface of the body of the dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.2-3) (it is noted that the outer surface of the body of the dispensing head 1 includes the outer surface of the first section 5 and the outer surface of the second section 6, and since Cingolani Par.0037 discloses: “The channels (3 a, 3 b, 3 c) have respective inlets (30 a, 30 b, 30 c) on the axial conduit (2) and respective outlets (31 a, 31 b, 31 c) on the second portion (6)”, therefore, Cingolani discloses channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c extend from the conduit 2 to the outer surface of the body of the dispensing head 1), each steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes (each of channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Figs.2-4) having a steam outlet hole axis (axes a, b, c, of the channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c, respectively; Cingolani Fig.4),
wherein at least one of the plurality of steam outlet holes (channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Figs.2-4) has its steam outlet hole axis (axes a, b, c, of the channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c, respectively; Cingolani Fig.4) which is skew with respect to said longitudinal axis (axis of the axial conduit 2, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below) of the diffuser (dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.1-4) (Cingolani Par.0038 discloses: “The channels (3 a, 3 b, 3 c) have axes intersecting the periphery of the cylindrical duct (2)”, and as shown in Cingolani Fig.4, thus, Cingolani discloses each of the axes of channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c is skew with respect to the axis of the axial conduit 2 because each of the axes of channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c and the axis of the axial conduit 2 are neither incident nor parallel separate nor parallel coincident, according to the definition of “skew” defined by the Instant Application [see the Instant Application on page 9 lines 4-13 describes: “According to the present invention, at least one steam outlet hole 21 has its own axis 23 which is skewed with respect to the longitudinal axis 22 of the diffuser 20. In the case of a plurality of holes 21, preferably all the holes 21 have their own axis 23 which is skewed with respect to the longitudinal axis 22 of the diffuser 20. For the purposes of the present description, it is intended that the axis 22 of the diffuser 20 and the axis 23 of an outlet hole 21 are skew when they do not lie on a common plane, i.e. they are not coplanar. In other words, the axis 22 of the diffuser 20 and the axis 23 of an outlet hole 21 are neither incident nor parallel separate nor parallel coincident.”])
PNG
media_image1.png
836
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cingolani discloses the apparatus as set forth above, but does not disclose:
the longitudinal hole of the diffuser including an upper threaded section, the diameter of the cylindric bottom section is larger than the first diameter of the first non-threaded section, wherein the first non-threaded section is arranged between the upper threaded section and the cylindric bottom section; and
wherein each steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes comprises a section of constant diameter and a section of enlarged diameter at the outer surface of the diffuser body
Siccardi teaches a diffuser (body 1, Siccardi Figs.3-4) for a steam wand (steam delivery duct 4, Siccardi Fig.6) for frothing a quantity of milk for preparation of a beverage, comprising:
the longitudinal hole (chamber 2, Siccardi Fig.4) of the diffuser (body 1, Siccardi Figs.3-4) including an upper threaded section (open end 3, Siccardi Figs.3-4) (Siccardi Col.2 lines 35-36 teaches: “The open end 3 is at least partially internally threaded”.), and
wherein the first non-threaded section (first non-threaded section, Siccardi annotated Fig.4 below) is arranged between the upper threaded section (open end 3, Siccardi Figs.3-4) and the cylindric bottom section (cylindric bottom section, Siccardi annotated Fig.4 below) (It is noted that by adding the Siccardi open end 3 (i.e., threaded section) to the top end of the Cingolani longitudinal hole of the dispensing head 1, the threaded section is located at where the Cingolani steam wand 8 directly engages with or connects to the Cingolani dispensing head 1, see Cingolani Fig.1; and the first non-threaded section is arranged between the upper threaded section and the cylindric bottom section.)
PNG
media_image2.png
1003
1024
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cingolani, by adding upper threaded section to the longitudinal hole of the diffuser, and the first non-threaded section is arranged between the upper threaded section and the cylindric bottom section, as taught by Siccardi, in order to better secure the diffuser directly onto the end of the steam wand, thereby ensuring a tight and high-pressure seal and preventing the diffuser from shooting off due to pressure. The modification facilitates easy installation for use, and easy removal for cleaning; thus, prevents steam leaks that cause weak foam, and maintains intense steam pressure for proper milk aeration.
Cingolani in view of Siccardi does not explicitly teach:
the diameter of the cylindric bottom section is larger than the first diameter of the first non-threaded section, and
wherein each steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes comprises a section of constant diameter and a section of enlarged diameter at the outer surface of the diffuser body
Mahlich teaches a diffuser (nozzle head 1, Mahlich Fig.1) for a steam wand (steam tube 2, Mahlich Fig.1) for frothing a quantity of milk for preparation of a beverage (Mahlich Col.1 lines 10-30 discloses steam outlet tube and steam nozzle for the purpose of heating liquids and for preparing milk foam for cappuccino coffee),
wherein the diffuser (nozzle head 1, Mahlich Fig.1) comprises a longitudinal hole (longitudinal hole is the interior hollow space inside of the nozzle head 1, i.e., the space where the steam tube 2 is fitted into the nozzle head 1, see Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) including a first non-threaded section (first non-threaded section, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) with a first diameter (first diameter, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) and a cylindric bottom section (cylindric bottom section, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) (it is noted that the definition of “cylindrical” is “having straight parallel sides and a circular or oval cross-section” – according to Oxford Languages Dictionary; in this case, the cylindric bottom section as shown in Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below having straight parallel sides and circular cross-section) having a diameter (second diameter, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) larger than the first diameter (first diameter, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) of the first non-threaded section (first non-threaded section, Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below) (Mahlich annotated Fig.1 below shows the second diameter of the cylindric bottom section is larger than diameter of any section of the rest of the longitudinal hole; in other words, Mahlich teaches the second diameter of the cylindric bottom section is largest compared to the rest of the longitudinal hole).
PNG
media_image3.png
725
810
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cingolani in view of Siccardi, by making the cylindric bottom section having the diameter larger than the first diameter of the first non-threaded section, as taught by Mahlich, in order to allow the fluid to spread out and equalize pressure before being forced through small steam outlet holes. The larger diameter cavity at the bottom would reduce turbulence inside of the diffuser and ensure more controlled jets at the outlets, this helps create fine bubbles and microfoam needed in milk frothing. Additionally, the expanded cavity at the bottom portion of the diffuser would also give a buffer space that reduces the chance of milk being sucked back into the steam wand and clogging. It would further reduce the steam’s pressure and velocity in a controlled manner, preventing a sudden and disruptive pressure drop that could lead to loud noise or damage to equipment. Therefore, the expanded cavity at the bottom portion of the diffuser would improve pressure distribution, optimize jet velocity, reduce turbulence, and enhance milk aeration; thus, improving frothing efficiency and foam texture.
Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich does not teach:
wherein each steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes comprises a section of constant diameter and a section of enlarged diameter at the outer surface of the diffuser body
Kim teaches a diffuser (50, Kim Fig.2):
wherein each outlet hole (each of orifices 101, 102, 103, 104; Kim Fig.2) of the plurality of outlet holes (orifices 101, 102, 103, 104; Kim Fig.2) comprises a section of constant diameter (section of constant diameter of each of orifices 101, 102, 103, 104; Kim annotated Fig.2 below) and a section of enlarged diameter (section of enlarged diameter at each of fillet surfaces 171, 172, 173, 174; Kim Fig.2) at the outer surface (outer surface, Kim annotated Fig.2 below) of the diffuser body (body of 50, Kim Fig.2) (Kim Fig.2 shows that the section of enlarged diameter at each of fillet surfaces 171, 172, 173, 174 at the outer surface of the body of the nozzle 50).
PNG
media_image9.png
1228
1166
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich, to fillet the outlet opening of each steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes at the outer surface of the diffuser body, as taught by Kim, in order to help increase the useful life of the diffuser because the fillet surfaces can be configured to help reduce the stresses imposed upon the diffuser body surfaces that define the plurality of steam outlet holes, thereby diminishing the deleterious effects caused by the passage of the steam/hot fluid through the plurality of steam outlet holes and the steam/hot fluid discharge therefrom. The advantage of the fillet surface at each outlet of holes is recognized by Kim [Kim, Par.0039].
Regarding claim 17, Cingolani in view of Siccardi, Mahlich and Kim teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 16, Cingolani also discloses
wherein the plurality of steam outlet holes (channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Figs.2-4) extend from the longitudinal hole (inner cavity of the conduit 2, Cingolani Figs.2-3) to a curved surface (curved surface is the side wall of the second section 6, Cingolani annotated Fig.3 below; it is noted that Cingolani Figs.1-3 and Cingolani Par.0033 discloses: “second section (6) with overturned truncated-conical profile”; thus, the side wall of the section 6 is curved surface) near a base (bottom 60, Cingolani Figs.2-3) of the outer surface of the diffuser body (outer surface of the body of the dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.2-3) (Cingolani Par.0037 discloses: “The channels (3 a, 3 b, 3 c) have respective inlets (30 a, 30 b, 30 c) on the axial conduit (2) and respective outlets (31 a, 31 b, 31 c) on the second portion (6)”).
PNG
media_image10.png
796
967
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Cingolani in view of Siccardi, Mahlich and Kim teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 16, Cingolani also discloses
wherein the plurality of steam outlet holes (channels 3 a, 3 b, 3 c; Cingolani Figs.2-4) extend from the longitudinal hole (inner cavity of the conduit 2, Cingolani Figs.2-3) to a base (second portion 6, Cingolani Figs.2-3) of the outer surface of the diffuser body (outer surface of the body of the dispensing head 1, Cingolani Figs.2-3) (Cingolani Par.0037 discloses: “The channels (3 a, 3 b, 3 c) have respective inlets (30 a, 30 b, 30 c) on the axial conduit (2) and respective outlets (31 a, 31 b, 31 c) on the second portion (6)”).
Regarding claim 19, Cingolani in view of Siccardi, Mahlich and Kim teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 16, and also teaches:
wherein the section of enlarged diameter (section of enlarged diameter at each of fillet surfaces 171, 172, 173, 174, Kim Fig.2; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 16 above) before the exit of the at least one steam outlet hole (each of orifices 101, 102, 103, 104, Kim Fig.2; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 16 above) is configured to introduce a pressure drop to increase a Reyolds number of steam which is discharged through the at least one steam outlet hole (each of orifices 101, 102, 103, 104, Kim Fig.2; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 16 above) (it is noted that since there is a section of enlarged diameter in each of orifices 101, 102, 103, 104 as shown in Kim Fig.2, the pressure drop is introduced because of the change in the cross sectional area of the enlarged section; specifically, the cross sectional area at each of fillet surfaces 171, 172, 173, 174 increases as the fillet surfaces 171, 172, 173, 174 extend downward toward the outer surface of the diffuser 50, as shown in Kim Fig.2; therefore, this configuration of each of orifices 101, 102, 103, 104 having fillet surfaces 171, 172, 173, 174 would introduce pressure drops which causes higher Reynolds number because pressure drop increases with an increase in Reynolds number; to be more specific, higher Reynolds numbers indicate a more turbulent flow regime, which leads to greater frictional losses and thus higher pressure drops; therefore, Cingolani in view of Siccardi, Mahlich and Kim teaches the section of enlarged diameter before the exit of the at least one steam outlet hole is configured to introduce a pressure drop to increase Reyolds number of steam which is discharged through the at least one steam outlet hole).
PNG
media_image9.png
1228
1166
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, but Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich does not teach
wherein the diffuser comprises: a diffuser body wherein each steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes comprises a section of enlarged diameter at an outer surface of the diffuser body.
Kim teaches a diffuser (50, Kim Fig.2):
wherein the diffuser (50, Kim Fig.2) comprises: a diffuser body (body of 50, Kim Fig.2) wherein each steam outlet hole (each of orifices 101, 102, 103, 104; Kim Fig.2) of the plurality of steam outlet holes (orifices 101, 102, 103, 104; Kim Fig.2) comprises a section of enlarged diameter (section of enlarged diameter at each of fillet surfaces 171, 172, 173, 174; Kim Fig.2) at an outer surface (outer surface, Kim annotated Fig.2 below) of the diffuser body (body of 50, Kim Fig.2).
PNG
media_image8.png
1088
1165
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cingolani in view of Siccardi and Mahlich, to fillet the outlet opening of each steam outlet hole of the plurality of steam outlet holes at the outer surface of the diffuser body, as taught by Kim, in order to help increase the useful life of the diffuser because the fillet surfaces can be configured to help reduce the stresses imposed upon the diffuser body surfaces that define the plurality of steam outlet holes, thereby diminishing the deleterious effects caused by the passage of the steam/hot fluid through the plurality of steam outlet holes and the steam/hot fluid discharge therefrom. The advantage of the fillet surface at each outlet of holes is recognized by Kim [Kim, Par.0039].
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Angeletti (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0154648 A1) discloses a steam nozzle assembly for electric coffee machines, having an external pipe where an internal pipe is inserted, through which heated steam flows, and provided with a lower section externally protruding from the lower end of the external pipe, with a dispenser spout screwed on it.
Hsu (U.S. Patent No. 6,644,177 B1) discloses a milk foaming structure adapted to a coffee maker including a steam tube, an outer sleeve, and a leak-proof gasket.
Gugerli et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,408,495 B2) discloses a device for producing a frothed liquid comprising a chamber opened to atmosphere with a transverse bottom wall and a longitudinal upward wall, at least one diluent inlet, at least one liquid delivery outlet.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 04/28/2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights