Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The claim to priority filled on 12/18/2022 acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2022 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1. 97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because in FIG. 2, the numerical 9 pointed at an empty location; in FIG. 3, the arrow pointed at the top with no reference numerical number; in FIG. 6, the numerical 14 pointed at an empty location; because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: element 19 found in FIG. 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, under claim 1, the “a cup”; under claim 4, the “minimal passage area”; under claim 7, the “a thermal insulation”; under claim 8, the “a smaller minimal passage area”; under claim 9, the “a second valve”; under claim 9, the “a smaller area”; under claim 10, the “a cup” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Under [0033] contains the information “the milk emulsion 9”; [0034], contains the information “the external dispenser 9”. Numerical 9 been rejected because it been used to identify different items in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites the limitation “between 0.5 and 2 atm” in last line. Suggest changing “between 0.5 and 2 atm” to “between 0.5 atm and 2 atm” to obviate this objection. 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “stem” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the relation between this “stem” and stem mentioned in line 3 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the milk” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “milk” in line 8 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the relation between this “milk” and milk mentioned in line 6 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “stem” in line 8 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the relation between this “stem” and stem mentioned in line 3 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Venturi effect” in lines 9 and 10 respectively renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between these “Venturi effect” and Venturi effect mentioned in line 6 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the steam dispensing opening” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “milk emulsion” in line 17 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “milk emulsion” and milk emulsion mentioned in line 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “milk emulsion” in line 1 and 2 respectively renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between these “milk emulsion” and milk emulsion mentioned in claim 1 line 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a milk emulsion” in line 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “a milk emulsion” and a milk emulsion mentioned in claim 1 line 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “said container” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “milk” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “milk” and milk mentioned in claim 1 line 6 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “stem” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “stem” and stem mentioned in line 2 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the milk” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “milk” in line 8 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “milk” and milk mentioned in line 6 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “stem” in line 8 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “stem” and stem mentioned in line 2 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “Venturi effect” in lines 8 and 10 respectively renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between these “Venturi effect” and Venturi effect mentioned in line 6 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the milk emulsion” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the steam dispensing opening” in line 13 and 15 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “said minimal passage area” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the dispensing opening area” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the outlet opening area” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a steam flow” in line 23 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “a steam flow” and a steam flow mentioned in line 5 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a milk aspirating channel” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “a milk aspirating channel” and a milk aspirating channel mentioned in claim 4 line 8 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a smaller minimal passage area” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite. Without mentioned any minimal passage area first, it is unclear where this “a smaller minimal passage area” came from? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “an air inlet opening” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “an air inlet opening” and an air inlet opening mentioned in claim 4 line 20 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a smaller area” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite. Without mentioned any area first, it is unclear where this “a smaller area” came from? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the external milk emulsion dispenser” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The rest of the claims are also been rejected because each claim depends on a rejected claim.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIUSEPPE et al. (EP 3 162 357 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 4, GIUSEPPE et al. disclose a coffee machine comprising a water tank (Clearly, the machine need a water tank, so that water feed pump 32 can pump the water, [0028], Fig 1a), a boiler for the production of steam (a boiler 33, [0028], Fig 1a), a water supply pump (water feed pump 32, [0028], Fig 1a) for supplying dispenser, an external steam dispenser having a dispensing opening dispensing a steam flow (a milk dispensing channel 10, [0031], Fig 1a), a milk container (milk container 2, [0031], Fig 1a) having an emulsifying device emulsifying the milk by Venturi effect generated by the steam flow (comprises a milk emulsifying device, [0031]), said emulsifying device having a mixing chamber mixing milk/steam/air (creating a Venturi effect into the mixing chamber 5, [0035]), a milk aspirating channel by Venturi effect having an inlet opening into the mixing chamber (a channel 6 for the intake of milk into the mixing chamber 5, [0031], Fig 3), an air aspirating channel by Venturi effect (channel 7 for the intake of air into the mixing chamber 5, [0031], Fig 3) having valve and an inlet opening into the mixing chamber (a proportional valve 11, [0037], see Fig 3), said mixing chamber having a sealed removable connection opening (a channel 8 for the intake of steam into the mixing chamber 5, removably connected to a steam delivery device 9 of the coffee machine 1, [0031], Fig 3) with the external steam dispenser (see Fig 3) and an outlet opening of the milk emulsion aligned to the steam dispensing opening and connected to an external dispenser of the milk emulsion (a milk emulsifying device having a connection fitting to the steam delivery device of the coffee machine, [0003]; connection fitting to the steam delivery device of the coffee machine, and a milk dispensing channel, [0004]; an external dispenser connected to 10, [0031], see Fig 3), wherein the outlet opening of the milk emulsion is larger than the steam dispensing opening for the activation of the Venturi effect (see Fig 3),
GIUSEPPE et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: wherein said minimal passage area of said milk aspirating channel has a diameter not less than 5 mm, the dispensing opening area of the external steam dispenser has a diameter comprised between 0.5 mm and 2 mm, the outlet opening area has a diameter comprised between 2 mm and 5 mm, an air inlet opening in the air aspirating channel adjustable by said valve has, in a maximum opening configuration, a diameter comprised between 0.3 mm and 2 mm, and said external steam dispenser is configured to dispense a steam flow comprised between 0.8 g/s and 1.2 g/s at a steam temperature comprised between 110 °C and 130 °C and at a steam pressure comprised between 0.5 and 2 atm; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange said minimal passage area of said milk aspirating channel has a diameter not less than 5 mm, the dispensing opening area of the external steam dispenser has a diameter comprised between 0.5 mm and 2 mm, the outlet opening area has a diameter comprised between 2 mm and 5 mm, an air inlet opening in the air aspirating channel adjustable by said valve has, in a maximum opening configuration, a diameter comprised between 0.3 mm and 2 mm, and said external steam dispenser is configured to dispense a steam flow comprised between 0.8 g/s and 1.2 g/s at a steam temperature comprised between 110 °C and 130 °C and at a steam pressure comprised between 0.5 and 2 atm, since such configurations would have involved a mere change in the diameter of a component, and set a steam flow comprised between 0.8 g/s and 1.2 g/s at a steam temperature comprised between 110 °C and 130 °C and at a steam pressure comprised between 0.5 and 2 atm; these kind of arrangement is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also, applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see details in Spec. [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GIUSEPPE et al. with further teaching of wherein said minimal passage area of said milk aspirating channel has a diameter not less than 5 mm, the dispensing opening area of the external steam dispenser has a diameter comprised between 0.5 mm and 2 mm, the outlet opening area has a diameter comprised between 2 mm and 5 mm, an air inlet opening in the air aspirating channel adjustable by said valve has, in a maximum opening configuration, a diameter comprised between 0.3 mm and 2 mm, and said external steam dispenser is configured to dispense a steam flow comprised between 0.8 g/s and 1.2 g/s at a steam temperature comprised between 110 °C and 130 °C and at a steam pressure comprised between 0.5 and 2 atm; because GIUSEPPE et al. teach, in Para. [0010] of providing an excellent coffee machine that allows an accurate control of the production process of the beverage during processing.
Regarding Claims 5-6 and 8-9, GIUSEPPE et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 5-6 and 8-9; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange Claim 5, wherein said minimal passage area of said milk aspirating channel has a diameter comprised between 5 mm and 10 mm; Claim 6, wherein the dispensing opening area of the externa steam dispenser has a diameter comprised between 0.5 mm and 1 mm, and the outlet opening area has a diameter comprised between 2 mm and 2.5 mm; Claim 8, wherein said milk aspirating channel is interchangeable with a milk aspirating channel having a smaller minimal passage area; Claim 9, wherein said valve is interchangeable with a second valve which provide an air inlet opening in the air aspirating channel having, in a maximum opening configuration, a smaller area; since such configurations would have involved a mere change in the diameter/ passage area/ opening area of components; this kind of arrangement is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also, applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see details in Spec. [0020, 0021, 0054, 0056 and 0061]).
Regarding Claim 10, GIUSEPPE et al. disclose wherein a cup resting surface (see a cup resting surface in Fig 1a) is provided, wherein the external coffee dispenser is configured and arranged for direct dispensing into a cup positioned on the cup resting surface (12 is configured and arranged for direct dispensing into a cup positioned on the cup resting surface, Fig 1a), wherein the external milk emulsion dispenser is configured and arranged to directly dispense into said cup (see Figs 1a-3).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIUSEPPE et al. (EP 3 162 357 A1) in view of Balkau (US 2017/0303732 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, GIUSEPPE et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claim 7;
Balkau teaches a milk container (milk container 3, [0069], Fig 1), and Claim 7, wherein said milk container (“said milk container” taught by GIUSEPPE et al. already) has a thermal insulation (milk container 3 is designed in a doubled walled manner in the represented embodiment, for thermal insulation purposes, [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify GIUSEPPE et al. with Balkau’s further teaching of Claim 7; because Balkau teaches, in Para. [0001] of providing an excellent appliance for producing milk froth and milk drinks, to a drinks preparation system as well as to a drinks preparation machine during operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Independent Claim 1, GIUSEPPE et al. (EP 3 162 357 A1) disclose a dispensing method dispensing a milk emulsion into a cup with a coffee machine (see Title, Abstract and Fig 1a) comprising a water tank (Clearly, the machine need a water tank, so that water feed pump 32 can pump the water, [0028], Fig 1a), a boiler for the production of steam (a boiler 33, [0028], Fig 1a), a water supply pump for supplying water to the boiler for generation of steam (water feed pump 32, [0028], Fig 1a), an external coffee dispenser (coffee dispenser 12, [0028], Fig 1a), an external steam dispenser having a dispensing opening for dispensing a steam flow (a milk dispensing channel 10, [0031], Fig 1a), a milk container (milk container 2, [0031], Fig 1a) having an emulsifying device for emulsifying the milk by Venturi effect generated by the steam flow (comprises a milk emulsifying device, [0031]), said emulsifying device having a mixing chamber for mixing milk/steam/air (creating a Venturi effect into the mixing chamber 5, [0035]), a milk aspirating channel by Venturi effect having an inlet opening into the mixing chamber (a channel 6 for the intake of milk into the mixing chamber 5, [0031], Fig 3), an air aspirating channel by Venturi effect (channel 7 for the intake of air into the mixing chamber 5, [0031], Fig 3) having; a valve and an inlet opening into the mixing chamber (a proportional valve 11, [0037], see Fig 3), said mixing chamber having a sealed removable connection opening (a channel 8 for the intake of steam into the mixing chamber 5, removably connected to a steam delivery device 9 of the coffee machine 1, [0031], Fig 3) with the external steam dispenser (see Fig 3) and an outlet opening of the milk emulsion aligned to the steam dispensing opening and connected to an external dispenser of the milk emulsion (a milk emulsifying device having a connection fitting to the steam delivery device of the coffee machine, [0003]; connection fitting to the steam delivery device of the coffee machine, and a milk dispensing channel, [0004]; an external dispenser connected to 10, [0031], see Fig 3), wherein the outlet opening of the milk emulsion is larger than the steam dispensing opening for the activation of the Venturi effect (see Fig 3);
However, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, or fairly suggest or render obvious “comprising the step of dispensing a flow of milk emulsion having a value comprised between 10 g/s and 15 g/s at a temperature no more than 25°C higher than the temperature of the milk present in the milk container by a reduced thermal energy contribution of the steam used to milk aspiration corresponding to a weight of condensed steam in the milk emulsion between 2% and 8% greater than the weight of the milk aspirated from the milk container”. Furthermore, there is no motivation found to modify the prior art to obtain the claimed limitations.
As such, claim 1 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action shown above. With respect to Claims 2-3; their dependency on Claim 1 makes them allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761