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
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/28/2026 has been entered.
The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 8, and 19 are amended.
Claims 4-7 and 20 are as previously presented
Claims 2-3 are canceled.
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/28/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The bias element in claims 2 and 19, with the purpose being to bias the steam wand in a direction towards the home position, which is defined in the specification as a torsion spring (1007, [0046]).
The engaging feature of claim 20, with the purpose being to operatively associate pivoting movement of the steam want with the dampener, which is defined in the specification as the gear teeth (1101) of the gear section ([0047]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are 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. The claims are dependent on a canceled claim and there is no claim two or claim 3 for the claims to refer to. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner will treat the claims as if they depended on claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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, 4-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia et al. (US Publication 2016/0235243) hereafter referred to as Grassia, in view of Salice (US Publication 2005/0071954).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-6, Grassia teaches a milk frothing apparatus for use in an espresso making machine having a steam wand (Grassia [0001]; Figures 19A & B; 1910) where the steam wand rotates around an axis (Figure 19A, 1920) and is biased via a torsion spring (Figure 19A, 1926) which biases the steam wand to a lower configuration ([0218]), a pair of gears (Figure 19A, 1922 and 1924) of which one (1924) is an arcuate gear that is pivots in unison or co-rotates with the steam wand around the pivot axis, and the other (1922) is a pinion gear paired to the arcuate gear.
Grassia does not teach a damping assembly to resist pivotable motion of the steam wand about the pivot axis.
Salice teaches a rotary damper (Salice [0025]) which dampens the closure movements of doors to prevent a push effect when they abut or slam against the end stops in the closed position when rotated (Salice [0002]).
Given that the steam wand of Grassia rotates, and rotary dampers reduce the speed of rotation to prevent slamming, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Grassia to include the rotary damper of Salice in order to reduce the speed of rotation of the steam wand and prevent the steam wand slamming into the base.
The combination of Grassia and Salice does not teach the location of the rotary damper. As the rotary damper of Salice must rotate around an axis of rotation in order to properly function and there are two axes of rotation in the device of Grassia, one for each gear (1922 and 1924), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and locate the rotary damper of Salice on either one of the gears to achieve the predictable results of allowing the damping of the movement of the steam wand.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Grassia teaches a switch (Figure 19A, 1928) that is actuated when the steam wand is pivoted into a specified position (Figure 19A).
Regarding claim 19, Grassia teaches a milk frothing apparatus (Figure 19A, 1900) for making frothed milk, comprising a main body (1900), a steam wand (1910) pivotably moveable relative the main body ([0218]), a torsion spring (1926) to bias the steam wand to a lower position ([0218]), a pair of gears (Figure 19A, 1922 and 1924) of which one (1924) is an arcuate gear that is pivots in unison or co-rotates with the steam wand around the pivot axis, and the other (1922) is a pinion gear paired to the arcuate gear.
Grassia however does not teach a dampener.
Salice teaches a rotary damper (Figure 1) which dampens the closure movements of doors to prevent a push effect when they abut or slam against the end stops in the closed position (Salice [0002]).
Given that the steam wand of Grassia rotates, and rotary dampers reduce the speed of rotation, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Grassia to include the rotary damper of Salice in order to reduce the speed of rotation of the steam wand and prevent the steam wand slamming into the base.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Volonte et al. (US Publication 2012/0073449) hereafter referred to as Volonte.
The modified device of Grassia teaches all of the limitations of claim 19, an engaging feature to operatively associate pivoting movement of the steam wand with the dampener (Grassia 1922 and 1924) but does not teach a pivoting bracket.
Volonte teaches a milk frothing wand which contains a bracket (Volonte 6 and 7) which mounts the steam wand (2) to the main body (4) and has a shaft (5) that allows for rotation around the shaft defining an axis of rotation.
It is known in the art of joints and connections that there are two predicable methods to attach an axle to a housing which are either utilizing a bracket or a direct connection to a wall surface and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try either available method of attaching the axle, via a bracket or directly to the housing, to achieve the predictable result of allowing pivoting of the steam wand and the associated movement of the damper.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Salice 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, dampers for doors to reduce the speed of the door are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of dampening assemblies for steam wands to reduce rotationally velocity to prevent slamming and breaking.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., damping over the whole rotation of the meshed gear assembly) are not recited in the rejected claim and a dampener that works on only a portion of the rotation still acts on the rotation of a meshed gear assembly. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the motivation to combine Salice and Grassia is already taught by Grassia alone, Grassia does not teach preventing the steam wand from slamming into the base.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination would render the drive gear inoperable for its intended purpose, applicant has given reasoning as to why the damper would make the device less effective, but not why it would make the device inoperable as such the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ariaka (US Publication 2004/0035652) teaches a rotary damper with a gear built in to the design. However, it teaches the use of raising and lowering an ashtray rather than the rotational resistance required for the rotary damper.
Albert et al. (US Patent 5372061) teaches a pivoting steam wand, but does not teach the use of the arcuate and pinion gears.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward F Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights