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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of species B , relating to figures 10-12 and Subspecies Y relating to figures 20 and 21, in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. In species B, subspecies Y, the steam wand and the engagement element pivot around the pivoting bracket. However, claim 9 requires the steam wand, pivoting bracket and engagement element to be configured to pivot in unison . Therefore, the claims are withdrawn from Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/26/2026 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The reference numbers directed to structural elements must be on the actual structural elements. Therefore, the reference numbers 122 and 120 must be connected to the actual location of the steam wand and not just the movement location of the steam wand. 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 Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “the” in front of the “first gear” is missing. Appropriate correction is required. 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 damp en ing assembly of claim 1, with the purpose being to resist pivotable motion of the steam wand, which is defined in the specification as a rotary dampener (1103) that moderates the velocity of the wand ([0047]) . It is defined in claim 3 and no longer invokes 112(f) for the dampening assembly. The bias element in claim 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 wand with the dampener, which is defined in the specification as the gear teeth (1101) of the gear section ([0047]) . Because these claim limitations 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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. Claim s 1 - 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassia et al. (US Publication 20160235243) hereafter referred to as Grassia , in view of Salice (US Publication 20050071954 ) . Regarding claim 1, 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 spring (1926; paragraph 218) . 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 . Regarding claim s 2 and 6 , Grassia teaches the torsion spring (Figure 19A, 1926) which biases the steam wand to a lower configuration ([0218]). Regarding claims 3-5 , Grassia teaches 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 . 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 that 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]), 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 20120073449) hereafter referred to as Volonte . The modified device of Grassia teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 , an engaging feature to operatively ass ociate 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 o ne of ordinary skill in the art to try e ither available method of attach ing 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 . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ariaka (US Publication 20040035652) 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5610 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Edward F Landrum can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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