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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/31/25.
Claims 8-9, are rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgandi (EP2036471; ids 10/12/23).
Morgandi teaches a method of operating a milk frothing device (par. 0013), the device including at least one processor (par. 0025; controller) operatively associated with one (par. 0025 ref. 32 switch) or more actuators (par. 0026; door sensor), wherein the method is performed by the at least one processor and includes the steps of:
determining a number of the actuators (par. 0025 ref. 32 switch) activated by way of contact with an underside of a vessel (par. 0025);
determining a presence or an orientation of the vessel based on the number of the activated actuators (par. 0025 ref. 32; one) and
controlling an operation mode of the milk frothing device based on the determined presence or orientation of the vessel (par. 0025 allow or prevent operation dependent on positioning).
Though silent to calculating, since the claimed method only requires one actuator and since Morgandi teaches a same actuator by way of contact with an underside of a vessel and since the actuator increases safety by preventing operation of the steam being dispensed and possibility of the user getting burnt as further taught (par. 0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to calculate, i.e. one relative the teachings of Morgandi for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of controlling an operation mode of the milk frothing device based on the determined presence or orientation of the vessel as taught by Morgandi (par. 0025 allow or prevent operation dependent on positioning).
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgandi (EP2036471) in view of Preston et al. (WO2012151629).
Morgandi teaches a method of operating a milk frothing device (par. 0013), the device including at least one processor (par. 0025; controller) operatively associated with one (par. 0025 ref. 32 switch) or more actuators for automatic preparation and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of automatic and repeatable froth preparation as desired by Morgandi (par. 0009) and taught by Preston.
More specifically, Preston teaches an automated device for producing milk froth in drinks comprising a microswitch for providing the control system with signals for controlling the steam of the frothing device (pg. 23 lines 4-5, 20-21).
With respect to claim 2, since Morgandi teaches controlling specific to preset cycles (par. 0019) which interrupts dispensing of the steam when optimal frothing of the milk under the action of steam is achieved (par. 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further provide with respect to the operation mode of the milk frothing device of Morgandi (par. 0019), an auto temperature mode and an auto time-out mode as taught by Preston (25 lines 7-8) for its art recognized purpose of automated frothing as determined by a desired froth texture (pg. 26 lines 6-10) as taught by Preston and the art recognized advantage of Morgandi of preparing milk froth in an automatic and repeatable manner without requiring particular skills on the part of the user due to interrupting dispensing of the steam when optimal frothing of the milk under the action of steam is achieved (par. 0019).
With respect to claim 3, Morgandi teaches the device enters the auto mode when two or more of the actuators are activated (par. 0026; additional sensor), and the method further includes the step of displaying, on a user interface of the device, an indication of the device (par. 0019 signal).
Since both teach sensors for actuating steam delivery and since the actuator increases safety by preventing operation of the steam being dispensed and possibility of the user getting burnt as further taught by Morgandi (par. 0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further provide with respect to the operation mode of the milk frothing device of Morgandi (par. 0019), an auto temperature mode as taught by Preston (25 lines 7-8) when two or more actuators are activated, for its art recognized purpose of automated frothing as determined by a desired froth texture (pg. 26 lines 6-10) as taught by Preston and the art recognized advantage of Morgandi of preparing milk froth in an automatic and repeatable manner without requiring particular skills on the part of the user due to interrupting dispensing of the steam when optimal frothing of the milk under the action of steam is achieved (par. 0019).
Since both teach providing the user with operation signals (par. 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further provide the user interface for displaying information specific to operation to the user as taught by Preston (pg. 24 line 33-pg. 25 lines 1-3) such as in the instant case mode information, for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of providing frothing operation information to a user as desired by both and indication to the user visually as taught by Preston (pg. 25 lines 26-27).
Claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further provide selecting one or more parameters relating to steam and air profiles and enabling a steaming operation of the device based on the one or more parameters selected as taught by Preston (pg. 26 lines 5-10) with respect to the operation mode of the milk frothing device of Morgandi (par. 0019). For its art recognized purpose of automated frothing as determined by a desired froth texture (pg. 26 lines 6-10) since rate of air flow is a controlling factor of froth texture which is more “airy” or more dense as taught by Preston (pg. 26 lines 6-10)
Claim 5, since both teach a same steam wand. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further include a step of detecting an absence or a presence of back-pressure in a steam wand of the device as taught by Preston (pg. 24 lines 8-10) since such is an indication of potential damage and achieving the art recognized advantage of preventing damage and enabling the controller to stop steam function and alert a user of the problem (pg. 26 lines 14-18).
Claim 6, since both teach a same steam wand. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further disable operation based on a detected presence of back-pressure, and wherein the method further includes the step of displaying, on the user interface of the device, an indication that the steam wand is blocked as taught by Preston and achieving the art recognized advantage of preventing damage and enabling the controller to stop steam function and alert a user of the problem (pg. 26 lines 14-18).
Claim 7, since Preston teaches detection of the steam wand being partially or fully blocked. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to continue steaming operation based on a detected absence of back-pressure, i.e. no blockage, and the steaming operation continues until a safety time-out limit is reached, such as in the instant case of a partial or full blockage as taught and disabling the steaming operation upon the safety time-out limit being reached such as in the instant of a fully blocked and enable the controller to stop steam function and alert the user (pg. 26 lines 14-19).
With respect to claim 8, Morgandi teaches disabling the steaming operation of the device when a target temperature is reached (par. 0019).
Claim 9, Morgandi teaches, an indication that the device has completed the steaming operation (pg. 0019 signal to user). Since both teach providing the user with operation signals (par. 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further provide the user interface for displaying information specific to operation to the user as taught by Preston (pg. 24 line 33-pg. 25 lines 1-3) such as in the instant case completion of a steaming operation, for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of providing frothing operation information to a user as desired by both and indication to the user visually as taught by Preston (pg. 25 lines 26-27).
Claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further provide the user interface for displaying information specific to operation to the user as taught by Preston (pg. 24 line 33-pg. 25 lines 1-3) such as in the instant case an auto time out mode, for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of providing frothing operation information to a user as desired by both and indication to the user visually as taught by Preston (pg. 25 lines 26-27).
Claim 11, since Morgandi teaches controlling specific to preset cycles (par. 0019) which interrupts dispensing of the steam when optimal frothing of the milk under the action of steam is achieved (par. 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further provide with respect to the operation mode of the milk frothing device of Morgandi (par. 0019), enabling a countdown to determine a duration of a steaming operation of the device as taught by Preston (25 lines 7-8), enabling the steaming operation of the device and running a stored profile of steam and/or air characteristics of a steam wand of the device (pg. 26 lines 5-10), wherein the countdown is based on one or more parameters including temperature and time remaining (pg. 25 lines 7-8) as further taught by Preston. For its art recognized purpose of automated frothing as determined by a desired froth texture (pg. 26 lines 6-10) as taught by Preston and the art recognized advantage of Morgandi of preparing milk froth in an automatic and repeatable manner without requiring particular skills on the part of the user due to interrupting dispensing of the steam when optimal frothing of the milk under the action of steam is achieved (par. 0019).
Claim 12, since both teach a same steam wand. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further include a step of detecting an absence or a presence of back-pressure in a steam wand of the device as taught by Preston (pg. 24 lines 8-10) since such is an indication of potential damage and achieving the art recognized advantage of preventing damage and enabling the controller to stop steam function and alert a user of the problem (pg. 26 lines 14-18).
Claim 13, since both teach a same steam wand. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further disable operation based on a detected presence of back-pressure, and wherein the method further includes the step of displaying, on the user interface of the device, an indication that the steam wand is blocked as taught by Preston and achieving the art recognized advantage of preventing damage and enabling the controller to stop steam function and alert a user of the problem (pg. 26 lines 14-18).
Claim 14, since Preston teaches detection of the steam wand being partially or fully blocked. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to continue steaming operation based on a detected absence of back-pressure, i.e. no blockage, and the steaming operation continues until a safety time-out limit is reached, such as in the instant case of a partial or full blockage as taught and disabling the steaming operation upon the safety time-out limit being reached such as in the instant of a fully blocked and enable the controller to stop steam function and alert the user (pg. 26 lines 14-19).
Claim 15, Morgandi teaches, an indication that the device has completed the steaming operation (pg. 0019 signal to user). Since both teach providing the user with operation signals (par. 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further provide the user interface for displaying information specific to operation to the user as taught by Preston (pg. 24 line 33-pg. 25 lines 1-3) such as in the instant case completion of a steaming operation, for its art recognized and applicants intended purpose of providing frothing operation information to a user as desired by both and indication to the user visually as taught by Preston (pg. 25 lines 26-27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792