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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 2-3 and 12-13 have labels and leading lines that are hard to read. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 12-14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “wherein each milk vessel valve being connectable to a respective one of the milk vessels.” This should be -- wherein each milk vessel valve is connectable to a respective one of the milk vessels--.
Claim 12 recites “an outlet fluidly connected to a manifold.” This should be –an outlet fluidly connected to the manifold--.
Claim 13 recites “configured to operate the controllable milk line cleaning source.” This should be -- configured to operate the controllable milk line cleaning water source--.
Claim 14 recites “the outlet that dispensers milk into a container.” This should be -- the outlet that dispenses milk into a container--.
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 14-17 and 20 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.
Claims 14-17 recites the limitation “a first at least one clean line sensor” or “a second at least one clean line sensor.” This recitation is confusing because “first” or “second” indicates a single element while “at least one” indicates that it may have one or more elements. It is suggested that the limitation be changed to –at least one clean line sensor, wherein a first clean line sensor…--.
Claim 20 recites “the one or more container sensors” which lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if “one or more container sensors” is referring to “the container sensors” or another set of container sensors which may be singular.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 18-19 are allowable.
Claims 14-17 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose having two flow meters measuring the milk volume per unit of time wherein the first flow meter is upstream of the aeration assembly and the second flow meter is downstream of the aeration assembly, and the controller takes into account the first milk volume per unit of time and second milk volume per unit of time when operating the aeration assembly.
Toriumi (US 20210186257 A1) discloses a milk pump wherein the milk flow meter 13 is positioned upstream where the air and milk is mixed (L3, par. 63, Fig. 2). However, Toriumi does not disclose a flow meter downstream of the location where the air and milk is mixed.
Diester (US 20210321817 A1) discloses a milk foam device wherein the measuring unit 12 is downstream of the air/milk mixing chamber 23 (par. 64, Fig. 1), wherein the measuring unit can measure the temperature or refractive index (par. 71). Diester does not disclose that the measuring unit is a flow meter measuring the volume per unit of time of the fluid nor does he disclose a flow meter upstream of the mixing chamber.
Mueller (US 20210059466 A1) discloses a beverage machine with a milk frother wherein a first flow meter 2 measures the volume of milk conveyed by the milk pump before it is frothed (Fig. 1, par. 36) and a second flow meter 16 for the water line which is also upstream of the location where the milk is frothed. The second flow meter is not used to measuring the volume per unit time of the milk downstream of the milk pump where the milk is frothed.
The prior art of record does not disclose having a flow meter before and after the aeration assembly, measuring the volume per unit time of the milk, and controlling the aeration assembly based on the measured first and second volume per unit time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights