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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/27/2023, 05/02/2023, and 06/12/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the terms “an exchangeable product container” in line 4 and “a product container” in line 5 are not definite. In this case, it is unclear whether the product container is the same or different with the exchangeable product container. For examination purposes, the product container is construed as the same as the exchangeable product container. Claims 3-20 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the angle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the representative transversal area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this case, “the representative transversal area” is previously claimed in claim 16, but claim 17 is being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the at least two microfiltration walls”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this case, “the at least two microfiltration walls” is previously claimed in claim 19, but claim 20 is being dependent upon claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Botman (US 20170273500 A1).
Regarding independent claim 2, Botman discloses, a foamed product dispensing system (see system for preparing a liquid product in Fig. 3), wherein the angle is in the range of 80 to 110 degrees (see angle is 90 degrees as annotated in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
567
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 6810795 B1) in view of Quaratesi (EP 3066964 A1 and see the PDF attached).
PNG
media_image2.png
719
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 21, Hsu discloses, a product container for a foamable product (see a coffee maker with milk foam delivery pipe 4 in Fig. 2), comprising a product processing unit (CPU) (see annotated Fig. 3) with a frothing device (see mixing joint 3 in Fig. 3) having a product entrance (see product entrance annotated in Fig. 3) for receiving product (see milk delivery pipe 2 in Fig. 3) and a product exit (see mixture outlet 31 in Fig. 3) for discharging product (see Fig. 3), wherein the CPU is connectable to a gas supply (see steam delivery pipe 1 in Fig. 3) for supplying gas to the product (see Fig. 3), wherein the product processing unit CPU comprises a processing device (see milk foam delivery pipe 4 in Fig. 3) arranged downstream of the frothing device (see Fig. 3) and configured for performing a mixing treatment and/or pressure reduction treatment of the product provided with gas (disclosed in Col. 2 lines 34-42 “the mixture of milk foam and steam at lower pressure is not well mixed at the time the mixture is just leaving the mixture outlet (31) of the mixing joint (3) to enter into the milk foam delivery pipe (4); however the mixture becomes well-mixed and delicate milk foams after the repeated mixing through the first curving section (41) and the second curving section (42) of the milk foam delivery pipe (4) before being delivered through the milk foam outlet (43)”), wherein the processing device (4) comprises an undulating fluid path (see Fig. 3) for the product provided with gas (see Fig. 3), wherein the undulating fluid path alternatingly comprises first (see annotated Fig. 3) and second (see curve sections 41 and 42 in Fig. 3) path sections, wherein the first path sections (see annotated first path sections in Fig. 3) are substantially straight and extend substantially parallel to each other (see annotated Fig. 3), wherein the second path sections (see curve sections 41 and 42) each extend at an angle to a direction in which the first path sections extend (see Fig. 3), the angle being in the range of desired degrees (see annotated angle in Fig. 3), wherein: the undulating fluid path has a substantially uniform transversal representative width (see Fig. 3).
However, Hsu does not explicitly disclose,
the angle being in the range of 45 to 135 degrees,
the undulating fluid path has a length of at least 30 cm; and/or
the undulating fluid path has a substantially uniform transversal representative width in the range of 2.8 to 3.2 mm; and/or
the first path sections have a total length that is at least two times larger than the total length of the second path sections.
Quaratesi teaches, a milk foam dispensing device (see outlet line 8 in Fig. 1) comprises the undulating fluid path (see outlet line 8 second longitudinal line section 18 in Fig. 1) has a length of at least 30 cm (disclosed in the specification “The second longitudinal line section 18 has a second length that preferably ranges from 200 mm to 600 mm, more preferably from 300 mm to 500 mm”, wherein 200-600 mm=20-60cm and 300-500mm=30-50cm); and/or the undulating fluid path has a substantially uniform transversal representative width in the range of 2.8 to 3.2 mm (disclosed in the specification “the second diameter ranges from 2.00 mm to 3.00 mm, more preferably from 2.25 mm to 2.75 mm”).
Since the claimed range of the undulating fluid path has a length of at least 30 cm lies inside ranges disclosed in Quaratesi and the claimed range of the undulating fluid path has a substantially uniform transversal representative width in the range of 2.8 to 3.2 mm overlaps ranges disclosed in Quaratesi, a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the undulating fluid path of Hsu, wherein the undulating fluid path has a length of at least 30 cm; and/or the undulating fluid path has a substantially uniform transversal representative width in the range of 2.8 to 3.2 mm as taught/suggested by Quaratesi in order to slow down the flow rate of the fluid flows within the undulating fluid path so as obtaining a milk foam with high consistency and quality (see the specification of Quaratesi “The greater the length of the outlet line the more the flow rate of the fluid therethrough is slowed down. The Applicant has found that the lengths of the first and second longitudinal line sections 16, 18 are advantageously selected considering the flow rate of the milk-air mixture in the outlet line sections and hence the rotation speed of the pump, such that the hot frothed milk may be dispensed at one or more desired temperatures. Furthermore, once a flow cross section has been selected, the length of the first line section is selected to obtain a cold milk or hot milk foam of high consistency and quality”).
Furthermore, the annotated angle as seen in Fig. 3 is about 45 degrees such that the annotated angle as seen in Fig. 3 is about 45 degrees of Qaratesi lies within the claimed ranges 45 to 135 degrees, a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 1, 3-5, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botman (US 20170273500 A1) in view Hsu (US 6810795 B1) and in further view of Quaratesi (EP 3066964 A1 and see the PDF attached).
Regarding independent claim 1, Botman discloses, a foamed product dispensing system (see system for preparing a liquid product in Fig. 3), wherein the system comprises:
(a) a product dispensing machine (see product preparation apparatus 36 in Fig. 3), configured to receive an exchangeable product container (see disposable assembly 1 in Fig. 3 and Fig. 2A);
(b) a product container (1) configured to contain a foamable product (see milk based concentrate 3 in Fig. 2A and in Fig. 3) and to cooperate with the product dispensing machine (see Fig. 3), after placement in the machine (see Fig. 3),
wherein the product container (1) is provided with a product processing unit (CPU) (see Fig. 2A and Fig. 3) comprising a frothing device (see eductor 4 in Fig. 2A and Fig. 3) having a product entrance (see milk based concentrate inlet 7 in Fig. 2A) for receiving product (see Fig. 2A and Fig. 3) and a product exit (see liquid product outlet 8 in Fig. 2A) for discharging product (see Fig. 2A and Fig. 3),
wherein the CPU is connectable to a gas supply (see source of air 42 in Fig. 3) for supplying gas to the product (see Fig. 3 and disclosed in para 0055 and para 0057 “The air inlet tube 23 of the disposable assembly 1 is configured for connection to an external source of air via an air line 44 in which an air compressor 46 is incorporated […] the source of air 42 the air line 44 runs through the product preparation apparatus 36 and is configured for detachable connection to the air inlet tube 23 of the disposable assembly 1 for supplying air to the air inlet tube 23 of the microfiltration device 19 of the disposable assembly 1”), wherein the CPU comprises a dispensing outlet (see liquid product outlet tube 25 in Fig. 2A and Fig. 3) arranged downstream of the frothing device (see eductor 4 is located above outlet tube 25 in Fig. 2A and Fig. 3) and is configured for dispensing a mixing treatment of the product provided with gas (see Fig. 4 and disclosed in para 0054 “An air inlet tube 23 of the assembly is arranged for connecting the microfiltration device 19 to an external source of air, preferably an external source of air under (slight) overpressure. As shown in FIG. 2A, a liquid product outlet tube 25 of the assembly connects to an outlet opening of the microfiltration device 19 for discharging a liquid product from the disposable assembly 1”).
However, Botman does not explicitly disclose, a processing device of the CPU is configured for performing a mixing treatment and/or pressure reduction treatment of the product provided with gas, wherein the processing device comprises an undulating fluid path for the product provided with gas, wherein the undulating fluid path alternatingly comprises first and second path sections, wherein the first path sections are substantially straight and extend substantially parallel to each other, wherein the second path sections each extend at an angle to a direction in which the first path sections extend, the angle being in the range of 45 to 135 degrees, wherein:
the undulating fluid path has a length of at least 30 cm; and/or
the undulating fluid path has a substantially uniform transversal representative width in the range of 2.8 to 3.2 mm; and/or
the first path sections have a total length that is at least two times larger than the total length of the second path sections.
Nonetheless, Hsu teaches, a milk foam dispensing outlet (see milk foam 43 in Fig. 3) comprises a processing device (see milk foam delivery pipe 4 in Fig. 3) arranged downstream of the frothing device (see mixing joint 3 in Fig. 3) is configured for performing a mixing treatment and/or pressure reduction treatment of the product provided with gas (disclosed in Col. 2 lines 34-42 “the mixture of milk foam and steam at lower pressure is not well mixed at the time the mixture is just leaving the mixture outlet (31) of the mixing joint (3) to enter into the milk foam delivery pipe (4); however the mixture becomes well-mixed and delicate milk foams after the repeated mixing through the first curving section (41) and the second curving section (42) of the milk foam delivery pipe (4) before being delivered through the milk foam outlet (43)”), wherein the processing device (4) comprises an undulating fluid path (see Fig. 3) for the product provided with gas (see Fig. 3), wherein the undulating fluid path alternatingly comprises first (see annotated Fig. 3) and second (see curve sections 41 and 42 in Fig. 3) path sections, wherein the first path sections (see annotated Fig.3) are substantially straight and extend substantially parallel to each other (see Fig. 3), wherein the second path sections (see curve sections 41 and 42) each extend at an angle to a direction in which the first path sections extend (see Fig. 3), the angle being in the range of desired degrees (see annotated angle in Fig. 3), and the undulating fluid path has a substantially uniform transversal representative width (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the milk foam dispensing device of Botman such that the milk foam dispensing device of the CPU further comprises the processing device is configured for performing a mixing treatment and/or pressure reduction treatment of the product provided with gas, wherein the processing device comprises an undulating fluid path for the product provided with gas, wherein the undulating fluid path alternatingly comprises first and second path sections, wherein the first path sections are substantially straight and extend substantially parallel to each other, wherein the second path sections each extend at an angle to a direction in which the first path sections extend, the angle being in the range of desired degrees, and wherein the undulating fluid path has a substantially uniform transversal representative width as taught/suggested by Hsu in order to take advantage of steam at lower pressure for producing well mixed and delicate milk foams (see Col. 2 line 43-48 by Hsu).
Furthermore, the annotated angle as seen in Fig. 3 is about 45 degrees such that the annotated angle as seen in Fig. 3 is about 45 degrees of Qaratesi lies within the claimed ranges 45 to 135 degrees, a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Botman in view of Hsu does not explicitly disclose,
the undulating fluid path has a length of at least 30 cm; and/or
the undulating fluid path has a substantially uniform transversal representative width in the range of 2.8 to 3.2 mm; and/or
the first path sections have a total length that is at least two times larger than the total length of the second path sections.
Quaratesi teaches, a milk foam dispensing device (see outlet line 8 in Fig. 1) comprises the undulating fluid path (see outlet line 8 second longitudinal line section 18 in Fig. 1) has a length of at least 30 cm (disclosed in the specification “The second longitudinal line section 18 has a second length that preferably ranges from 200 mm to 600 mm, more preferably from 300 mm to 500 mm”, wherein 300mm=30cm); and/or the undulating fluid path has a substantially uniform transversal representative width in the range of 2.8 to 3.2 mm (disclosed in the specification “the second diameter ranges from 2.00 mm to 3.00 mm, more preferably from 2.25 mm to 2.75 mm”).
Since the claimed range of the undulating fluid path has a length of at least 30 cm lies inside ranges disclosed in Quaratesi and the claimed range of the undulating fluid path has a substantially uniform transversal representative width in the range of 2.8 to 3.2 mm overlaps ranges disclosed in Quaratesi, a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the undulating fluid path of Botman in view of Hsu, wherein the undulating fluid path has a length of at least 30 cm; and/or the undulating fluid path has a substantially uniform transversal representative width in the range of 2.8 to 3.2 mm as taught/suggested by Quaratesi in order to slow down the flow rate of the fluid flows within the undulating fluid path so as obtaining a milk foam with high consistency and quality (see the specification of Quaratesi “The greater the length of the outlet line the more the flow rate of the fluid therethrough is slowed down. The Applicant has found that the lengths of the first and second longitudinal line sections 16, 18 are advantageously selected considering the flow rate of the milk-air mixture in the outlet line sections and hence the rotation speed of the pump, such that the hot frothed milk may be dispensed at one or more desired temperatures. Furthermore, once a flow cross section has been selected, the length of the first line section is selected to obtain a cold milk or hot milk foam of high consistency and quality”).
Regarding claim 3, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1, Hsu further teaches, wherein the undulating path is a labyrinth type fluid path (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1, Hsu further teaches, wherein the undulating path is arranged around the frothing device (see Fig. 3, wherein part of milk foam delivery pipe 4 is sleeving around the frothing device/mixing joint 3).
Regarding claim 5, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1, Hsu further teaches, wherein the first path sections (see annotated Fig. 3) extend substantially in parallel with respect to the frothing device (see annotated Fig. 3, wherein annotated first path sections are extending in parallel with the frothing device/mixing joint 3).
Regarding claim 15, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1, Botman further discloses, wherein the product container (1) is configured to contain a volume of foamable product in the range of 0.5 to 10 L (disclosed in para 0045 “The disposable assembly 1 comprises a holder 2 which in this embodiment is designed to contain a maximum amount of 4 liters of milk based concentrate 3”).
Regarding claim 16, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1, Botman further discloses, wherein the CPU (see Fig. 2A) comprises a product feedthrough channel (PFC) (see cylindrical wall 9 in Fig. 2A and Fig. 5) upstream of the frothing device (see Fig. 2A and Fig. 5), wherein the PFC (9) provides a flow restriction (see injector valve 13 in Fig. 2B, Figs. 4A-4C, and Fig. 5) with a representative transversal area in the range of 1 to 3 mm.sup.2 (disclosed in para 0048 “As is shown in FIG. 4 the injector valve 13 is arranged within the cylindrical wall 9 so as to be displaceable from a first, enabling position (FIG. 4B) to a second, disabling position (FIGS. 4A, 4C) longitudinally spaced from the first position, and vice versa. In the shown embodiment the distance between the first and second position of the injector valve is about 2 mm”).
Regarding claim 17, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1, Botman further discloses, wherein the representative transversal area in the range of 1.2 to 2.2 mm.sup.2 (disclosed in para 0048 “As is shown in FIG. 4 the injector valve 13 is arranged within the cylindrical wall 9 so as to be displaceable from a first, enabling position (FIG. 4B) to a second, disabling position (FIGS. 4A, 4C) longitudinally spaced from the first position, and vice versa. In the shown embodiment the distance between the first and second position of the injector valve is about 2 mm”).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botman (US 20170273500 A1) in view Hsu (US 6810795 B1) and in further view of Quaratesi (EP 3066964 A1 and see the PDF attached) and in further view of Savioz (US 20180360259 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1.
However, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi does not explicitly disclose having 10 to 30 first path sections.
Nonetheless, Savioz teaches, having 10 to 30 first path sections (see heating path 140 with a serpentine or labyrinth shape allowing sufficient time and contact area for the mixture to be heated in Fig. 1b and para 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first path sections of Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi so as having 10 to 30 first path sections as taught/suggested by Savioz since it is known by Quaratesi that the greater the length of the undulating fluid path the more the flow rate of the fluid therethrough is slowed down therethrough so as obtaining a milk foam with high consistency and quality (see the specification of Quaratesi “The greater the length of the outlet line the more the flow rate of the fluid therethrough is slowed down. The Applicant has found that the lengths of the first and second longitudinal line sections 16, 18 are advantageously selected considering the flow rate of the milk-air mixture in the outlet line sections and hence the rotation speed of the pump, such that the hot frothed milk may be dispensed at one or more desired temperatures. Furthermore, once a flow cross section has been selected, the length of the first line section is selected to obtain a cold milk or hot milk foam of high consistency and quality”).
Regarding claim 7, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1.
However, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi does not explicitly disclose wherein the first path sections have a total length that is at least four times greater than the total length of the second path sections.
Nonetheless, Savioz teaches, wherein the first path sections have a total length that is at least four times greater than the total length of the second path sections (see heating path 140 with a serpentine or labyrinth shape allowing sufficient time and contact area for the mixture to be heated in Fig. 1b and para 0038, and as seen in annotated Fig. 1b, the length of one first path section is at least four times greater than the length of one second path section, there is 10 first path sections, and there is 9 second first path sections, hence, the first path sections have a total length that is at least four times greater than the total length of the second path sections).
PNG
media_image3.png
624
899
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first path sections of Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi wherein the first path sections have a total length that is at least four times greater than the total length of the second path sections as taught/suggested by Savioz in order to obtain more length of the undulating within the desired area and since it is known by Quaratesi that the greater the length of the undulating fluid path the more the flow rate of the fluid therethrough is slowed down therethrough so as obtaining a milk foam with high consistency and quality (see the specification of Quaratesi “The greater the length of the outlet line the more the flow rate of the fluid therethrough is slowed down. The Applicant has found that the lengths of the first and second longitudinal line sections 16, 18 are advantageously selected considering the flow rate of the milk-air mixture in the outlet line sections and hence the rotation speed of the pump, such that the hot frothed milk may be dispensed at one or more desired temperatures. Furthermore, once a flow cross section has been selected, the length of the first line section is selected to obtain a cold milk or hot milk foam of high consistency and quality”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botman (US 20170273500 A1) in view Hsu (US 6810795 B1) and in further view of Quaratesi (EP 3066964 A1 and see the PDF attached) and in further view of Mahlich (US 5335588 A).
Regarding claim 8, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1.
However, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing device comprises a widening fluid path downstream of the undulating fluid path, the widening fluid path gradually increasing in width along its length in the downstream direction.
Nonetheless, Mahlich teaches, wherein the processing device (see steam pipe 1 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) comprises a widening fluid path (see diffusion path 4 in Fig. 2) downstream of dispensing device (see Fig. 2), the widening fluid path (4) gradually increasing in width along its length in the downstream direction (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the processing device Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi wherein the processing device comprises a widening fluid path downstream of the undulating fluid path, the widening fluid path gradually increasing in width along its length in the downstream direction as taught/suggested by Mahlich in order to obtain a smooth cone frustum casing without disturbance locations so as optimally utilizing the low available steam pressures, creating the most stable possible flow conditions, and avoiding surge losses as well as flow losses created by disturbance locations (see Col. 3 lines 36-42 by Mahlich).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botman (US 20170273500 A1) in view Hsu (US 6810795 B1) and in further view of Quaratesi (EP 3066964 A1 and see the PDF attached) and in further view of Van Druten (WO 2014069993 A1 and see the PDF attached).
Regarding claim 9, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1.
However, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi does not explicitly disclose wherein the system is configured to dispense foamed product having an overrun greater than 200%.
Nonetheless, Van Druten teaches, wherein the system is configured to dispense foamed product having an overrun greater than 200% (disclosed in the specification “a product mentioned undergoes an overrun that is greater than 100% (in particular 150% or more, and more particularly 200% or more)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to optimize the overrun of the system that is dispensing the foamed product of Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi such that the system is configured to dispense foamed product having an overrun greater than 200% as taught/suggested by Van Druten in order to utilize a relatively low pressure and low temperature of the product (see the specification of Van Druten).
Regarding claim 10, Botman in view of Hsu, in further view of Quaratesi and in further view of Van Druten discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 9, but silent about wherein the overrun is greater than 300%.
Since Van Druten teaches, wherein the system is configured to dispense foamed product having an overrun is greater than 200% (disclosed in the specification “a product mentioned undergoes an overrun that is greater than 100% (in particular 150% or more, and more particularly 200% or more)”), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to optimize the overrun of the system that is dispensing the foamed product of Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi such that the system is configured to dispense foamed product having an overrun greater than 300% since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in Van Druten, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 IIa) for the purpose of utilizing a relatively low pressure and low temperature of the product (see the specification of Van Druten).
Regarding claim 11, Botman in view of Hsu, in further view of Quaratesi and in further view of Van Druten discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 9, but silent about wherein the overrun is greater than 800%.
Since Van Druten teaches, wherein the system is configured to dispense foamed product having an overrun is greater than 200% (disclosed in the specification “a product mentioned undergoes an overrun that is greater than 100% (in particular 150% or more, and more particularly 200% or more)”), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to optimize the overrun of the system that is dispensing the foamed product of Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi such that the system is configured to dispense foamed product having an overrun greater than 800% since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in Van Druten, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 IIa) for the purpose of utilizing a relatively low pressure and low temperature of the product (see the specification of Van Druten).
Regarding claim 12, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1.
However, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi does not explicitly disclose, wherein the product dispensing machine is configured to cool the foamable product in the received product container.
Nonetheless, Van Druten teaches, wherein the product dispensing machine is configured to cool the foamable product in the received product container (disclosed in the specification “the invention can prepare cold and ice-cold drinks, for instance, milk drink, milk shake, lunch drink, etc. In that case, the product can have, for instance, a minimum overrun of 10% and a temperature lower than 20 °C, preferably a temperature between -5 and 10 °C”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the product dispensing machine of Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi such that the product dispensing machine is configured to cool the foamable product in the received product container as taught/suggested by Van Druten in order to prepare cold and ice-cold products as desired (see the specification of Van Druten).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botman (US 20170273500 A1) in view Hsu (US 6810795 B1) and in further view of Quaratesi (EP 3066964 A1 and see the PDF attached) and in further view of Wijnen (WO 2009110794 A1 and see the PDF attached).
Regarding claim 13, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1, wherein Botman discloses wherein the product dispensing machine comprises the gas supply (see source of air 42 in Fig. 3).
However, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas supply is configured to supply gas at an operational pressure in the range of 3 to 10 bar.
Nonetheless, Wijnen teaches, wherein the gas supply (see fluid supply 9 for supplying gas in Fig. 1 via gas inlet 8 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) is configured to supply gas at an operational pressure in the range of 3 to 10 bar (disclosed in the specification “the air present in the intermediate space 15d has a pressure of preferably over 2 bar, in particular higher than 5 bar, more particularly a pressure higher than 7 or 8 bar, for instance a pressure in the range of 8 - 15 bar”).
Since the claimed range of the gas supply is configured to supply gas at an operational pressure in the range of 3 to 10 bar lie inside and/or overlap ranges disclosed in Wijnen, a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the gas supply of Botman such that the gas supply is configured to supply gas at an operational pressure in the range of 3 to 10 bar as taught/suggested by Wijnen in order to obtain the pressure of the product flow is lower than the pressure of the air supplied flow so as the air is entering the product uniformly via the pores. Doing so would facilitate the fine air bubbles homogeneously introduced into the product for the purpose of foam formation (see the specification of Wijnen).
Regarding claim 14, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1, wherein Botman discloses wherein the product dispensing machine comprises the gas supply (see source of air 42 in Fig. 3).
However, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi does not explicitly disclose wherein operational pressure in the range of 4 to 8 bar.
Nonetheless, Wijnen teaches, wherein operational pressure in the range of 4 to 8 bar (disclosed in the specification “the air present in the intermediate space 15d has a pressure of preferably over 2 bar, in particular higher than 5 bar, more particularly a pressure higher than 7 or 8 bar, for instance a pressure in the range of 8 - 15 bar”).
Since the claimed range of the operational pressure in the range of 4 to 8 bar lie inside and/or overlap ranges disclosed in Wijnen, a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the gas supply of Botman such that the operational pressure in the range of 4 to 8 bar as taught/suggested by Wijnen in order to obtain the pressure of the product flow is lower than the pressure of the air supplied flow so as the air is entering the product uniformly via the pores. Doing so would facilitate the fine air bubbles homogeneously introduced into the product for the purpose of foam formation (see the specification of Wijnen).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botman (US 20170273500 A1) in view Hsu (US 6810795 B1) and in further view of Quaratesi (EP 3066964 A1 and see the PDF attached) and in further view of Wijnen (WO 2009110794 A1 and see the PDF attached) and as evidenced by Vandruten (WO 2014069993 A1 and see the PDF attached).
Regarding claim 18, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 1, Botman further discloses, wherein the frothing device (4) is provided with one or more microfiltration walls (see microfiltration device 19 in Fig. 2A) having gas transmissive pores (see para 0052 “Referring to FIG. 2A the disposable assembly 1 is in addition provided with a microfiltration device 19 as disclosed in WO-A1-2014/069993”, wherein WO-A1-2014069993 disclosed in the specification “the microfiltration wall comprises gas transmissive pores”), wherein the one or more microfiltration walls (19) separate a gas supply space associated with the gas supply from a foaming channel associated with the product entrance (see Fig. 2A), extending at a respective wall length along a respective main axis (see Fig. 2A).
However, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi does not explicitly disclose wherein a sum of the respective wall lengths is in the range of 34 to 50 mm.
Nonetheless, Wijnen teaches, a microfiltration wall (see 15a in Fig. 2) has a sum of the respective wall lengths (see L in Fig. 2) is in the range of 34 to 50 mm (disclosed in the specification “This length L is for instance in the range of approximately 5 - 20 cm (a minimum length is for instance approximately 5 cm)”).
Since the claimed range of a sum of the respective wall lengths is in the range of 34 to 50 mm lie inside and/or overlap ranges disclosed in Wijnen, a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a sum of the respective wall lengths of Botman such that a sum of the respective wall lengths is in the range of 34 to 50 mm as taught/suggested by Wijnen in order to treat the milk foam product with the desired length of the microfiltration device which fine gas bubbles can be introduced into the product and preferably also a static mixing device, which appears to lead to a particularly stable foam product, utilizing means that can be designed relatively inexpensively (see the specification of Wijnen).
Regarding claim 19, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 15, Botman further discloses, having at least a microfiltration wall (see microfiltration device 19 with outer wall and inner wall in Fig. 2A and as disclosed in WO-A1-2014/069993 stated in para 0052).
However, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi does not explicitly disclose having at least two microfiltration walls.
Nonetheless, Wijnen teaches, having at least two microfiltration walls (see housing 15c and microfiltration wall 15a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the microfiltration wall of Botman such that having at least two microfiltration walls as taught/suggested by Wijnen in order to enclose the supplied gas with the product between an intermediate space formed by two microfiltration walls such that air present in the intermediate space mixed with the product uniformly via the pores, and in this manner, fine air bubbles can be homogeneously introduced into the product P for the purpose of foam formation before dispensing (see the specification of Wijnen).
Regarding claim 20, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi discloses, the foamed product dispensing system according to claim 16, Botman further discloses, having at least a microfiltration wall (see microfiltration device 19 with outer wall and inner wall in Fig. 2A and as disclosed in WO-A1-2014/069993 stated in para 0052).
However, Botman in view of Hsu and in further view of Quaratesi does not explicitly disclose wherein a difference in respective wall lengths of the at least two microfiltration walls is less than 2 mm.
Nonetheless, Wijnen teaches, having at least two microfiltration walls (see housing 15c and microfiltration wall 15a), wherein a difference in respective wall lengths of the at least two microfiltration walls is less than 2 mm (see Fig. 2, wherein there is no difference between the length of housing 15c and the length of microfiltration wall 15a, hence, the difference in respective wall lengths of the at least two microfiltration walls is 0mm which is less than 2 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the microfiltration wall of Botman such that having at least two microfiltration walls, wherein a difference in respective wall lengths of the at least two microfiltration walls is less than 2 mm as taught/suggested by Wijnen in order to enclose the supplied gas with the product between an intermediate space formed by two microfiltration walls such that air present in the intermediate space mixed with the product uniformly via the pores, and in this manner, fine air bubbles can be homogeneously introduced into the product P for the purpose of foam formation before dispensing (see the specification of Wijnen).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 6:00 am-3:30 pm ET.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761