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) submitted on 06/09/2023 and 03/05/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The symbol “(10)” should be cancelled in the Claim 1;
The symbol “(11)” should be cancelled in the Claim 2;
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“an electronic control unit configured to operate the milk module in a production mode” in claim 1;
“a flow restriction arranged downstream of the supply pump to transform” in claim 11;
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.
flow restriction: the specification discloses “The flow restriction 17 can be formed by a non- adjustable nozzle or by a baffle or by a throttle valve, which may be either adjustable or non-adjustable.” [p.4, ll.12-13], regarding 17 in Fig.1.
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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 limitation “electronic control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV.
Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 1, as they inherit from claim 1 its contradictions to the specification descriptions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1
The limitation “electronic control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examination, “electronic control unit” will be interpreted in light of the specification descriptions as reading “generic computer”.
Regarding Claim 2
Claim 2 recites “preferably either between two successive production cycles or after a certain period of time”. It is unclear if the limitation followed by the “preferably” is required by the claim, which deems the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, “preferably either between two successive production cycles or after a certain period of time” is interpreted as a limitation that is not mandatorily required.
Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3
Claim 3 recites “preferably at the end of the daily service”. The term “preferably” means optional, which deems the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, “preferably at the end of the daily service” is interpreted as a limitation that is not mandatorily required. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional”, see MPEP 2111.04.1.
Regarding Claim 5
As the dependent of claim 4, claim 5 recites the limitation of claim 4 “a fluid inlet” again, which deems the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill would not be able to ascertain the “a fluid inlet” is the same as that recitation in claim 4 or an additional one. For the purposes of examination, “a fluid inlet” in claim 5 will be interpreted as reading “the fluid inlet”.
The term “substantially” in the recited limitations “substantially facing” and “substantially transversal” is relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 recites the term “at least one inlet connector” followed by the recitation of “the inlet connector”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the inlet connector” in the claim, which deems the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill would not be able to ascertain which is the “the inlet connector” corresponding to the “at least one inlet connector”. For the purposes of examination, “the inlet connector” in claim 5 will be interpreted as reading “the at least one inlet connector”.
Claims 6-10, 12 are dependent claims which inherit the same issue raised in the rejection of claim 5 under 112(b) as being indefinite and is thus rejected.
Regarding Claim 6
Claim 6 recites the term “a common terminal portion” twice, which deems the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill would not be able to ascertain the two “a common terminal portion” are the same or different terms. For the purposes of examination, the second “a common terminal portion” in claim 6 will be interpreted as reading “the common terminal portion”.
The term “substantially” in the recited limitation “substantially face” is relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12 is a dependent claim which inherits the same issue raised in the rejection of claim 6 under 112(b) as being indefinite and is thus rejected.
Regarding Claim 7
Claim 7 recites “the inlet connector”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, which deems the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill would not be able to ascertain which is the “the inlet connector” corresponding to the “at least one inlet connector” recited in its parent claim 5. For the purposes of examination, “the inlet connector” in claim 7 will be interpreted as reading “the at least one inlet connector”, to be consistent with its parent claim 5.
The term “substantially” in the recited limitation “substantially perpendicular” is relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim 1-4 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guido (EP-3064104) in view of Rajagopal (US-20080154543).
Regarding claim 1, Guido discloses a milk module (1, para. 28) for producing hot or cold, foamed or non-foamed milk, and integrable in a machine for producing milk-based beverages;
the milk module comprises:
a supply pump (11, fig.1, para.50);
a suction line (8, fig.1, para.50) extending from a fluid inlet to a suction side of the supply pump (11);
a delivery line (16, fig.1, para.50) extending from a delivery side of the supply pump (11) to a dispensing nozzle (17, fig.1, para.50) with an inlet portion (inlet portion of 17, para. 65) and a dispensing outlet (dispensing outlet of 17, para. 65);
an electronic control unit (23, CPU, fig.1, para.53) configured to operate the milk module (1) in a production mode, in which the suction line (8, fig.1, para.50) is supplied with milk (3, fig.1, para.50), and in a washing mode, in which the suction line (8) is supplied with either water or water and detergent (paras 4 and 5); and
a drainage line (19, fig.1, para.50) to drain washing water into a waste container (22, fig.1, para.50) during operation in the washing mode.
Guido discloses characterised in that the drainage line (19) extends from the dispensing nozzle (17) to the waste container (22). Guido relies on passive drainage or steam pressure generated from steam generator (15) or the supple pump (11) to push waste through the dispensing nozzle (17) into the drain line (19) for cleaning [fig.1, para.61].
Guido does not expressly disclose characterised in that the drainage line extends from the dispensing nozzle to the waste container and comprises a suction pump; and in that the electronic control unit is configured to operate the suction pump during at least part of the washing mode to cause the washing water that has reached the dispensing nozzle to flow into the drainage line before reaching the dispensing outlet of the dispensing nozzle.
However, Rajagopal discloses characterised in that the drainage line (242/244, fig.3) extends from the dispensing nozzle (224, fig.3, dispensing portion) to the waste container (206/210) and comprises a suction pump (218/220, fig.3, vacuum pump, see abstract); and an electronic control unit (automated diagnostic instrument, paras 30, 31) is configured to operate the suction pump during cleaning mode to cause the washing water that has reached the dispensing nozzle to flow into the drainage line (242/244) before reaching the dispensing outlet (246/248, fig.3) of the dispensing nozzle (para. 37).
Rajagopal teaches that the vacuum pump “provides a much higher pressure differential and, consequently, a much higher rate of fluid flow. Accordingly, a given volume of liquid can be evacuated with in a shorter period of time. In automated analytical instruments, events are scheduled in a tight sequence. If waste liquid is not removed before the valve to the drain is scheduled to be closed, waste liquid will progressively accumulate. Higher flow rates are likely to keep the conduits for the flow of fluid cleaner.”, which emphasizes the use of vacuum pumps to actively manage waste diversion for cleaning (para. 10).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include characterised in that the drainage line extends from the dispensing nozzle to the waste container and comprises a suction pump; and in that the electronic control unit is configured to operate the suction pump during at least part of the washing mode to cause the washing water that has reached the dispensing nozzle to flow into the drainage line before reaching the dispensing outlet of the dispensing nozzle, by modifying Guido through adding the vacuum pump of Rajagopal between 17 and 19 of Guido, in order to actively manage waste diversion for cleaning as taught by Rajagopal. The modification is applying a known technique (suction or vacuum pump) to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(D).
PNG
media_image1.png
563
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Guido, annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
658
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Rajagopal
Regarding claim 2, Guido discloses further comprising:
a first valve device (26, fig.2, para.53) arranged between the fluid inlet of the suction line and the supply pump (11);
a water supply line (line between 27 and emanation point, fig.2) to supply water to the suction line at an emanation point (fig.2, annotated) between the first valve device (26) and the supply pump (11); and
a second valve device (27, fig.2, para.53) operable to cause the water supply line to be selectively supplied with water (fig.2);
wherein the electronic control unit (23) is further configured to operate the milk module in a first washing mode (fig. 2), preferably either between two successive production cycles (para. 66) or after a certain period of time (para. 24) (preferably means the option is not mandatorily required);
wherein, in the first washing mode (fig.2), the electronic control unit is further configured to: control the first valve device (26 off, fig.1) and the second valve device (27 on fig.2) to cause water to flow into the water supply line (line between 27 and emanation point, fig.2) and, therefrom, into the suction line (8, fig.2) without reaching the fluid inlet of the suction line (fig.2).
Guido does not expressly disclose co-ordinately operate the supply pump and the suction pump to cause water to flow along the suction line, the delivery line and the drainage line.
However, Rajagopal discloses a control system (automated diagnostic instruments, paras 30, 31) programmed to be adapted to use the liquid waste management (liquid waste is from automated diagnostic instrument) with synchronizing the activation of different pumps in the circuit for feedback control of the vacuum level (paras 8, 10, 68). Rajagopal teaches the control system can configure the activation of waste pump to be in coordination with operating the procedure before arriving dispending portion (paras 4, 5). A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate the coordinated operation of Rajagopal into the control unit of Guido, in order to change the passive flow toward the drain to the active flow in a controllable way with higher flow rates that is likely to keep the conduits for the flow of fluid cleaner (para. 10).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include co-ordinately operate the supply pump and the suction pump to cause water to flow along the suction line, the delivery line and the drainage line, in order to change the passive flow toward the drain to the active flow in a controllable way with higher flow rates that is likely to keep the conduits for the flow of fluid cleaner as taught by Rajagopal. The modification is applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(D).
PNG
media_image3.png
476
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Guido, annotated
Regarding claim 3, Guido discloses wherein the electronic control unit (23) is further configured to operate the milk module (1) in a second washing mode (fig.6, para.16), preferably at the end of the daily service (preferably means the option is not mandatorily required);
wherein, during the first washing mode (fig.5), the fluid inlet of the suction line (8) is immersed in a milk container (3, fig.5) and during the second washing mode (fig.6) the fluid inlet of the suction line (8) is immersed in a detergent container (4, fig.6, para. 7);
wherein, in the second washing mode (fig.6), the electronic control unit (23) is further configured to: control the first valve device (26 off, fig.6) and the second valve device (27 on, fig.6) to cause water to flow into the water supply line and reach the fluid inlet of the suction line (8) and fill the detergent container (para.7, the suction duct of the pump is connected to the water mains for the washing step of the device, during which the suction duct itself places the detergent liquid in circulation.);
The combination of the teachings by Guido and Rajagopal teaches when the detergent container is full, co-ordinately operate the supply pump and the suction pump and control the first valve device and second valve device to prevent water from flowing in the water supply line and to cause the water/detergent mixture in the detergent container to flow along the suction line, the delivery line and the drainage line (see rejection of claim 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
494
778
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Guido
PNG
media_image5.png
516
774
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Guido
Regarding claim 4, Guido discloses wherein the drainage line (19) has a fluid inlet (the inlet portion of 19) fluidically connected to the dispensing nozzle (17) between the inlet portion (the inlet portion of 17) and the dispensing outlet (the dispensing outlet of 17) of the dispensing nozzle (17) (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 11, Guido discloses further comprising an air line (9, fig.1) to controllably supply air into the suction line (8, fig.1) (a duct for the inlet of air that intersects the suction duct and in which an air shut-off valve is arranged to control supplying air, para. 22); and a flow restriction (13a, fig.1) arranged downstream of the supply pump (11) to transform (para. 23), when the milk module (1) operates in the production mode (para.61), an air/milk mixture (paras 12, 22) into foamed milk (para. 12).
Regarding claim 13, Guido discloses a machine (apparatus, title, abstract, para. 1, Guido; coffee machine, riessbeck) for producing milk-based beverages.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guido (EP-3064104) in view of Rajagopal (US-20080154543) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Rocky (EP-2672865).
Regarding claim 5, Guido discloses wherein the dispensing nozzle (17) and comprising at least one inlet connector (inlet of 17 connecting 16), which is fluidically connected to a fluid outlet (outlet of 16) of the delivery line (16) and forms the inlet portion of the dispensing nozzle, an outlet connector (outlet of 17 connecting 21) , which is fluidically connected to a fluid inlet (inlet of 16) of the drainage line (16), and a milk dispensing duct (21) having a free end that forms the dispensing outlet of the dispensing nozzle (see fig.1);
Guido does not expressly disclose wherein the dispensing nozzle comprises a collector body having an internal chamber; wherein the inlet connector, the outlet connector and the milk dispensing duct open into the chamber and are so arranged as to result in the outlet connector substantially facing the inlet connector in the direction of supply of the fluid into the chamber and the milk dispensing duct departing from the chamber in a direction substantially transversal to the direction of supply of the fluid into the chamber.
However, Rocky discloses a dispensing nozzle comprises a collector body (see fig.4, annotated) having an internal chamber (17, fig.4 of Rocky); wherein the inlet connector, the outlet connector and the milk dispensing duct open into the chamber and are so arranged as to result in the outlet connector substantially facing the inlet connector in the direction of supply of the fluid into the chamber and the milk dispensing duct departing from the chamber in a direction substantially transversal to the direction of supply of the fluid into the chamber (see fig.4 of Rocky).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the dispensing nozzle comprises a collector body having an internal chamber; wherein the inlet connector, the outlet connector and the milk dispensing duct open into the chamber and are so arranged as to result in the outlet connector substantially facing the inlet connector in the direction of supply of the fluid into the chamber and the milk dispensing duct departing from the chamber in a direction substantially transversal to the direction of supply of the fluid into the chamber. The modification is Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
PNG
media_image6.png
488
734
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Rocky, annotated
Claims 6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guido (EP-3064104) in view of Rajagopal (US-20080154543) and Rocky (EP-2672865) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Steiner (US-20110256289).
Regarding claim 6, the combinations of teaching by Guido, Rajagopal and Rocky does not expressly disclose wherein the delivery line comprises a bifurcation, at which the delivery line divides into two delivery ducts which open into the dispensing nozzle either separately or via a common terminal portion; wherein, when the delivery ducts open into the dispensing nozzle via a common terminal portion, the collector body of the dispensing nozzle comprises a single inlet connector fluidically connected to the common terminal portion; and wherein, when the delivery ducts open into the dispensing nozzle separately, the collector body of the dispensing nozzle comprises two inlet connectors, each of which is associated to a respective delivery duct; the two inlet connectors open into the chamber in such a way that they both substantially face the outlet connector in the direction of supply of the fluid into the chamber.
However, Steiner discloses a delivery line comprises a bifurcation (fig.1 of Steiner, annotated), at which the delivery line divides into two delivery ducts (14, 27, fig.1) through a bypass valve (26). One delivery duct is for delivering the cold milk or milk froth via the pipe 27 (para. 23), and another delivery duct is for delivering heated milk (para.23), where the milk heating apparatus 9 is equipped is connected to the feed and outlet pipes 11, 12 by connections 14, 15 (see fig.1 of Steiner, annotated; para. 24). Steiner teaches that the bifurcation design allows a coffee machine to produce both cold and hot drinks in an energy-saving, low-consumption and fault-free way (para. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Guido, Rajagopal and Rocky using the bifurcations of Steiner so that the milk module has the two delivery ducts respectively connecting to the two inlets of dispensing nozzle of Rocky (bifurcation2 in fig.1 of Steiner, annotated) or the one inlet of dispensing nozzle of Rocky (bifurcation1 in fig.1 of Steiner, annotated), in order to make the milk module produce both cold and hot drinks in an energy-saving, low-consumption and fault-free way.
Regarding result of modification, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the delivery line comprises a bifurcation (fig.1 of Steiner, annotated), at which the delivery line divides into two delivery ducts (15 and 27 in fig.1 of Steiner, annotated) which open into the dispensing nozzle (17 in fig. 1 of Guido, annotated) either separately (using bifurcation2 with a bypass valve 26, fig.1 of Steiner, annotated) or via a common terminal portion (using bifurcation1 , fig.1 of Steiner, annotated); wherein, when the delivery ducts open into the dispensing nozzle via a common terminal portion (the terminal portion after cross point between 15 and 27, bifurcation1, fig.1 of Steiner, annotated), the collector body of the dispensing nozzle (17 in fig. 1 of Guido, annotated) comprises a single inlet connector fluidically connected to the common terminal portion (the single inlet connect of 17 in fig. 1 of Guido, annotated, is connected to the terminal portion of bifurcation1, fig.1 of Steiner, annotated); and wherein, when the delivery ducts open into the dispensing nozzle separately (bifurcation2, fig.1 of Steiner, annotated), the collector body of the dispensing nozzle comprises two inlet connectors (the two inlets in fig. 4 of Rocky, annotated, which respectively connect to the two outlet lines of the bypass valve 26 in fig.1 of Steiner, annotated), each of which is associated to a respective delivery duct (19 and 21 in fig. 1 of Guido, annotated; corresponding to the two outlet lines of the bypass valve 26 in fig.1 of Steiner, annotate); the two inlet connectors open into the chamber in such a way that they both substantially face the outlet connector in the direction of supply of the fluid into the chamber (see fig. 4 of Rocky, annotated).
PNG
media_image7.png
484
899
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Steiner, annotated
Regarding claim 12, the combinations of teaching by Guido, Rajagopal, Rocky and Steiner discloses further comprising a heater (1, fig.1 of Steiner, annotated) arranged along one of the two delivery ducts (14 and 15, para.24) and selectively operable to heat milk (para.23); and an electronically-controllable shut-off valve (bypass valve 26, fig.1 of stainer, annotated, para. 23) arranged along the other of the two delivery ducts (27) and selectively operable to allow milk to flow therethrough (when the valve is turned on for line 27. 27 is shown off in the fig.1 of stainer, annotated).
Claims 7, 8, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guido (EP-3064104) in view of Rajagopal (US-20080154543) and Rocky (EP-2672865) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Helmut (EP-2066201).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of the teachings by Guido, Rajagopal and Rocky discloses wherein the at least one inlet connector and the outlet connector have respective mutually parallel axes lying in one and the same plane (see Fig. 4 of Rocky, annotated).
The combination of the teachings by Guido, Rajagopal and Rocky does not expressly disclose wherein the milk dispensing duct has an inlet having an axis substantially perpendicular to the lying plane of the axes of the inlet connector and of the outlet connector.
However, Helmut discloses a dispenser portion with multiple outlets for delivering beverage, where one of the outlets can be rotated (13, rotary cylinder) to allow the outlet to be directed perpendicular to the lying plane of the other outlet connectors, i.e. to be pivoted about a vertical axis (14). (fig.3 of Helmut, para.8). Helmut teaches the dispenser nozzle has the advantageous of providing the user with the correct position of the beverage outlet to prevent loss (para.9) and to increase safety (para. 12). Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would naturally add the rotary outlet feature into the design of Rocky to modify Rocky’s dispenser nozzle making it comprise at least two separate outlets, of which one outlet can be pivoted about a vertical axis so that to meet the needs of the milk module with the combination of teachings by Guido and Rajagopal. Because the movable outlet of dispenser is connected to the inlet of the milk dispensing duct, and the inlets and outlet are in the same plane as shown in fig. 4 of Rocky, Helmut’s the milk dispensing duct has an inlet having an axis substantially perpendicular to the lying plane of the axes of the other non-movable outlet connectors.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the milk dispensing duct has an inlet having an axis substantially perpendicular to the lying plane of the axes of the inlet connector and of the outlet connector, in order to provide the user with the correct position of the beverage outlet to prevent loss and to increase safety as taught by Helmut. The modification is applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(D).
PNG
media_image8.png
466
804
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Helmut
Regarding claim 8, the combination of the teachings by Guido, Rajagopal, Rocky and Helmut discloses wherein the axes of the inlet connector and of the outlet connector lie in a horizontal plane (Fig. 4 of Rocky, annotated) and the axis of the inlet of the milk dispensing duct is vertical (see the rejection on claim 7 and Fig. 3 of Helmut).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of the teachings by Guido, Rajagopal, Rocky and Helmut discloses wherein the milk dispensing duct extends in a vertical plane from the top of the collector body of the dispensing nozzle (see rejection on claim 7).
The combination of the teachings by Guido, Rajagopal, Rocky and Helmut does not expressly disclose comprises a proximal inverted U-shaped portion and a distal straight portion ending with the dispensing outlet.
However, Helmut teaches flexible hoses can be used to connect the rotatable outlet (para.8). A flexible hose can inherently form an inverted U-shaped portion if a distal straight portion ending with the dispensing outlet. The shape form of hose depends on the relative position between he dispensing outlet of the dispensing nozzle and the ending of the hose for receiving the fluid. The configuration of the claimed “a proximal inverted U-shaped portion and a distal straight portion ending with the dispensing outlet” was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. It is not patentable. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B.
Regarding claim 10, Rocky discloses wherein the chamber is funnel-shaped and has a wider section (the section defined by the two inlets in fig.4 of Rocky), in which the at least one inlet connector (15) opens, and a narrower section (the section of outlet 15 is narrower than the section defined by the two inlets in fig.4 of Rocky), in which the outlet connector opens (see Fig. 4 of Rocky, annotated).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Z. J. Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-0762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/ Z. J. W. /Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights