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 10/06/2023, 09/09/2025, 09/10/2026, 09/10/2026. 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 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 an 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 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: soldering apparatus for soldering electronic components, control unit which is designed to: a milk supply arrangement; and a steam supply arrangement.
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.
In this case, the limitation “milk supply arrangement” being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents as disclosed para 0035 “milk supply arrangement, wherein milk may be pumped into and through the main channel 40 via a pumping arrangement)”.
Additionally, the limitation “steam supply arrangement” being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents as disclosed para 0038 “a steam supply arrangement 51 that comprises a number of components arranged upstream of the steam outlet 20 and in the internal space 14 of the main body 11. In the shown example these components include a water reservoir 52, a flow meter 53, a pump 54, a thermoblock 55 including an electric heater, and a number of valve arrangements 56, which does not alter the fact that other configurations of the milk frothing arrangement 50 are feasible, including configurations in which a flow-through heater is used instead of the thermoblock 55”.
Regarding claim 6, claim 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: pumping arrangement.
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.
In this case, the limitation “pumping arrangement” being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents as disclosed para 0035 “milk supply arrangement, wherein milk may be pumped into and through the main channel 40 via a pumping arrangement)” and para 0038 “a steam supply arrangement 51 that comprises a number of components arranged upstream of the steam outlet 20 and in the internal space 14 of the main body 11. In the shown example these components include a water reservoir 52, a flow meter 53, a pump 54, a thermoblock 55 including an electric heater, and a number of valve arrangements 56, which does not alter the fact that other configurations of the milk frothing arrangement 50 are feasible, including configurations in which a flow-through heater is used instead of the thermoblock 55”.
Regarding claim 7, claim 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: a measurement system configured to measure a value of the pressure of the steam supplied by the steam supply arrangement.
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.
In this case, the limitation “pumping arrangement” being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents as disclosed para 0045 “a measurement system 58 may comprise a pressure sensor, for example, in which case a practical position of the measurement system 58 is a position directly upstream of the milk frothing unit 30. According to a second option, such a measurement system 58 may comprise a microphone or the like for measuring a level of the sound that is generated during operation of the milk frothing arrangement 50. In respect of this second option, reference is made to FIG. 8 in which a graph representing sound level as a function of pressure is shown. It is concluded from this graph that the sound level can be taken as a representation of the steam pressure, indeed. In practice, taking into account reaction times of the thermoblock 55 and the feedback procedure, feedback control yields the most favorable effects if initial settings are such that only small adjustments need to take place during operation”.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Bonsch (US 20140197554 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bonsch discloses, a milk frothing arrangement (see frothing device in Fig. 1), comprising:
a main channel (see discharge line 4) having a milk inlet (see pipe 4a) configured to receive milk (see milk M) from a milk supply arrangement (see milk M in container B with pump 5 and valve 16 in Fig. 1);
a steam supply arrangement (see steam producer 18 with pump 13 and valve 21);
a steam channel (see steam supply line 12) arranged to receive steam from the steam supply arrangement (see Fig. 1) at an upstream side (see annotated Fig. 1) and to merge into the main channel (4) at a downstream side (see annotated Fig. 1);
a mixing chamber (see mixing region/ Venturi nozzle 11) into which the main channel (4) debouches at a position downstream (see annotated Fig. 1) of the position where the steam channel (12) merges into the main channel (see annotated Fig. 1); and
a controller (see microprocessor-based control unit in para 0052) configured to control operation of the milk frothing arrangement, to receive input that is representative of a froth-to-milk ratio to be realized, and to determine a setting value that is representative of the pressure of the steam to be supplied by the steam supply arrangement in relation to the input (disclosed in para 0052 “The conveying power of this pump is likewise regulatable by the microprocessor-based control unit, not shown, so that the ratio of the quantities of air L and steam D, conveyed per unit of time via the line 12 into the Venturi nozzle V, i.e. the mixture ratio of the air-steam mixture L/D introduced into the Venturi nozzle V, can be adjusted to a desired value. Via this conveyance of steam D or of the air-steam mixture L/D into the Venturi nozzle V, because of the narrow place 11 thereof (mixing region), milk M is suctioned in, due to the Venturi principle which is known per se, via the bypass line 15 and the portion 4a and is entrained (see subsequently). Hence by controlling the three conveying units 5, 8 and 13 (or the two conveying units 5 and 13 and also the valve 20) and also the valve 21, a desired mixture of milk, air and steam M/L/D is dispensed via the outlet 4b of the Venturi nozzle 11 out of the dispensing head into the cup T”).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
1001
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bonsch discloses, the milk frothing arrangement of claim 1, and wherein the controller is configured to set one of at least two modes of operation (disclosed in para 054 “fully automatic coffee machine, both cold milk froth and hot milk froth with a variable composition can hence be produced in two different modes of operation”), wherein the at least two different modes of operation involve different setting values which are representative of the pressure of the steam to be supplied by the steam supply arrangement (disclosed in para 0055-0056 “In a first operating mode (cold milk froth) the valve 21 is closed and conveyance of air L via the pump 13 is adjusted so that merely the line path 4a, 4b of the Venturi nozzle or of the dispensing head 19 is used for dispensing. According to a preselected mixing ratio (pump 5 and pump 8 or valve 20), milk is conveyed via the pump 5 in the first switching state of the three-way valve 16 (bypass line 15 closed), a predetermined quantity of air L is added to this milk M via the opening 3, the resulting mixture M/L is pressure-reduced in two steps via the mixing unit 6 of the discharge line 4 and is added to the cup T via the line path 4a, 4b. Then unheated, i.e. generally cold milk froth (corresponding to the temperature of the milk M in the container B) is situated in the cup T, to which cold milk froth for example cold extracted coffee can be added by suitable configuration of the fully automatic coffee machine (not shown) […] In the second operating mode (hot milk froth), the conveyance is adjusted by the pump 8 (also a stop valve 22 which is provided here in addition and positioned downstream of the pump 8 in the line path 2 in front of the opening of the line 30 into the line 2 can be closed) and the valve 20 is closed so that no air supply L is effected via the opening 3. Then the second switching position of the three-way valve 16 is activated (bypassing elements 5, 6), i.e. the bypass path 15 is adjusted. Valve 21 is opened (possibly additionally air is conveyed via the pump 13). The hot steam D flowing via the line path 12, 4b (or the mixture of air L and hot steam D) entrains milk M by means of the Venturi principle during flow into the cup T via the line path 1, 16, 15, 17 and 4a, this milk being frothed in the mixing region 11 (or the corresponding narrow place of the Venturi nozzle V) with the hot steam D or the hot steam component of the mixture L/D. The warm or hot milk froth is then conveyed into the cup T via the outlet 4b of the Venturi nozzle V before for example hot coffee can be added thereto via the separate further dispensing line, not shown here, of the dispensing head 19”).
Regarding claim 11, Bonsch discloses, the milk frothing arrangement of claim 1, comprising an air inlet (see opening 3 in Fig. 1) to the main channel (4) at a position downstream (see annotated Fig. 1) of the milk inlet (4a) of the main channel (4).
Regarding claim 12, Bonsch discloses, a beverage maker (see fully automatic coffee machine in Fig. 1), comprising a milk frothing arrangement of claim 1 (see Fig. 1 and disclosed in para 0041 “FIG. 1 shows a first frothing device according to the invention which is integrated in a fully automatic coffee machine”).
Regarding claim 13, Bonsch discloses, the beverage maker of claim 12, being a coffee maker (see fully automatic coffee machine in Fig. 1) configured to extract coffee input material and to output a coffee beverage (see Fig. 1 and disclosed in para 0040 “the frothing device according to the invention is integrated in a fully automatic coffee machine in a known design. Merely the dispensing head 19 of the fully automatic coffee machine is thereby shown, into which the downstream end of the discharge line of the respective embodiment of the frothing device according to the invention is integrated as separate dispensing line (coffee can then be dispensed in cold or hot form via the other dispensing line)”).
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.
Claims 3-6, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonsch in view of Ait Bouziad (US 20130319259 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Bonsch discloses, the milk frothing arrangement of claim 2.
However, Bonsch does not explicitly disclose, a user interface configured to enable a user to instruct the controller which one of the at least two modes of operation is to be set.
Nonetheless, Ait Bouziad teaches, a user interface (see a user-interface 101 in Fig. 3) configured to enable a user to instruct the controller (disclosed in para 0067 “the frothing operation in milk frothing device 1 may be controlled remotely by a user from a user-interface 101 of beverage machine 100”) which one of the at least two modes of operation is to be set (disclosed in para 0022 “A user-interface may be connected to the control unit to allow a user to choose between different frothing programs, e.g. for generating different types of milk froth, e.g. cold or warm milk froth, firm or flowing milk froth, small or large size bubble milk froth, etc. . .”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date to modify the control unit of Bonsch wherein the control unit further comprises a user interface configured to enable a user to instruct the controller which one of the at least two modes of operation is to be set as taught/suggested by Ait Bouziad in order to obtain an interactive, user-friendly, and adaptable milk frothing system.
Regarding claim 4, Bonsch discloses, the milk frothing arrangement of claim 1.
However, Bonsch does not explicitly disclose, wherein the steam supply arrangement comprises an electric heater configured to heat water in a heating area of the steam supply arrangement.
Nonetheless, Ait Bouziad teaches, wherein the steam supply arrangement (see water reservoir 56 with pump 57 in Fig. 3) comprises an electric heater (see in-line heater 53 in Fig. 3 and disclosed in para 0050 “An in-line heater 53, e.g. instant heater or thermoblock, or a batch heater, e.g. a boiler, may be connected to a source of water, such as a water reservoir 56”) configured to heat water in a heating area of the steam supply arrangement (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date to modify the steam supply arrangement of Bonsch wherein the steam supply arrangement comprises an electric heater configured to heat water in a heating area of the steam supply arrangement as taught/suggested by Ait Bouziad in order to generate the controlled, consistent steam needed to warm/heat the frothing efficiently and safely.
Regarding claim 5, Bonsch and Ait Bouziad discloses, the milk frothing arrangement of claim 4.
However, Bonsch does not explicitly disclose, wherein a setting value of electric power to be supplied to the electric heater is determined in relation to the setting value that is representative of the pressure of the steam to be supplied by the steam supply arrangement.
Nonetheless, Ait Bouziad teaches, wherein a setting value of electric power to be supplied to the electric heater is determined in relation to the setting value that is representative of the pressure of the steam to be supplied by the steam supply arrangement (disclose in para 0044 “Heating arrangement 5 may be activated to deliver hot froth or deactivated to deliver cold froth”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date to modify the steam supply arrangement of Bonsch wherein a setting value of electric power to be supplied to the electric heater is determined in relation to the setting value that is representative of the pressure of the steam to be supplied by the steam supply arrangement as taught/suggested by Ait Bouziad in order to generate the controlled, consistent steam needed to warm/heat the frothing efficiently and safely.
Regarding claim 6, Bonsch and Ait Bouziad discloses, the milk frothing arrangement of claim 4, and Bonsch further discloses wherein the steam supply arrangement comprises a pumping arrangement (see valve 21 in Fig. 1) configured to transport an amount of steam through the main line (see Fig. 1), and wherein a setting value of the amount of steam is determined in relation to the setting value that is representative of the pressure of the steam to be supplied by the steam supply arrangement (disclosed in para 0055 and 0056, wherein no pressure of steam is supplied when cold milk froth and determined pressure of the steam is supplied when hot milk froth).
However, Bonsch does not explicitly disclose, wherein the steam supply arrangement comprises a pumping arrangement configured to transport an amount of water through the heating area.
Nonetheless, Ait Bouziad teaches, wherein the steam supply arrangement comprises a pumping arrangement (see pump 57 in Fig. 3) configured to transport an amount of water through the heating area (53), and the heating area is activated for hot milk froth and deactivated for cold milk froth (disclose in para 0044 “Heating arrangement 5 may be activated to deliver hot froth or deactivated to deliver cold froth” and para 0017 “Incorporation of a heating fluid into the milk separately to the pressurized gas injection may be desirable to adjust the heating relative to the pressurized gas injection”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date to modify the steam supply arrangement of Bonsch wherein the steam supply arrangement comprises a pumping arrangement configured to transport an amount of water through the heating area, and wherein a setting value of the amount of water is determined in relation to the setting value that is representative of the pressure of the steam to be supplied by the steam supply arrangement as taught/suggested by Ait Bouziad in order to generate the controlled, consistent steam needed to warm/heat the frothing efficiently and safely.
Regarding claim 14, Bonsch discloses, the beverage maker of claim 12, an accessory (see dispensing head 19 of the fully automatic coffee machine with removable pipe 4a in Fig. 1) that is removably attached to the steam line and milk line (see line 12 and milk line 4 with removable pipe 4a in Fig. 1), wherein the steam supply arrangement (see steam producer 18 with pump 13 and valve 21) of the milk frothing arrangement is incorporated connected with the steam line (see Fig. 1), and wherein the mixing chamber (11) is incorporated in the accessory (see Fig. 1).
However, Bonsch does not explicitly disclose, a main body such that the accessory is removably attached to the main body, wherein the steam supply arrangement is incorporated in the main body.
Nonetheless, Ait Bouziad teaches, a main body (see body of beverage machine 100 in Fig. 3) such that the accessory (see a frothing arrangement 6 having at least one of: a static mixer 61 in Fig. 3) is attached to the main body (see Fig. 3), wherein the steam supply arrangement (see heating arrangement 53 with pump 57 and reservoir 56 in Fig. 3) is incorporated in the main body (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date to modify the steam supply arrangement and accessory of Bonsch wherein further comprises a main body such that the accessory is removably attached to the main body, wherein the steam supply arrangement is incorporated in the main body as taught/suggested by Ait Bouziad in order to protect the steam supply arrangement via the main body so as generating consistent steam needed to warm/heat the frothing efficiently and safely, wherein the accessory is removable from the main body for simple cleaning of the mixing unit.
Regarding claim 15, Bonsch and Ait Bouziad discloses, the beverage maker of claim 14.
However, Bonsch does not explicitly disclose, wherein the controller of the milk frothing arrangement is incorporated in the main body and is part of a general controller of the beverage maker that is configured to control operation of the beverage maker.
Nonetheless, Ait Bouziad teaches, wherein the controller (see user-interface 101 in Fig. 3) of the milk frothing arrangement is incorporated in the main body (see Fig. 3) and is part of a general controller of the beverage maker that is configured to control operation of the beverage maker (disclosed in para 0076 “an electric control unit (not shown), in particular comprising a printed circuit board (PCB), for receiving instructions from a user via interface 101 and for controlling in-line heater 120 and pump 130”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date to modify the controller of Bonsch wherein the controller of the milk frothing arrangement is incorporated in the main body and is part of a general controller of the beverage maker that is configured to control operation of the beverage maker as taught/suggested by Ait Bouziad in order to protect the controller by the main body.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonsch in view of Heuberger (DE 102008058139 B4).
Regarding claim 7, Bonsch discloses, the milk frothing arrangement of claim 1.
However, Bonsch does not explicitly disclose, a measurement system configured to measure a value of the pressure of the steam supplied by the steam supply arrangement and/or a value of a parameter that varies with the pressure of the steam supplied by the steam supply arrangement.
Nonetheless, Heuberger teaches, a measurement system (see pressure sensor 56b of electronic control device 52 in Fig. 1) configured to measure a value of the pressure of the steam supplied by the steam supply arrangement and/or a value of a parameter that varies with the pressure of the steam supplied by the steam supply arrangement (disclosed in the specification “an electronic control device 52 , which determines the amount of hot steam supplied 6 via a valve 53 , the amount of through the peristaltic pumping device 18 subsidized milk 20 by a corresponding change in the speed of the motor 54 the peristaltic pump 18 , as well as preferably the amount of air through the supply device 12 promoted ambient air 14 controls. The electronic control device 52 is this with a sensor 56a connected, which determines the temperature of the ambient air. In addition, the electronic control device with an air pressure sensor 56b or with a moisture sensor 56c be connected, which includes the relative humidity of the ambient air”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date to modify the steam supply arrangement of Bonsch wherein a measurement system configured to measure a value of the pressure of the steam supplied by the steam supply arrangement and/or a value of a parameter that varies with the pressure of the steam supplied by the steam supply arrangement as taught/suggested by Heuberger in order to control the supplied steam as set values to warm/heat the frothing efficiently and safely.
Regarding claim 8, Bonsch discloses, the milk frothing arrangement of claim 7.
However, Bonsch does not explicitly disclose, wherein the controller is configured to receive the measured value from the measurement system as a feedback value, to make a comparison between the setting value determined in relation to the input that is representative of the froth-to-milk ratio to be realized and the feedback value, and to adjust the operation of the milk frothing arrangement when a difference between the setting value and the feedback value is larger than a maximum.
Nonetheless, Heuberger teaches, wherein the controller (see electronic control device 52 in Fig. 1) is configured to receive the measured value from the measurement system as a feedback value, to make a comparison between the setting value determined in relation to the input that is representative of the froth-to-milk ratio to be realized and the feedback value, and to adjust the operation of the milk frothing arrangement when a difference between the setting value and the feedback value is larger than a maximum (disclosed in the specification “Depending on the recorded values for the temperature, pressure and humidity of the ambient air 14 determines the electronic control device 52 then the associated control variables for the amount of hot steam to be supplied, ambient air to be supplied and fresh milk to be delivered by the peristaltic pumping device 20 , wherein the corresponding default values for the amount of hot steam, the amount of air and the amount of milk previously as empirical values in the form of a map in an electronic memory 52a the electronic control device 52 are stored”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date to modify the controller of Bonsch wherein the controller is configured to receive the measured value from the measurement system as a feedback value, to make a comparison between the setting value determined in relation to the input that is representative of the froth-to-milk ratio to be realized and the feedback value, and to adjust the operation of the milk frothing arrangement when a difference between the setting value and the feedback value is larger than a maximum as taught/suggested by Heuberger in order to control the supplied steam as set values to warm/heat the frothing efficiently and safely.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonsch in view of Heuberger and in further view of Wessels (US 20180310753 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Bonsch in view of Heuberger discloses, the milk frothing arrangement of claim 7.
However, Bonsch does not explicitly disclose, wherein the measurement system is configured to measure a level of sound generated during the operation of the milk frothing arrangement, and wherein the measured value that is received by the controller from the measurement system as a feedback value is the measured level of the sound.
Nonetheless, Wessels teaches, wherein the measurement system is configured to measure a level of sound generated during the operation of the milk frothing arrangement, and wherein the measured value that is received by the controller from the measurement system as a feedback value is the measured level of the sound (disclosed in para 0106 “Measuring the temperature of the froth 28A then includes recording sound from the froth 28A and the step of deriving the temperature from the recorded sound by means of a suitable algorithm stored in the controller 73. Depending on the measured temperature the controller 73 can then decide whether or not to deactivate the steamer 4. The controller 73 therefore controls the method of heating and frothing and preparing a beverage based on information gathered by the respective sensors 79, 85, 86 and 87”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date to modify the steam supply arrangement of Bonsch in view of Heuberger wherein the measurement system is configured to measure a level of sound generated during the operation of the milk frothing arrangement, and wherein the measured value that is received by the controller from the measurement system as a feedback value is the measured level of the sound as taught/suggested by Heuberger in order to measure the temperature of the steam so as to control the supplied steam as set values to warm/heat the frothing efficiently and safely.
Regarding claim 10, Bonsch in view of Heuberger discloses, the milk frothing arrangement of claim 7.
However, Bonsch does not explicitly disclose, wherein the controller is configured to adjust an algorithm used to control the operation of the milk frothing arrangement on the basis of an actual adjustment of the operation of the milk frothing arrangement, and to apply the adjusted algorithm thus obtained in a following milk frothing action.
Nonetheless, Wessels teaches, wherein the controller is configured to adjust an algorithm used to control the operation of the milk frothing arrangement on the basis of an actual adjustment of the operation of the milk frothing arrangement, and to apply the adjusted algorithm thus obtained in a following milk frothing action (disclosed in para 0106 “Measuring the temperature of the froth 28A then includes recording sound from the froth 28A and the step of deriving the temperature from the recorded sound by means of a suitable algorithm stored in the controller 73. Depending on the measured temperature the controller 73 can then decide whether or not to deactivate the steamer 4. The controller 73 therefore controls the method of heating and frothing and preparing a beverage based on information gathered by the respective sensors 79, 85, 86 and 87”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date to modify the controller arrangement of Bonsch in view of Heuberger wherein the controller is configured to adjust an algorithm used to control the operation of the milk frothing arrangement on the basis of an actual adjustment of the operation of the milk frothing arrangement, and to apply the adjusted algorithm thus obtained in a following milk frothing action as taught/suggested by Heuberger in order to measure the temperature of the steam so as to control the supplied steam as set values to warm/heat the frothing efficiently and safely.
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. 9:00 am-5:00 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
