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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig. 1 features a reference character that appears as “14 4,” which appears to be a clear mistake.
The drawings are objected to because fig. 1 is replete with reference characters both without lead lines and that are not underlined. Every reference character must either have a lead line, or, where the reference character indicates a surface or cross-section on which they are placed, they must be underlined instead. See 37 CFR 1.84(q).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legal phraseology (“means”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should begin by reciting “A system.”
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_element). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification features ten recitations of "in dependence of," which is ungrammatical should be amended to recite "in dependence on."
On p. 1, l. 17 of the as-filed specification, “capable to deliver” is ungrammatical and should be “capable of delivering.”
On p. 13, l. 31 of the as-filed specification, “whereby that it can” is ungrammatical and should be “whereby it can.”
On p. 15, l. 10 of the as-filed specification, a comma should be placed between “based” and “e.g.”
On p. 17, l. 9 of the as-filed specification, “heater 30” should be “heater 18.”
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 10–13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 features reference characters. Although reference characters in parentheses are acceptable in claims (MPEP § 608.01(m)), the reference characters in this claim should be struck since they are absent in all other independent and dependent claims.
In claim 10, the semi-colon at the end of line 4 should be replaced by a comma.
Claims 11–13 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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) 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:
The water temperature determination device in claim 1 (described as water temperature determination means 34 in the disclosure, with extensive control programming disclosed).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
Claims 1–9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11, the phrase “optionally” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2–5 and 7–9 are rejected due to dependency upon rejected claims.
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.
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 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Druten et al. (US Pub. 2015/0289710) in view of Dees (US Pub. 2019/0069713) and Gulliver et al. (US Pub. 2021/0274964).
Claim 1: Van Druten discloses a system for intermittently dispensing portions of a hot milk-containing beverage component or beverage, comprising a flow channel extending from a water inlet (37/38, see fig. 2) to a dispensing outlet (27, see fig. 2), the flow channel being provided with a milk concentrate inlet (32, see figs. 1 and 2) upstream of the dispensing outlet and a heater (39) upstream of the milk concentrate inlet (see fig. 2), the milk concentrate inlet optionally being configured for feeding milk concentrate to heated water flowing through the flow channel (10, see fig. 1).
Van Druten further discloses achieving a desired water temperature with its heater (see ¶ 56).
Van Druten is silent regarding its heater being a thick film heater.
However, a thick film heater is known as a type of heater suitable for applications like that of van Druten, as disclosed in Dees (¶ 72, “thick film heating element”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the hater of van Druten as a thick film heating element, as taught by Dees, given its advantages (see ¶ 72 of Dees) and suitability for the art (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Van Druten does not disclose a water temperature determination device configured to determine a water temperature at or upstream of a water inlet of the thick film heater; and a controller configured to control the thick film heater in dependence of a water temperature determined by the water temperature determination device.
However, Gulliver discloses a beverage machine including a thermoblock (1125) analogous to the heater of van Druten or the thick film heater of Dees.
Gulliver features one embodiment with a temperature sensor 1205 at a water inlet, as well as a thermoblock temperature sensor 1210 (see fig. 12). From this, “If the temperature of the water going into the thermo-block is known, and the heat transfer efficiency characteristics of the thermoblock heat-exchanger are known, and the target temperature for extraction is given (93° C.) then the required input power to the thermoblock can be determined” (¶ 61).
However, Gulliver also teaches an alternative embodiment without the inlet water temperature sensor, and provides that, “Alternatively if the inlet water temperature is not measured directly, but estimated (or even assumed), then reasonable results can still be achieved” (¶ 62).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Gulliver to van Druten regarding inlet water temperature estimation and known thermoblock heat transfer to use one temperature sensor at the heater (i.e. the thick film heater of Dees, analogous to the thermoblock of Gulliver) to provide an appropriate power to the heater to achieve a suitable temperature for the beverage (as taught by Gulliver).
Comment: Milk concentrate is understood to be a liquid milk concentrate, i.e. milk with reduced water content. It is not understood to read on milk powder.
Claim 6: Van Druten discloses that the system is configured to receive a milk concentrate container (2) for supplying milk concentrate (3) to the milk concentrate inlet.
Claim 7: Van Druten is silent regarding a valve actuator for actuating a valve member of the received milk concentrate container, which valve member during use regulates a flow of milk concentrate to the milk concentrate inlet, wherein the controller is configured to control the valve actuator for regulating the flow of milk concentrate.
Instead, van Druten uses an eductor 4 to entrain milk concentrate 3 out of its holder 2.
However, Dees discloses a similar apparatus with a valve actuator (inherently part of 44 given its controllability) for actuating a valve member (44) of a received milk container (46), which valve member during use regulates a flow of milk to a milk inlet (where 16 meets 16a), wherein the controller (40) is configured to control the valve actuator for regulating the flow of milk concentrate (see ¶ 69).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the eductor of van Druten with the actuatable valve of Dees to provide the benefit of a more accurately controllable supply of milk concentrate (at the cost of more components).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Druten in view of Dees and Gulliver as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gourand (US Pub. 2007/0012685).
Van Druten is silent regarding that, in a first heating mode the controlling by the controller is substantially independent of the determined temperature, wherein in a subsequent second heating mode the controlling by the controller is dependent on the determined temperature.
However, Gourand discloses a beverage system with a first heating mode substantially independent of a determined temperature (¶ 52, “At the time of a first startup with a cold heating device, the regulation controls a rapid preheating, of the order of 2 to 3 seconds, before the beginning of water circulation”), and a subsequent second heating mode dependent on the determined temperature (¶ 53, “After many laboratory tests, it proved that, to obtain hot water at 80.degree. C. at the outlet, it was sufficient to control thereafter, during flow of the liquid, the temperature of the additional element heating to a set point equal to that desired for the liquid simply increased by a constant value, for example of 30.degree. C”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the first and second heating modes taught by Gourand into the controller of van Druten as a known scheme to achieve rapid and effective heating of water for a beverage in a flow-through-type heater.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Druten in view of Dees and Gulliver as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mueller et al. (US Pub. 2019/0380530).
Van Druten is silent regarding it being configured to power down the thick film heater at a predetermined heater deactivation time before the system stops feeding water to the flow channel.
However, Mueller discloses a beverage machine configured to power down an analogous flow-through heater at a predetermined deactivation time before the system stops feeding water to a flow channel (¶ 42, “The heater 114 of the continuous flow heater 10 is turned off before the end of a hot water drawing operation”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the predetermined deactivation of the heater control of Muller into the heater of van Druten to reduce the formation of scale (see the abstract of Mueller).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Druten, Dees, and Gulliver.
Van Druten discloses a method of dispensing a portion of a hot milk-containing beverage component or beverage, comprising:
(i) feeding water (from 37) through a flow channel (41);
(ii) heating the water in the flow channel by a heater (39); and
(iii) feeding milk concentrate (3) to the heated water in the flow channel (at 10).
Van Druten further discloses achieving a desired water temperature with its heater (see ¶ 56).
Van Druten is silent regarding its heater being a thick film heater.
However, a thick film heater is known as a type of heater suitable for applications like that of van Druten, as disclosed in Dees (¶ 72, “thick film heating element”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the hater of van Druten as a thick film heating element, as taught by Dees, given its advantages (see ¶ 72 of Dees) and suitability for the art (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Van Druten is silent regarding determining a water temperature at or upstream of a water inlet of the thick film heater, and controlling the heating by the heater in dependence of the determined water temperature.
However, Gulliver discloses a beverage machine including a thermoblock (1125) analogous to the heater of van Druten or the thick film heater of Dees.
Gulliver features one embodiment with a temperature sensor 1205 at a water inlet, as well as a thermoblock temperature sensor 1210 (see fig. 12). From this, “If the temperature of the water going into the thermo-block is known, and the heat transfer efficiency characteristics of the thermoblock heat-exchanger are known, and the target temperature for extraction is given (93° C.) then the required input power to the thermoblock can be determined” (¶ 61).
However, Gulliver also teaches an alternative embodiment without the inlet water temperature sensor, and provides that, “Alternatively if the inlet water temperature is not measured directly, but estimated (or even assumed), then reasonable results can still be achieved” (¶ 62).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Gulliver to van Druten regarding inlet water temperature estimation and known thermoblock heat transfer to use one temperature sensor at the heater (i.e. the thick film heater of Dees, analogous to the thermoblock of Gulliver) to provide an appropriate power to the heater to achieve a suitable temperature for the beverage (as taught by Gulliver).
Comment: Milk concentrate is understood to be a liquid milk concentrate, i.e. milk with reduced water content. It is not understood to read on milk powder.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Druten in view of Dees and Gulliver as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Gourand.
Van Druten is silent regarding that, in a first heating mode the controlling is substantially independent of the determined temperature, and wherein in a subsequent second heating mode the controlling is dependent on the determined temperature.
However, Gourand discloses a beverage system with a first heating mode substantially independent of a determined temperature (¶ 52, “At the time of a first startup with a cold heating device, the regulation controls a rapid preheating, of the order of 2 to 3 seconds, before the beginning of water circulation”), and a subsequent second heating mode dependent on the determined temperature (¶ 53, “After many laboratory tests, it proved that, to obtain hot water at 80.degree. C. at the outlet, it was sufficient to control thereafter, during flow of the liquid, the temperature of the additional element heating to a set point equal to that desired for the liquid simply increased by a constant value, for example of 30.degree. C”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the first and second heating modes taught by Gourand into the controller of van Druten as a known scheme to achieve rapid and effective heating of water for a beverage in a flow-through-type heater.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Druten in view of Dees and Gulliver as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mueller.
Van Druten is silent regarding powering down the heater while water flows through the heater.
However, Mueller discloses a beverage machine that powers down a heater while water flows through the heater (¶ 42, “The heater 114 of the continuous flow heater 10 is turned off before the end of a hot water drawing operation”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the powering down of the heater while water flows through it of Muller into the heater of van Druten to reduce the formation of scale (see the abstract of Mueller).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Druten in view of Dees and Mueller.
Van Druten discloses a method of dispensing a portion of a hot milk-containing beverage component or beverage, comprising:
(a) feeding water (from 37) through a flow channel (41);
(b) heating the water in the flow channel by a heater (39); and
(c) feeding milk concentrate (3) to the heated water in the flow channel (at 10),
Van Druten is silent regarding its heater being a thick film heater.
However, a thick film heater is known as a type of heater suitable for applications like that of van Druten, as disclosed in Dees (¶ 72, “thick film heating element”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the hater of van Druten as a thick film heating element, as taught by Dees, given its advantages (see ¶ 72 of Dees) and suitability for the art (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Van Druten is silent regarding powering down the heater while water flows through the heater.
However, Mueller discloses a beverage machine with a flow-through heater that powers down while water flows through it (¶ 42, “The heater 114 of the continuous flow heater 10 is turned off before the end of a hot water drawing operation”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the powering-down heater control of Muller into the heater of van Druten to reduce the formation of scale (see the abstract of Mueller).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 8, and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
It’s important to note that the claims are meaningfully limited by the § 112(f) interpretation of the water temperature determination device in claim 1. The Office understands the water temperature determination device to estimate, by calculations, the temperature at or upstream of a water inlet of the thick film heater based on an input from a temperature sensor located other than at or upstream of the water inlet. Therefore, the Office would not find that a conventional temperature sensor positioned at or upstream of the water inlet would read on the limitation. This § 112(f) interpretation does not apply to either of independent claims 10 or 14 because neither claim, alone, has the exact language to invoke such an interpretation, although claim 11’s limitations have a similarly limiting effect on claim 10.
Regarding claims 2, 5, 8, and 11, Gulliver discloses its water temperature determination device measuring a water temperature at a thermoblock heater itself, and not at or downstream of a water outlet of the heater. While the claimed subject matter seems close to the prior art, there is no straightforward reason to conclude that it would have been obvious (rather than merely possible) for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify it (i.e. first with the switch to a thick film heater, then by programming a controller by considering predictable heat transfer physics based on a water heater outlet temperature rather than the water heater temperature) to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2143.01.IV.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights