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 .
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.
Claims 9 and 10
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US-20090293733-A1) in view of Stefan (US-20110014339-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Martin teaches (Figure 15 and 16) an apparatus for preparing beverages, where an air compressor (864) sends compressed air through an air-line (859) into a mixing unit (840), and a gear pump (866) pumps milk down a milk line (852) into the mixing unit ([0159]). Within the mixing unit, the milk line extends into the bore of the air line (854) where the fluids are mixed together, generating enough turbulence to foam the milk ([0159]). Martin also teaches the introduction of a cleaning agent into the lines, where a non-return valve (846) prevents the agent from traveling upstream in the air line, and water is introduced into the line after the cleaning agent to rinse the line of the cleaning agent ([Claim 3] and [0162] and ([0163])). Martin also provides that the apparatus would be unable to dispense a beverage when the apparatus has entered a cleaning cycle ([0046]). Martin further teaches the inclusion of a master controller (42), that utilizes a low-level electronics module (44) to operate switches, valves, and other components of the device ([0102]). The control device can independently adjust the pumps and respective flow rates for each of the air, milk, and steam depending on the product or operation selected ([0049]).
Regarding Claim 10, Martin further teaches that a flow meter is used to measure the amount of water supplied during a cleaning cycle, as well as accounting for a defined quantity of cleaning concentrate, the system determines at the beginning of the cleaning cycle and at another point during the cycle if all the cleaning fluid has been cleaned from the system ([0162]). Any significant discrepancy in the quantity of cleaning fluid is indicative of a leak or a malfunction, where the device will prevent dispensing until all the liquid can be accounted for, ensuring that not cleaning fluid is dispensed into a beverage ([0162]).
Regarding claim 9, Martin does not disclose supplying the lines with pressurized air after the washing fluid to empty the milk line of washing liquid.
With regards to Claim 9, Stefan teaches (Figure 1) a device and method for the production of cooled coffee where the lines of the coffeemaker (1) are cleaned by blowing compressed air through the lines after a cleaning fluid has passed through the lines ([0024]). Stefan also teaches that this is advantageous because no cleaning fluid remains in the lines after the cleaning ([0024]). Stefan further teaches that blowing the lines with compressed air can be done in addition to or instead of the cleaning fluid ([0055]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Martin teaches the beverage preparation device, complete with a milk line with a liquid pump, an air-line with a compressor, and mixing chamber where the air and milk can mix together. Martin also teaches the use of an electronic control module used to control all the electronics of the beverage preparation device, including components such as the pumps, valves, and flow meters. Martin further teaches cleaning the lines of the device with a cleaning agent and rinsing the agent out with water during a washing operation. Additionally, Martin teaches the inclusion of flow meters to measure how much liquid has been pumped through the lines during the cleaning process, ensuring the line is clear of the cleaning liquid. Stefan teaches purging the lines with pressurized air after the cleaning agent has been rinsed out to ensure all the cleaning agent has been removed from the device before preparing the next beverage. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the additional known step of flushing the liquid cleaning agent from the lines by using compressed air to remove any remaining liquid from the lines, and would have understood that this would have yielded predictable results because both references teach beverage preparation devices with a cleaning process in between beverages, and all the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus for preparing beverages as taught by Martin, to include the additional step of flushing the cleaning fluid with air, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin and Stefan in further view of Green (US-20040009281-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Martin in view of Stefan teaches all of the elements of the current invention as previously stated, except a washing liquid line and air-line forming a common duct connectable to the mixing chamber through a diverter valve, where the diverter valve has a first outlet connected to the milk line, and a second outlet connected to the air-line.
Green teaches (Figures 1 and 2) a system and method for producing foamed and steamed milk for hot beverages. Green teaches the foamed milk system (100) incorporates a sanitation system (500) that includes a source of hot water (510), that flows through the hot water hose (520) into a T-joint (540) to join the air hose (180) ([0040]). The air hose is part of the air inlet system (160), and further incorporates an air pump (170) to pressurize the air to a desired flow rate ([0023]). Green further teaches that the air hose goes into the hose connector (185) via hose fitting (200), where fitting (190) goes to the milk hose (150), and fitting (210) goes to the mixture hose (220) ([0024-0025]). Green also teaches that the hose connector can be any three-way or four-way valve ([0006]). Green also teaches that the pressurized air and milk may be combined into one stream in the hose connector to allow the mixture to exit through the third hose fitting, but also provides that the milk and air does not need to be premixed, and can enter the mixing area (310) jointly or separately ([0024] and [0028]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Martin and Stefan teach all the of the claimed elements of the beverage device as previously mentioned, where Green teaches the additional elements of the washing liquid line and the pressurized air-line forming a single duct connected to the mixing chamber via a diverter (three-way or four-way) valve, where one outlet of the valve connects to the milk line, and one outlet connects to the air-line. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the additional elements of a sanitation line and air-line forming a common duct before entering a three-way (or four-way) diverter valve, where one side of the diverter valve is connected to the milk line and one side is connected to the air-line. An artisan of ordinary skill would have expected that the resulting cleaning system would have yielded a predictable result, because all the inventions relate to cleaning processes for beverage makers, and all the elements were known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus for preparing beverages as taught by Martin and Stefan, to include the additional elements of merging the cleaning line with the air-line before going through a diverter valve attached to the milk line, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 12-14
Claims 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, Stefan, and Green, in further view of Eckenhausen (US-20030232115-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Martin in view of Stefan and Green teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but do not disclose the diverter valve being controlled by the electronic control module, where the electronic control module is programmed to diverter valve to supply the washing liquid and then pressurized air through the diverter valve.
With regards to Claim 12, Eckenhausen teaches (Figures 1-4) a hot dairy-based beverage dispenser that incorporates an automated time and/or dispensing interval for the self-cleaning system, that flushes out all components that are exposed to the milk flow ([0015]). Eckenhausen also teaches that the control of the three-way valve (100) is controlled by the printed circuit board (76), which sends signals on line (116) to control the valve ([0050]). Additionally, Eckenhausen teaches control of the air pump (94) via line (102) and the H2O pump (104) via line (108) that are controlled via the board ([0050] and [0051]). Eckenhausen further teaches that the PCB can initiate a cleaning cycle, where water is flushed through the air supply line (72) through the air nozzle (56), while the steam boiler discharges purging steam to clear the supply line (70) and steam nozzle or and milk or water that may remain in those components ([0064]). Additionally, Eckenhausen teaches that it is possible to flush all the traces of milk out of the lines by using the water pump and steam ([0065]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Martin in view of Stefan and Green teach all of the elements for cleaning the beverage preparation device as previously mentioned, and Eckenhausen teaches the use of a controller to control the three-way diverter valve as well as the liquid and air pump. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the additional known elements of controlling the three-way diverter valve and liquid and air pumps via the computer controller to provide a beverage maker that washes the lines of the beverage maker by controlling a diverter valve and pumping a liquid cleaning agent and then pressurized air to remove any remnants and would have understood that this combination would have yielded predictable results because all the references teach beverages preparation devices that clean the lines of the in between beverages, as all of the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus for preparing beverages as taught by Martin, Stefan, and Green to include a controller to control the valves and pumps as taught by Eckenhausen, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, Stefan, Green, and Eckenhausen in further view of Quaratesi (EP-3064104-A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Martin, Stefan, Green in view of Eckenhausen teach all of the elements for the claimed invention as previously mentioned, but does not teach and air line with ambient air inlet, a flow-control valve device, and a shut-off valve device controllable by the electronic control unit to supply a given amount of air to the mixing chamber.
With regards to Claim 15, Quaratesi teaches (Figures 1-7) a method and apparatus for dispensing milk, where the air line (9) with a free end connected to ambient air, an air shut-off valve (2)for opening and closing the air duct, which is preferably a solenoid valve controlled by the electronic control unit (23), and a flow calibrator for regulating the air flow rate to control the amount of air introduced when dispensing a drink ([0058]). Quartesi further teaches that the air shut-off valve allows the machine to dispense foamed drinks with the valve open, and non-foamed drinks with the valve closed ([0022]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Martin, Stefan, Green, and Eckenhausen teach all of the previously claimed elements, where Quartesi teaches the inclusion of a free end of an air-line, open to the ambient air, a flow calibrator and shut-off valve to control the amount of air supplied to the system, controlled by an electronic control module. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the additional known elements of an ambient air line, flow calibrator, and shut-off valve as taught by Quartesi, and incorporated the elements into the beverage dispenser as taught by Martin, Stefan, Green, and Eckenhausen to provide a beverage dispenser where the air line is open to ambient air and the flow calibrator and shut off valve regulate how much air is brought into the system during the preparation of the beverage. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that this combination would have yielded predictable results because all the references teach methods and apparatus for dispensing a beverage with a cleaning system that has an air-line, and all the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus for preparing beverages as taught by Martin, Stefan, Green, and Eckenhausen, to include the additional ambient air line with electronically controlled flow regulator and air shut-off valve, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin and Stefan in further view of Balakrishna (JP-2006221640-A).
Regarding Claim 16, Martin in view of Stefan teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but does not disclose a heater attached to the washing liquid line.
With regards to Claim 16, Balakrishna teaches (Figures 1-5) a hygienic beverage mixing and whipping assembly that incorporates a cleaning system that cleanses all surfaces that comes into contact with the beverage ([0006]). Balakrishna further teaches that the cleaning system includes a tank (205) that includes a heating device (210) that heats the cleaning solution to an appropriate rinse or disinfection temperature, before the pump (206) circulates the cleaning fluid through the beverage dispenser, and is diverted by valve (207) through the product interface (4) and foaming bowl (9) ([0032]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Martin and Stefan teach all of the elements of the beverage preparation machine, including the pumps, air and liquid lines, flow meters, and electronic control unit, and Balakrishna teaches the addition of a heater to heat the cleaning liquid during the washing cycle of the beverage preparation device. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the additional known element of providing a heater to heat the cleaning fluid as taught by Balakrishna to the beverage machine as taught by Martin and Stefan to provide a beverage dispenser that can use a heater to heat the cleaning solution before cleaning the lines of the apparatus with the cleaning solution. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that this combination would have yielded predictable results because all the references teach beverage devices with a cleaning system that circulates a cleaning liquid through the lines, and all the elements were known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus for preparing beverages as taught by Martin and Stefan, to include the additional element of heating the cleaning fluid with a heater attached to the washing line, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stutz (US-20150223633-A1) teaches a device for the preparation of either cold or warm milk, where a rinsing agent is connected to the milk line and air line through a manifold valve. Buettiker (US-20170013996-A1) teaches a method for cleaning and or disinfecting a coffee machine, where a switch-over valve is controlled by a control device. Carhuff (US-20050098575-A1) teaches a food product dispenser with a cleaning mechanism that uses a cleaning fluid along the dispensing path. Larzul (US-20120305597-A1) teaches a beverage dispenser with a hygienic cleaning cycle where a cleaning fluid is circulated to expel remnants from a flavored beverage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights