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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the ground of rejection applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is 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 “the separate trip trays” is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the separate trip trays” is interpreted to the coffee drip tray and the steam drip tray.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 20210169265) in view of Antrag (DE 102013010110).
PNG
media_image1.png
816
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
664
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Thompson teaches a coffee machine (beverage dispensing apparatus 100) comprising:
a coffee extraction module with a dispensing spout (dispensing outlet 204) and a supporting body (housing 110);
a platform (movable support member 202) for detachable connection with the supporting body (housing 110) at a plurality of different spacings beneath the dispensing spout (dispensing outlet 204) (See figs.15-18);
a coffee drip tray (base member 201) positionable beneath the dispensing spout (dispensing outlet 204), the coffee drip tray (base member 201) having a support surface (surface of cover 206);
wherein the support surface of the coffee drip tray is configured to receive the platform (movable support member 202) such that the support surface and the platform are substantially co-planar (See figs.1-3, movable support member 202 and surface of cover 206 are substantially co-planar.) ,
wherein the platform (movable support member 202) and the coffee drip tray (base member 201) are configured to engage and disengage from the supporting body via horizontal relative movement (See figures, operator can engage and disengage base member 201 and movable support member 202 from the housing 110).
PNG
media_image3.png
744
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
742
554
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thompson does not explicitly teach a steam module for frothing milk, the steam module having a steam wand; and a steam drip tray positionable beneath the steam wand, and wherein the coffee drip tray is separately formed from the steam drip tray and movable relative to the steam drip tray, allowing the separate trip trays to be individually emptied and cleaned.
However, Antrag teaches in the same field of endeavor of a coffee machine, comprising a steam module for frothing milk, the steam module having a steam wand (steam wand; see the annotation of fig.1); and a steam drip tray (steam drip tray; see the annotation of fig.1) positionable beneath the steam wand (steam wand), and a coffee drip tray (drip tray 6) is separately formed from the steam drip tray (steam drip tray) and movable relative to the steam drip tray (steam drip tray) (drip tray 6 is capable to separate from steam drip tray and movable relative to steam drip tray.), allowing the separate trip trays to be individually emptied and cleaned [Examiner’s note: the stream drip tray and the coffee drip can be individually emptied and cleaned by operator.].
PNG
media_image5.png
624
559
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify coffee drip tray of Thompson by adding a steam wand and a steam drip that capable to separate from a coffee drip tray as taught by Antrag, in order to froth milk to provide better flavor to the drink and reduce risk of soiling.
Regarding claim 2, Thompson teaches the support surface of the coffee drip tray is adapted to receive a receptacle [Examiner’s note: This is an intended function of the support surface. The surface of cover 206 is capable to receive a receptacle.], the support surface having apertures (apertures 208) and a reservoir (cavity 294) for collecting liquid draining through the apertures (see figs).
PNG
media_image6.png
772
588
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Thompson teaches the platform (movable support member 202) is adapted to support the receptacle beneath the dispensing spout [Examiner’s note: This is an intended function of the platform. movable support member 202 is capable to support a receptacle beneath the dispensing outlet 204.]
Regarding claim 4, Thompson teaches the platform (movable support member 202) is a movable cup support configured to detachably engage the coffee drip tray (base member 201) (See fig.4).
Regarding claim 5, Thompson teaches the supporting body (housing 110) of the coffee extraction module has a series of connection points for detachable inter-engagement with the cup support (movable support member 202) to provide the plurality of different spacings beneath the spout (See figures and para.[0073] “the engagement of the anti-rotation feature 331 in the vertically extending recess 101 (or guide track) prevents rotation of the outer telescoping element 212 and restricts its movement path to a purely vertical translation, preventing rotation.” The recess 101 of housing 110 has a series of connection points that capable to detachable inter-engagement with the movable support member 202.)
Claims 6-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Thompson and Antrag in view of Luippold (US 2011/0259200).
Regarding claims 6-7, the modification of Thompson and Antrag does not explicitly teach the connection points are sockets in the supporting body, wherein the cup support has a protrusion shaped for insertion in any of the sockets such that the platform is substantially horizontal; wherein the sockets include a lower socket disposed adjacent a lower surface of the supporting body, and wherein the protrusion of the cup support is horizontally slidable into the lower socket.
However, Luippold teaches in the same field of endeavor of a coffee machine, comprising a supporting body (housing region 2) has a series of connection points (openings 9 and 9′) that are sockets in the supporting body (see fig.4), wherein a cup support (support assembly 4) has a protrusion (bracket 8) shaped for insertion in any of the sockets such that the platform is substantially horizontal (See fig.4); wherein the sockets (openings 9 and 9′) include a lower socket (openings 9′) disposed adjacent a lower surface of the supporting body (housing region 2), and wherein the protrusion of the cup support is horizontally slidable into the lower socket (See fig.4).
PNG
media_image7.png
383
491
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the coffee machine of the modification of Thompson and Antrag by replacing the supporting body and cup support with a supporting body has a series of sockets and a cup support has a protrusion shaped for insertion in any of the sockets as taught by Luippold, in order to easily adapt drinks vessels of different sizes, and therefore significantly reducing risk of soiling (para.[0007] of Luippod).
Regarding claim 12, Thompson and Antrag teaches the coffee drip tray (base member 201 of Thompson) is detachably engageable with a platform (movable support member 202 of Thompson) (see fig.4 of Thompson), but does not explicitly teach the coffee drip tray and the platform are both positionable at the plurality of different spacings beneath the spout.
However, Luippold teaches in the same field of endeavor of a coffee machine, comprising the coffee drip tray (collection device 7) and the platform (rest surface 5) are both positionable at the plurality of different spacings beneath the spout (see fig.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the coffee machine of Thompson and Antrag by replacing the coffee drip tray and platform with a supporting body has a series of sockets and a cup support has a protrusion shaped for insertion in any of the sockets as taught by Luippold, in order to easily adapt drinks vessels of different sizes, and therefore significantly reducing risk of soiling (para.[0007] of Luippold).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
