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 .
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 (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 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson (US 20210169265).
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); and
a drip tray assembly (base member 201) positionable beneath the dispensing spout (dispensing outlet 204), the drip tray assembly (base member 201) having a support surface (surface of cover 206),
wherein the support surface of the drip tray assembly 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.) , and
wherein the platform (movable support member 202) and the drip tray assembly (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
Regarding claim 2, Thompson teaches the support surface of the drip tray assembly 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_image5.png
772
588
media_image5.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 drip tray assembly (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.)
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 obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Luippold (US 2011/0259200) (cited in IDS)
Regarding claims 6-7, Thompson 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_image6.png
383
491
media_image6.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 Thompson 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).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Upston (US 2016/0150911) (cited in IDS)
Regarding claims 8-9, Thompson does not explicitly teach a steam module for frothing milk, wherein the steam module has a steam wand and the drip tray assembly is positionable beneath the coffee dispensing spout and the steam wand; wherein the drip tray assembly has a coffee drip tray and a steam drip tray, and wherein the coffee drip tray and the steam drip tray are integrally formed.
However, Upston teaches in the same field of endeavor of a coffee machine, comprising a steam module (steam wand 130/276) for frothing milk, wherein the steam module has a steam wand (steam wand 130/276) and a drip tray assembly (drip tray 140/240) is positionable beneath a coffee dispensing spout (coffee showerhead 122/292) and the steam wand (steam wand 130/276); wherein the drip tray assembly (drip tray 140/240) has a coffee drip tray and a steam drip tray, and wherein the coffee drip tray and the steam drip tray are integrally formed (see figs.1-2, drip tray 140/240 has a coffee drip tray portion and a steam drip tray portion and the two portions are integrally formed.)
PNG
media_image7.png
768
538
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
762
520
media_image8.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 Thompson by adding a steam wand and a drip tray assembly as taught by Upston, in order to froth milk and to reduce risk of soiling.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Thompson and Upston in view of Antrag (DE 102013010110) (cited in IDS)
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Thompson and Upston teaches the drip tray assembly has a coffee drip tray and a steam drip tray (See figs.1-2 of Upston), but does not explicitly teach the coffee drip tray being separately formed from the steam drip tray and movable relative to the steam drip tray.
However, Antrag teaches in the same field of endeavor of a coffee machine, comprising a coffee drip tray (drip tray 6) being separately formed from the steam drip tray (steam drip tray; see the annotation of fig.1) 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.).
PNG
media_image9.png
591
530
media_image9.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 the modification of Thompson and Upston with a coffee drip tray that is capable to separate from steam drip tray and movable relative to steam drip tray as taught by Antrag, in order to reduce risk of soiling.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Thompson, Upston, and Antrag in view of Luippold (US 2011/0259200) (cited in IDS)
Regarding claim 12, Thompson, Upston, and Antrag teaches the coffee drip tray (base member 201) is detachably engageable with a platform (movable support member 202) (see fig.4), 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, Upston, 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 Luippod).
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
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
Prosecution Insights