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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word coconut is misspelled “cocoanut”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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.
Claim 1 is rejected as indefinite due to the phrase “preferably”, as it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2173.05(d).
Claims 2, 6 and 14 are rejected as indefinite due to the phrase “such as”, as it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2173.05(d).
The phrase “room temperature” in claim 13 is rejected, as it is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “room temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “room temperature”; it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed by this phrase, if not “room temperature”.
The phrase “close to room temperature” in claim 13 is rejected, as it is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase “close to”; it is unclear as to what degree of difference is encompassed by this phrase, if not “close too”. It is unclear if the phrase is with respect to temperatures in excess of room temperature, i.e. approximately 95C, if the phrase is with respect to a minimum temperature which is less than “room temperature” or something different altogether.
Claim 14 is rejected due to the term “etc.” It is unclear as to what is encompassed by the term “etc.”; it is unclear if the term is with respect to unlimited “additives” or with respect to something different altogether.
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, 3-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lopez et al. (EP3841933; ids 4/12/24).
Lopez teaches with respect to Independent claim 1, a method for selectively producing beverages or foamed beverages, preferably foamed milk (par. 0022),
wherein the beverage is mixed by at least one powder mixing unit (fig. 1 ref. 9; par. 0033), which can be connected to at least one powder container (fig. 1 ref. 2; par. 0032) for delivering instant powder (par. 0031), and with at least one water supply (fig. 1 ref. 8; par. 0032), characterized in that the mixed beverage is processed by a foamer unit (fig. 1 ref. 4; par. 0034) to form a foamed beverage (par. 0037), and is conveyed in a cold (fig. 1 without heat) or hot state (fig. 2 ref. 7; par. 0042) to an outlet (fig. 1 ref. 6).
Claim 3, further comprising conveying the water of the at least one water supply in a cold state into the powder mixing unit (par. 0032 room temperature; cold relative hot).
Claim 4, wherein by means of the least one water supply (fig. 1 ref. 8), cold water can be conveyed into the powder mixing unit (par. 0032), from which the mixed beverage can be conveyed through a foamer unit (fig. 2 ref. 4) for producing cold or hot beverage foam (fig. 2 ref. 7 with or without heat).
Claim 5, the foamer unit is provided with an air inlet (par. 0034 fig. 1 ref. 3), a pump (par. 0034), and at least one choke point (fig. 1 ref. 5; par. 0034) in outlet line leading to the outlet (fig. 1 par. 0034).
Claim 14, wherein as instant powder, use can be made of a milk powder (par. 0016 line 67)
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2, 6-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. (EP3841933; 4/12/24) in view of Merati et al. (20200270114).
Lopez teaches method and device for foaming milk and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of beverage foaming as taught by Merati.
Merati teaches a same milk foamer (par. 0022) as Lopez for producing frothed milk or alternatively smooth milk which is hot or cold (par. 0022).
Thus since both teach a foamer unit, since Lopez teaches the air supplied by an air inlet (fig. 1 ref. 3) and since Merati teaches by providing a valve at the air inlet relative the supply line and opening and closing such depending on the selected beverage (par. 0020).
Thus since Lopez teaches the mixed beverage is conveyed from the powder mixing unit as a mixed beverage for dispensing in a cold or hot state to the outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings and further provide the valve as taught by Merati at the air inlet of Lopez for its art recognized and advantage of providing an increased number of beverages available and more specifically providing an option of with or without foam as taught by Merati (par. 0022).
Claim 6, since Merati further teaches a line running parallel for selection of with or without aerating (fig. 1) since Lopez teachers foaming a same liquid milk product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings and further provide a line running parallel to the air supply unit as taught by Merati connected to the milk source (fig. 1) by means of which a mixed beverage, such as a milk, can be conveyed without foaming in a cold or hot state for its art recognized and advantage of providing an increased number of beverages available and more specifically providing an option of with or without foam as taught by Merati (par. 0022).
Claim 7, Lopez teaches a central suction line that leads away from the powder mixing unit (fig. 1 line connecting ref. 9 and 11), which opens into suction lines of the line (fig. 1 line ref. 1) or the foamer unit (fig. 1 line connecting to ref. 4) respectively, and from this leads into a central outlet line (fig. 1 line connecting ref. 5 and 6) and to the outlet (fig. 1 ref. 6).
Though silent to an actuation valve for providing the product to the dispenser, since Lopez teaches a throttle for providing the foamed milk to the dispenser, since Merati teaches a valve which provides variable amount of air (par. 0060). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an actuation valve for its art recognized and intended purpose of Lopez of providing the foamed milk to the dispenser after a desired frothing is achieved or relative providing a desired amount of foam as taught by Merati (par. 0060).
Claim 8, since Lopez teaches the mixed beverage is conveyed from the powder mixing unit as a mixed beverage for dispensing in a cold or hot state to the outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings and further provide the actuatable closing valve (fig. 1 ref. 12) as taught by Merati at the air inlet of Lopez for its art recognized and advantage of providing an increased number of beverages available and more specifically providing an option of with or without foam as taught by Merati (par. 0022).
Claim 9, the powder mixing unit consists of with a mixing chamber (par. 0033), leading into which is a powder supply (par. 0032), at least one water supply (par. 0032) leading essentially tangentially into the mixing chamber (fig. 1), an outlet channel (fig. 1 line connecting powder and water to ref. 9, 10), in which is a drivable mixing wheel (par. 0033; blade), and a beverage outlet (fig. 1 line connecting ref. 9 to ref. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one shape of a housing as taught by Lopez as a funnel housing since substituting a funnel shape would accomplish a same desired mixing as taught by Lopez.
Claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one shape of a housing as taught by Lopez such as configured with an approximately cylindrical section, an upper cover, a ring-shaped base wall, and a lower flow opening, in which a same mixing wheel as taught by Lopez is arranged and providing an outlet element leads from the powder container into the mixing chamber as taught by Lopez with an axis of rotation of the mixing wheel transverse to the direction of flow thus achieving a same desired mixing of a powdered product with water and providing an increased number of beverages available and more specifically providing an option of with or without foam as taught by Merati (par. 0022).
Claim 13, Merati teaches a liquid source heater for the purpose of providing a hot drink as opposed to cold (par. 0022). Thus since Lopez teaches the dispensing of either hot or cold products (par. 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a type of heater, such in the instant case an instantaneous water heater (par. 0044) upstream of the powder mixing unit (fig. 2 ref. 6) for the source liquid, such as in the instant case the water supply as taught by Lopez for its art recognized purpose of providing an increased number of beverages available and more specifically providing an option of hot or cold beverages as taught by Merati (par. 0022) and Lopez (fig. 2 with heater) which by option, i.e. on or off, the liquid temperature can be adjusted as desired between close to room temperature and approximately 95 °C as further taught by Merati (par. 0022; hot vs cold).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. (EP3841933) in view of Lassota (20030071061).
Lopez teaches method and device for powder drink dispensing and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of such as taught by Lassota.
Lassota teaches a powder delivery element (par. 0021 ref. 28), which is formed by a screw conveyor in the lower region of the powder container (fig. 1 ref. 28 relative ref. 12) for delivering a preselected quantity of powder ingredient (par. 0022).
Thus since Lopez teaches different milk beverages which are limited by a minimum amount which is variable (par. 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings and provide a powder delivery element (fig. 1 ref. 28 relative ref. 12) for delivering a preselected quantity of powder ingredient (par. 0022) as taught by Lassota the motivation being achieving a defined preselected amount of powder product relative different beverages including any type of milk as taught by Lopez (par. 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to mounted a same screw conveyor as taught by Lassota such as to rotate horizontally along its longitudinal extension, through which, on the front side, and the powder outlet arranged on the upper side for a same purpose of providing a powder product as taught by both to a powder outlet for mixing.
Claim 12, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the screw conveyor which can be rotated by a controllable drive unit as taught by Lassota (par. 0021) and depending on the quantity of water which is detected by a flowmeter as taught by Lassota (par. 0022), the water supply can be adjusted in its speed of rotation by means of a control unit (par. 0023) as taught by Lassota (par. 0023) the motivation being achieving a defined preselected amount of water relative powder product of different beverages including any type of milk as taught by Lopez (par. 0040).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20170164644, 20130209639, 20100075007 directed to producing milk foam,
8590443 directed to powder beverages
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792