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 1 is objected to. It is suggested that “the frothing device comprising at its lower end a frothing device” be amended to “the frothing device comprising at its lower end a member” or “the frothing device comprising at its lower end a frothing member” or “the frothing device comprising at its lower end an impeller” in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
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 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite. It is not clear which of frothing device is being referred to since claim 22, from which claim 31 depends, recites two frothing devices.
Claim 32 depends on claim 31 and does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection of claim 31. Therefore claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite.
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 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, and 36, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S. Publication 2012/0167781) in view of Studor (US Publication 2014/0264972).
Regarding claim 22, Green teaches a milk frothing assembly for a milk frother (Figure 3, paragraph 1 teaches a milk frothing device) comprising: a body (item 2); a motor fixed to the body (item 51) and having an output shaft that is rotatably driven about a longitudinally axis of the output shaft (item 52); and a frothing device (item 21), the frothing device capable of being submerged in a container comprising milk (item 21 is in container 10 and is for comprising milk), wherein the frothing assembly is operable to rotate at first rotational velocity for a first time period, followed by a second rotational velocity for a second period of time (paragraph 28 teaches the speed can be raised or lowered and therefore the frother is considered capable of being operated a first flow velocity for a first period of time and a second flow velocity for a second period of time). Regarding claim 22, Green is silent to the frothing device comprising at its lower end a frothing device. Regarding claim 22, Studor teaches a frother at the lower end of a frothing device (figure 6a item 30 is at the lower end of item 24). Regarding claim 22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the frother of Green with the frother of Studor in order to obtain the desired degree of frothing. Both references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are concerned with milk frothing devices.
Regarding claim 23, the RPM is considered intended use and the frother of Green is considered capable of an RPM that is capable frothing milk (paragraph 28 teaches the drive is capable of various speeds).
Regarding claim 24, the RPM is considered intended use and the frother of Green is considered capable of an RPM that is capable frothing milk (paragraph 28 teaches the drive is capable of various speeds).
Regarding claim 25, the RPM is considered intended use and the frother of Green is considered capable of an RPM that is capable frothing milk with the included circuitry (paragraph 28 teaches the drive is capable of various speeds including the motor, and mechanical coupling elements which would inherently require circuitry in order to function).
Green is silent to the language of claim 26. Regarding claim 26, Studor teaches further causes the milk to move angularly about the longitudinal axis in the direction and also cause the milk to circulate to form annular vortexes (paragraph 42 teaches creating a vortex which would inherently require angular movement about the longitudinal axis). Regarding claim 26, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the frother of Green with the frother of Studor in order to obtain the desired degree of frothing. Both references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are concerned with milk frothing devices.
Green is silent to the language of claim 27. Regarding claim 27, Studor teaches wherein the vortexes are annular with respect to the longitudinal axis (paragraph 48 teaches circular motion to promote the formation of a vortex which would inherently be around the longitudinal axis). Regarding claim 27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the frother of Green with the frother of Studor in order to obtain the desired degree of frothing. Both references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are concerned with milk frothing devices.
Regarding claim 28, Green teaches wherein the frothing device includes an impeller is detachable from the motor (item 21 is considered reading on an impeller, paragraph 66 teaches the frothing means is removable for separate cleaning).
Regarding claim 29, Green teaches wherein the frothing device is provided with a temperature sensor that provides a signal indicative of the temperature of the milk (paragraph 106 teaches a sensor covered by the milk samples the temperature).
Regarding claim 30, Green teaches the temperature sensor projects outwardly out of the chamber (paragraph 106 teaches a sensor covered by the milk samples the temperature which would have to inherently project out of the chamber in order to contact the milk).
Green is silent to the language of claim 31. Regarding claim 31, Studor teaches a perforated member at least partly surrounding the frothing device (see figure 6a items 40). Regarding claim 31, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the frother of Green with the frother of Studor in order to obtain the desired degree of frothing. Both references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are concerned with milk frothing devices.
Green is silent to the language of claim 32. Regarding claim 32, Studor teaches operable to cause movement of milk through the perforated member to be circulated back through the container to cause frothing of the milk (paragraph 42 teaches using items 40 to create a vortex which would inherently circulate material back through the container to cause frothing of the milk).
Regarding claim 35, Green teaches a milk frother to froth milk in a container (Figure 3, paragraph 1 teaches a milk frothing device), the milk frother including: a base assembly having a body to support the container (item 2 is considered a base comprising a body, and item 2 supports item 10); and a frothing assembly at least partially mounted in the body of the base assembly (item 21 in item 10), the frothing assembly including: a motor (item 51) having an output shaft that is rotatably driven about a longitudinally axis of the shaft (item 52); a frothing device rotatably driven by the shaft and to be submerged in the milk in the container (item 21 is submerged in milk when in operation, item 21 is driven by item 52 via item 23); and wherein rotation of the frothing device causes movement of milk in the clearance and movement of milk through the member to be circulated back through the container and the clearance to cause frothing of the milk (paragraph 72 teaches circular movement and swirl and froth the milk). Regarding claim 35, Green is silent to a perforated member at least partly surrounding the frothing device and spaced from the frothing device by a clearance. Regarding claim 35, Studor teaches a perforated member at least partly surrounding the frothing device and spaced from the frothing device by a clearance (items 30 are spaced apart from item 32 of item 24). Regarding claim 35, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the frother of Green with the frother of Studor in order to obtain the desired degree of frothing. Both references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are concerned with milk frothing devices.
Regarding claim 36, Green teaches wherein the frothing device to is operable rotate at first rotational velocity for a first time period, followed by a second rotational velocity for a second period of time (paragraph 28 teaches the speed can be raised or lowered and therefore the frother is considered capable of being operated a first flow velocity for a first period of time and a second flow velocity for a second period of time).
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studor (U.S. Publication 2014/0264972) in view of Green (U.S. Publication 2012/0167781).
Regarding claim 33 Studor teaches a milk frother to froth milk in a container (figures 2 and 6a), the milk frother including: a base assembly for supporting the container, the base assembly including a source of fluid (base assembly is considered items 104, platform 76, item 84 is considered a source of fluid since it contains milk); and a frothing assembly attached to the base assembly (item 24), the frothing assembly including: a body (item 32); a motor fixed to the body (paragraph 55 item 56 motor which is coupled of item 32 via bracket 66) the output shaft including a hollow channel in communication with the source of fluid (item 30 with hollow fluid passageway item 42); a perforated member at least partly surrounding the frothing device (items 40) and spaced from the frothing device by a clearance (items 40 are spaced apart from item 32 of item 24), the perforated member being in communication with the hollow channel of the output shaft (item 30 is a hollow shaft in communication with items 30), wherein the device causes fluid through the perforated member to be circulated back through the container and the clearance to cause frothing of the milk (paragraph 42 teaches liquid flows through items 40); and whereby the source of fluid is operable to cause fluid to be dispensed through the hollow channel and the perforated member (milk from item 40 circulates through item 84). Regarding claim 33, Studor is silent to having an output shaft that is rotatably driven about a longitudinally axis of the output shaft, a frothing device rotatably driven by the shaft and to be submerged in the milk in the container, wherein rotation of the frothing device causes movement of milk in the clearance and movement of milk. Regarding claim 33, Green teaches an output shaft that is rotatably driven about a longitudinally axis of the output shaft (item 22 is rotatably driven around a longitudinal axis of the output shaft), a frothing device rotatably driven by the shaft and to be submerged in the milk in the container (item 21 is submerged in container 10 which contains milk) wherein rotation of the frothing device causes movement of milk in the clearance and movement of milk (item 21 rotates and causes movement of the milk, see paragraph 72 circular movement of milk). Regarding claim 33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the drive of Studor with the rotatable frother configuration of Green in order to obtain the desired degree of frothing. Both references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are concerned with milk frothing devices.
Studor is silent to the language of claim 34. Regarding claim 34, Green teaches wherein the frothing device to is operable rotate at first rotational velocity for a first time period, followed by a second rotational velocity for a second period of time (paragraph 28 teaches the speed can be raised or lowered and therefore the frother is considered capable of being operated a first flow velocity for a first period of time and a second flow velocity for a second period of time). Regarding claim 34, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the drive of Studor with the rotatable frother configuration of Green in order to obtain the desired degree of frothing. Both references are considered in the same field of endeavor since they are concerned with milk frothing devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38, 39, 40, and 41 are 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.
Regarding claim 38, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the milk frother with the combination of the impeller and agitator.
Regarding claim 41, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the milk frother with the combination of the impeller configuration, perforated member, and the screw thread configuration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
