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 Amendments
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed on 28 October 2025 is acknowledged and entered. Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements (IDS), filed on 28 October and 16 December2025 are also acknowledged and entered.
By this Amendment, the Applicant amended Claims 1, 30 and 33. Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 15-21, and 23-33 remain pending in the application.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s statement that “Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 15-21 and 23-31 are presently pending in the application” in Applicant’s “Arguments”, pg 8, and a similar opening statement by Examiner in the previous Office Action of 29 April 2025. However, Claims 32-33 remain pending. Examiner further notes that Claims 32-33 were treated in 29 April 2025 Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections, 35 USC 112(a): In light of the amended claims, the rejections of Claims 1, 30, and 33 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections, 35 USC 112(b): In light of the amended Claim 1, the dependency-related rejections of Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 33 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-19, filed 28 October 2025, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 15-21, and 23-33 under USC § 103 have been fully considered in light of the amendments made to the claims, and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made to the amended claims as explained in the Sections below titled “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102” and “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103”.
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 and its dependent Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 33 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 25, the claims contain the limitation of “the dispensing line”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner notes that “a dispensing line” is established at independent Claim 16.
Regarding Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 21, 23, 24, 27, and 33, the claims depend upon Claims 1 and/or 25, and therefore suffer the same deficiencies.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-17, 26, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rokkjaer (US 5901747 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Rokkjaer discloses a beverage dispensing assembly (Fig 4, see also the rejection of Claim 1 above), comprising
- a beverage container (14) with a container beverage outlet (threaded access opening 18), a dispenser (Fig 8, conventional pump 85) with an outlet opening for dispensing a beverage (See at least Col 6, lines 20-42: “Continued pumping action by pump 85 will cause the liquid to flow outwardly of the outlet of the coupler body where it can be transferred to a remote location via an outlet tube such as outlet tube "OT" shown in FIG 1”); and
- a dispensing line (coupler body 30, as part of a “coupler assembly” per Col 4, line 33-39), arranged between the beverage container and the dispenser to form a flow path enabling a flow of beverage from the container to the outlet opening (see Examiner’s explanation in the rejection of Claim 1 above);
- wherein the dispensing line is connected to a coupler (the invention of Rokkjaer is drawn to a coupler; see at least Col 4, line 15: “As shown in FIG 4, the improved coupler assembly of the present invention is removably connected to the extractor valve assembly 20…”) to be coupled to the container (48) at the container beverage outlet (18),
- wherein a fluid conduit (within coupler body 30) is provided between the container beverage outlet and the coupler, during use forming a fluid connection between the container beverage outlet and the coupler, fluidly connecting to the dispensing line (as explained in the rejection of Claim 1 above, please refer to the above references, and at least Col 4, lines 1-14), and
- wherein a flow restrictor (Figs 5-8, umbrella valve 66 introduced at Col 5, lines 27-47) is provided in the fluid conduit, allowing beverage flow from the container beverage outlet into the dispensing line through the coupler but restricting passage of micro-organism through the fluid conduit from the coupler to the container beverage outlet (see the rejection of Claim 1 above, and at least Col 6, lines 20 – 42 and Col 6, line 58- Col 7, line 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
732
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Rokkjaer discloses a beverage dispensing assembly, wherein the dispensing line (coupler body 30) comprises a coupler (the invention of Rokkjaer is drawn to a “coupler assembly…compris(ing) a generally cylindrically shaped coupler body 30”; see at least Col 4, line 33-39 and Examiner’s comments in the rejection of Claim 16 above), and the fluid conduit (within coupler body 30) is provided between the beverage container and the coupler.
Regarding Claim 26, Rokkjaer discloses a coupler assembly (the invention of Rokkjaer is drawn to a coupler; see at least Col 4, line 15: “As shown in FIG 4, the improved coupler assembly of the present invention is removably connected to the extractor valve assembly 20…”) arranged to be fitted to a beverage container (48), comprising
- a coupler body (“coupler assembly”), arranged to be fitted to a fluid outlet of the beverage container, a beverage dispensing line extending from the coupler body to provide a flow path for a beverage; and
- a fluid conduit comprising a conduit body (coupler body 30, as part of the “coupler assembly”, see at least Col 4, lines 33-39) with a container side (Fig 5, “skirt-like member 30a, along with ring-like portion 42”) and a dispenser side (outlet port 32, see Fig 4 and at least Col 4, line 33-36), in use downstream of the container side,
- wherein the conduit body defines a flow path through the fluid conduit between the container side and the dispenser side (see the above references); and
- a flow restrictor (Figs 5-8, umbrella valve 66 introduced at Col 5, lines 27-47) provided in the flow path arranged to
- allow a flow of fluid from the container side to the dispenser side (this process explained extensively at Col 6, line 20 – 42); and
- at least restrict passage of micro-organisms through the conduit body from the dispenser side to the container side ((Col 6, line 58- Col 7, line 4),
- wherein the container side of the of the conduit body is connected to an outlet channel of the coupler body (shown at least in Figs 4-5) and the dispenser side of the conduit body is connected to an inlet side of the coupler connected to the beverage dispensing line (shown at least in Figs 4-5), such that a beverage flow path is provided through the coupler body, the conduit body, the flow restrictor inside the conduit body, the coupler and the beverage dispensing line (shown at least in Figs 4-5).
Regarding Claim 28, Rokkjaer discloses a beverage container assembly (Fig 4), comprising
- a beverage container (container 14) with a storage body for containing a beverage (Fig 4 and Col 3, line 58- Col 4, line 14) and
- an extractor tube (downtube 48), providing a fluid outlet for a beverage inside the storage body (Col 4, line 61- Col 5, line 2) and comprising an extractor tube head (extractor valve assembly 20, see Col 4, lines 3-19),
- further comprising a coupler assembly according to claim 26 (see the above rejection of Claim 26),
- wherein the coupler (as part of the “coupler assembly” shown in the above rejection of Claim 26) is connected to the fluid outlet (shown at least in Figs 4-5).
Regarding Claim 31, Rokkjaer discloses a beverage container assembly (Fig 4), comprising
- a beverage container (14) with a storage body for containing a beverage (Fig 4 and Col 3, line 58- Col 4, line 14) and
- an extractor tube (48), providing a fluid outlet for a beverage inside the storage body (Col 4, lines 3-19) and comprising an extractor tube head (extractor valve assembly 20, see Col 4, lines 3-19), and
comprising
- a fluid conduit comprising a conduit body (coupler body 30, as part of the disclosed “coupler assembly”) with a container side (Fig 5, “skirt-like member 30a, along with ring-like portion 42”, wherein 30a “also defines the inlet port 34 of the coupler body”, see Col 4, lines36-39) and a dispenser side (outlet port 32, see Fig 4 and at least Col 4, line 33-36), in use downstream of the container side (Col 6, lines 39-42 and Col 6, line 65-Col 7, line 4),
- wherein the conduit body defines a flow path through the fluid conduit between the container side and the dispenser side (see the above references); and
- a flow restrictor (Figs 5-8, umbrella valve 66 introduced at Col 5, lines 27-47) provided in the flow path arranged to
- allow a flow of fluid from the container side to the dispenser side (this process explained extensively at Col 6, line 20 – 42); and
- at least restrict passage of micro-organisms through the conduit body from the dispenser side to the container side (Col 6, line 58- Col 7, line 4), and
- wherein the fluid conduit (as part of the coupler assembly) is fitted to the extractor tube head, such that the container side of the conduit body is in fluid connection with the fluid outlet, and the fluid conduit is provided for enclosure between a coupler of a beverage dispenser and the beverage outlet when the coupler is connected to the container (shown at least at Figs 4-5).
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, 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 18-20 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokkjaer, in view of Oswald (US 2006/0157515).
Regarding Claims 18-20 and 29, Rokkjaer teaches the claimed invention, to include a beverage dispensing assembly and method for refilling a beverage container of a beverage container assembly (see the rejections of Claims 16 and 26 above).
However, Rokkjaer only generically mentions the dispensing of “liquids”, and does not explicitly recite the claimed subject matter of Claims 18-20 and 29, drawn to beverages with little to no alcohol, and/or being “malt-free”.
Applicant is advised that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon (in the present case, the “beverage” of Claims 18-20 and 29) by a structure being claimed (in the present case, “a beverage container/dispensing assembly”) does not impart patentability to the claims, and is given little weight. Please see MPEP 2115. Examiner further notes that Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to suggest that there is any need for special modification for dispensing apparatuses to additionally process non-alcoholic beverages, versus those that do contain alcohol, carbohydrates, or other ingredients that may also require the cleaning of micro-organisms.
However, and should Applicant traverse Examiner’s reasoning above, Examiner additionally relies upon Oswald, who teaches a beverage container and related dispensing assembly for use with non alcoholic beverages (see para 146: “"the invention can be performed with fluid lines not used with alcoholic drinks"), as well as a beverage comprising carbohydrates (see para 1: “This invention relates to fluid line apparatus with a novel line draining mechanism, for use particularly, but not exclusively with pressurized commercial beer lines).
Rokkjaer and Oswald each teach aseptic beverage dispensing. The Oswald reference additionally teaches the specific utility of an aseptic process for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages alike. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the apparatus of Rokkjaer, which can provide aseptic beverage dispensing of “liquids” to specifically dispense non-alcoholic and malt-free beverages, as taught by Oswald. Doing so would simply result in the expanded utilization of the apparatus of Rokkjaer.
Therefore,
Regarding Claim 18, Rokkjaer, as modified by Oswald above, teaches a beverage dispensing assembly, wherein the beverage container contains a beverage having an alcohol by volume percentage of 2 % or less (Oswald, para 146, "the invention can be performed with fluid lines not used with alcoholic drinks").
Regarding Claim 19, Rokkjaer, as modified by Oswald above, teaches a beverage dispensing assembly, wherein the beverage is essentially free of alcohol (Oswald, para 146: "the invention can be performed with fluid lines not used with alcoholic drinks").
Regarding Claim 20, Rokkjaer, as modified by Oswald above, teaches a beverage dispensing assembly, wherein the beverage is an alcohol-free malt-based beverage (Oswald, para 146: "the invention can be performed with fluid lines not used with alcoholic drinks").
Regarding Claim 29, Rokkjaer, as modified by Oswald above, teaches a method for refilling a beverage container of a Beverage container assembly according to claim 28, comprising the steps of:
- removing the coupler (Rokkjaer, “coupling assembly) from the beverage container (Rokkjaer, 48);
- refilling the beverage container with beverage which is one of:
- a beverage comprising carbohydrates (Oswald teaches utilization for beer, which is known to contain carbohydrates, as a beverage. See para 1);
- a beverage with an alcohol by volume content of less than 2% (Oswald teaches utilization for non-alcoholic beverages, see para 146); and
- a beverage with an alcohol by volume content of less than 0.2% (Oswald, para 146; and
- fitting a new coupler (Rokkjaer, a new “coupling assembly”) to a fluid outlet (Rokkjaer, “threaded neck 19”) of the beverage container (Rokkjaer 48, see at least Fig 4A). Examiner interprets the requirement of fitting a new coupler as being known to the prior art, as it would obvious to replace aging, failing, or dirty parts as required in the normal daily operations of any dispensing apparatus.
Regarding Claim 30, Rokkjaer, as modified by Oswald above, teaches a method for refilling a beverage container of a beverage container assembly, comprising the step of disconnecting the beverage container (Rokkjaer, 48) from a beverage dispenser (a dispenser connected to an outlet tube as described by Rokkjaer, see at least Col 6, lines 39-42 and Col 6, line 65-Col 7, line 4) by disconnecting the coupler (Rokkjaer, “coupling assembly”) from the beverage container and removing the fluid conduit (the limitation “removing the fluid conduit” is broadly interpreted by Examiner as “removing the fluid conduit from the beverage container” This would be accomplished by removing the “coupling assembly” of Rokkjaer, which comprises the “fluid conduit” and coupler body 30, as explained in the rejection of Claim 26 above, from the beverage container).
Regarding Claim 32, Rokkjaer, as modified by Oswald above, teaches a method for refilling a beverage container of a beverage container assembly wherein the beverage side of the fluid conduit (Rokkjaer, as part of coupler body 30) is provided with a seal (Fig 7, seal 82) sealing off said dispenser side of the fluid conduit (Col 5, line 54- Col 6, line13: “Seal 82 comprises a part of the sealing means of the invention and cooperates with the actuating means to close the lower portion of the coupler body”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 (and its dependent Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 33) would be allowable if Claims 1 and 25 were rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 27 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious
(Claim 1) “a beverage container assembly, comprising a beverage container…an extractor tube, …an extractor tube head, and a coupler to be coupled to the extractor head, the beverage container assembly further comprising a conduit body …for coupling to the coupler connected to the dispensing line, wherein the conduit body defines a flow path through a fluid conduit between the container side and the dispenser side; and a flow restrictor…wherein the fluid conduit is removably provided between the extractor head and the coupler”,
in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claim.
Rokkjaer (US 5901747 A) is the closest prior art of record. However, Rokkjaer is silent on these above recited features. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to modify Rokkjaer to arrive at these above recited features without improper hindsight reasoning. In addition, amending Rokkjaer to include the above recited features would improperly change the principle of operation of Rokkjaer.
Specifically, as shown in the rejection of similar independent Claims 16, 26, and 31, Rokkjaer teaches a beverage container assembly, beverage container (14), extractor tube (48), extractor tube head (20), and a conduit body (coupler body 30) comprising a fluid conduit. However, the “fluid conduit” of Rokkjaer is not explicitly described as being “removable” between the extractor head and the coupler, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 1, or “releasably connected to the coupler”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 27.
Examiner notes Rokkjaer Claim 11 (“(c) a coupler assembly removably connected to said extractor valve assembly…”), but this configuration appears to be different from that as claimed by Applicant, and disclosed in Applicant’s Specification and drawings. Moreover, the apparatus of Rokkjaer does not appear to be designed for a “removable” fluid conduit in a manner as claimed by Applicant. Examiner concludes that it would be impermissible hindsight to alter the design of Rokkjaer to include a “removable” fluid conduit, and doing so would likely break the operations of Rokkjaer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Examiner, Art Unit 3753