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 filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In light of Applicant’s amendments dated 6/29/2026, the rejections of claim 1 as being anticipated by the Piersman and Chiusolo references under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration necessitated by the amendments, the Bax reference was found to disclose the additional limitations introduced by the amendments to the beverage dispensing assembly of claim 1 and the beverage container of claim 20 as presently claimed. The remainder of the pending claims has been found to be anticipated by Bax, or rendered obvious by Bax in view of Chiusolo, as described in the rejections below.
With respect to the Bax reference, Applicant argues that Bax fails to teach the coupler as presently claimed (Remarks, Page 15, Section X). Examiner disagrees and refers to the features cited in the rejections below under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) regarding claims 1 and 20. Bax discloses that the functions of the first dispensing line part and coupler body are interrelated and that the components may take different forms, and further includes an incorporation by reference of two additional publications that provide further details regarding the coupler (see Paragraph 0037 of Bax). In particular, one of those references (Van Der Klaauw et al., WO 02/48019) discloses multiple embodiments of a coupler (i.e., connecting device) that incorporates a first dispensing line (e.g., see Figs. 3-5 showing a fixing body for a connecting device having a fixed flexible tube; Page 9, lines 8-20; and Figs. 10-13, showing a connecting device with integrated beverage line; Page 12, lines 3-6). These would be compatible with the arrangement of Bax, in which such first dispensing line leads to a detachable coupler for removably attaching to a second dispensing line. Furthermore, although not specifically argued in Applicant’s Remarks, it is noted that a downward bend in such a first dispensing line is shown in similar dispensing assemblies in the prior art of record, including Bax, as well as Gomi et al. (US 6,105,825; see 17 in Fig. 9) and Takei et al. (WO 2014/123195; see 7 in Fig. 1). As noted below, devices having the same structure as the claimed invention would inherently produce the recited function of reducing the microorganism migration rate.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 5-7, 28-30, 35, and 38-39 in view of Bax and Chiusolo, Applicant argues that neither Bax nor Chiusolo teach or suggest the recited coupler (Remarks, Page 15-16, Section XI). As noted above and detailed in the rejection of claim 1 below, the coupler disclosed by Bax is considered to meet the requirements of the claim. Furthermore, Bax and Chiusolo share a similar structure and function, with one primary distinction being the location of the detachable coupler between the first dispensing line and the second dispensing line with respect to the in-line cooler. Examiner notes that a variety of arrangements for such coolers are known in the art, with some being more closely integrated with the coupling to the beverage container (e.g., see Gomi et al., cited above). Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would choose the location of the detachable coupler based on the intended use of the device. If Applicant wishes to distinguish the coupler of the instant invention from the prior art, the relevant structural differences must be delineated in the claim language.
Applicant’s filing of a Terminal Disclaimer with respect to U.S. Patent No. 12,291,442 is acknowledged. Accordingly, the nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim limitation being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is “cooling means” in claim 9.
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, 3, 5-9, 11-18, 28-31, and 33-41 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 claim 1:
The claim recites “a detachable coupler forming a coupling interface; and a coupler [. . .] wherein the coupler [. . .] enables coupling [. . .] via the detachable coupler forming the coupling interface” in lines 10-15. It is unclear whether two distinct “coupler” structures are recited by these limitations, especially in light of the instant specification, which describes “the coupling interface comprises a coupler 210” (Page 22, lines 8-9; illustrated in Figs. 1-2B); as well as “detachable coupling means 215”, which appears to perform the recited function of the detachable coupler (Page 23, lines 24-26; illustrated in Fig. 3A). According to Examiner’s best understanding, the claim will be interpreted such that “the detachable coupler” corresponds to coupling means 215, and “the coupler” corresponds to coupler 210.
The claim recites “the outlet opening of the beverage chamber” in line 22. It is unclear whether this refers to the “fluid outlet of the container body” recited in lines 12-13, or a different opening.
The remainder of the claims noted above are dependent upon claim 1, thus inheriting its deficiencies.
Regarding claims 12 and 38-39:
Each claim recites “the coupling means”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since “a coupling means” was deleted from claim 1 in the present amendment.
Additionally, each claim recites “the flexible tube arranged in a bend extending downwards”. Claim 1 recites “the upstream flow path section is arranged with a bend in a downward flow direction” in lines 21-22, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claims indefinite.
Regarding claims 16-17, and 40-41, each claim recites “the beverage container contains a beverage” after a previous recitation of “a beverage container [. . .] for holding a beverage” and subsequent recitations of “the beverage” in claim 1 (see lines 2-4), upon which the instant claims depend, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claims indefinite.
In light of the above-noted indefiniteness, the claims will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8, 12-18, 20-21, 24-27, 31, 33-34, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bax et al. (US 2010/0243676).
Regarding claim 1, Bax et al. disclose a beverage dispensing assembly (see the embodiment of Figs. 1-2) comprising a beverage container (2) with a container body defining a beverage chamber (inside space 16) arranged for holding a beverage (beverage 18, Fig. 2); a dispenser with a dispensing opening for dispensing the beverage (tapping cock 4); and a dispensing line extending between the beverage chamber and the dispensing opening to form a flow path enabling a flow of the beverage from the beverage chamber to the dispensing opening (Paragraph 0045), the dispensing line comprising a first dispensing line part (11) attached to the container body (Fig. 2) and a separate second dispensing line part (12) attached to the dispenser (Fig. 6), the first dispensing line part and the second dispensing line part fluid tightly coupled to each other with a detachable coupler (23) forming a coupling interface (Paragraph 0040), and
a coupler (6 with 11) comprising a coupler body (6) fitted on the container body at a fluid outlet of the container body, wherein the coupler comprises the first dispensing line part and enables coupling of the first dispensing line part to the second dispensing line part via the detachable coupler forming the coupling interface, and further enables decoupling of the first dispensing line part from the second dispensing line part via the detachable coupler (11 extends through 6 to connect to the beverage container; 23 cooperates with 24 to removably attach 11 to 12; Paragraphs 0037-0040; see Fig. 2);
wherein the first dispensing line part defines an upstream flow path section for flow of the beverage from the beverage chamber to the detachable coupler (Paragraph 0045), and the second dispensing line part defines a downstream flow path section for flow of the beverage from the detachable coupler to the dispensing opening of the dispenser (Paragraph 0045), wherein the upstream flow path section is arranged with a bend in a downward flow direction of beverage between the outlet opening of the beverage chamber and the detachable coupler (11 includes flexible tube 19, shown in Fig. 1 to be arranged with a bend in a downward flow direction to 23; see Paragraph 0040) to at least reduce a microorganism migration rate from the downstream flow path section into the beverage chamber (the first dispensing line part is arranged to reduce backflow/mixing from the second dispensing line part; see Paragraphs 0004, 0047, 0057; further, since Bax discloses the same features of the claimed invention, it would be capable of reducing a microorganism migration rate in the same way).
Regarding claim 3, Bax et al. further disclose that the first dispensing line part can be sealingly attached to the container body (via connecting device 6) such that entry of microorganisms into the beverage chamber through an attachment interface between the container body and the first dispensing line part is prevented (this would be inherent in the disclosed configuration, especially considering that an airtight interface is required for pressurizing the container for dispensing).
Regarding claim 8, Bax et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed beverage dispensing assembly, as described above regarding claim 1, and further disclose that the upstream flow path section comprises a yeast trap (cleaning element 21, which would trap yeast and other contaminants as it travels through the dispensing line; see Paragraphs 0045-0046; the ball valve of coupling means 23 additionally acts as a yeast trap, since it provides a structure where yeast could accumulate during subsequent dispensing; see Figs. 10-11D). Considering that no particular structure is defined in the claims or illustrated in the drawings with respect to a "yeast trap," Examiner's best understanding is that any structure providing "a further barrier in the upstream flow path section particularly against yeast for migrating into the beverage chamber" (as defined in the original filed specification; see Page 9, lines 20-21) would satisfy the limitation requiring a yeast trap.
Regarding claims 12-13, Bax et al. disclose a beverage dispensing assembly according to claim 1, as described above, and further disclose that the first dispensing line part comprises a flexible tube (coupling element 11 includes tube 19, Fig. 2; “tube 19 is connected, preferably somewhat flexibly,” Paragraph 0040), the flexible tube arranged in a bend extending downwards in a flow direction from the beverage chamber to the coupling means (as described above regarding claim 1). Bax et al. further disclose that the flexible tube is attached with one end to the container body and at an opposite end is arranged for coupling to the second dispensing line part (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 14-15, Bax et al. disclose a beverage dispensing assembly according to claim 1, as described above, and further disclose that the first dispensing line part can be preassembled to the container body (Paragraphs 0039, 0045) with a coupling separate from the detachable coupler (see Fig. 2; coupling of 11 to 2 is different from coupling of 11 to 12). The preassembled coupling of the first dispensing line part to the container (see Fig. 2) would also prevent a direct coupling of the second dispensing line part to the container body.
Regarding claims 16-18, 31, 33, and 40-41, Bax et al. disclose a beverage dispensing assembly according to claim 1, as described above, and further disclose that said assembly is intended for use with “carbonated beverage and/or beverage with natural ingredients, such as beer” (Paragraph 0001). Thus, the beverage container is disclosed to contain a beverage having an alcohol by volume percentage of 0.5 % or less (including beer or cider), as well as an alcohol-free beverage (including malt beverages, fermented fruit beverages, beer, or cider). One having ordinary skill in the art would understand the device of Bax to be intended for use with any of these alternatives.
Regarding claims 20-21, Bax et al. disclose a beverage container (2) comprising a container body defining a beverage chamber (inside space 16) for holding a beverage (18) and a first dispensing line part comprising a flexible tube (coupling element 11 includes tube 19, Fig. 2; “tube 19 is connected, preferably somewhat flexibly,” Paragraph 0040) defining a flow path and with a bend in a downward flow direction of beverage from the beverage chamber (as described above regarding claim 1), with one end of the flexible tube sealingly attached to the container body such that the beverage can flow from the beverage chamber into the flexible tube (via second passage 17 of coupling element 11, Paragraph 0040; Fig. 2) while entry of microorganisms into the beverage chamber through an attachment interface between the container body and the flexible tube is prevented (capability implied by the air/fluid-tight attachment of 11 to 2, allowing pressurization of the container), and an opposite end of the flexible tube arranged for coupling to a second dispensing line part (11 includes coupling means 23; Paragraph 0040) via a coupler (6 with 11) comprising a coupler body (6) arranged for fitting on the container body at a fluid outlet of the container body (see Fig. 2). Bax et al. further disclose that the container body and the flexible tube are preassembled (Paragraph 0039) with the opposite end of the flexible tube (23) closed off with a removable seal (21) prior to use (Paragraph 0054; see Figs. 10-11D).
Regarding claims 24-27, Bax et al. disclose a beverage container according to claim 20, wherein the flexible tube comprises a yeast trap (21 and/or the ball valve of 23; see above regarding claim 8), and a valve arranged to restrict passage of microorganisms through the flexible tube (ball valve of 23; see above regarding claim 1 and Paragraph 0057). Bax et al. further disclose that the flexible tube has a length of at least 5 cm (it is apparent from Figs. 1 and 10 that tube 19 is at least 5 cm in length), and that the flexible tube comprises a seal at both ends (one end being sealed to connecting device 6 or directly to container 2, and the opposite end being sealed by 21; see Paragraph 0054 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 34, Bax et al. disclose a beverage dispensing assembly according to claim 1, and further disclose that the dispenser comprises a faucet with a tapping handle (13 and 4; see Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5-7, 9, 11, 22-23, 28-30, and 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bax et al. in view of Chiusolo et al.
Regarding claims 5-7, Bax et al. disclose the beverage dispensing assembly according to claim 1, but do not disclose that the bend defines an at least 360 degrees turn in the upstream flow path section. Instead, Bax et al. disclose an inline cooler formed by a spiraling section in the downstream flow path section (see 14 in Fig. 1).
Chiusolo et al. teach a first dispensing line part with an upstream flow path section (48 with 26) having a bend extending downwards (see Fig. 2) that continues to extend such that it defines an at least 360 degrees turn (according to Examiner’s best understanding; see Response to Arguments in the previous Office Action dated 1/27/2026 regarding the earlier indefiniteness rejection of claim 5). The first dispensing line part further comprises a plurality of loops consecutively provided along the upstream flow path section, which define a spiraling section of the flow path (coil 26 necessarily includes at least one 360 degrees turn, and is illustrated with a plurality of layers, i.e., loops, with the loops progressing in a vertical direction, i.e., spiraling). Chiusolo et al. teach this configuration for inline cooling of the upstream flow path.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the assembly of Bax et al. such that the bend defines a plurality of loops defining a spiraling section of the flow path, as taught by Chiusolo et al., in order to provide cooling for the upstream flow path. Considering that Bax et al. has already disclosed such a configuration as an inline cooler in the downstream flow path, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it to be an obvious matter of design choice to rearrange this feature in the upstream flow path instead, as it does not appear to have a significant impact on the dispensing functions of the assembly. One having ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to do so based on convenience or space limitations (i.e., it may be more appropriate to have the coupling means located closer to the dispenser, or to have the inline cooler located closer to the beverage container, e.g., on the floor). Bax et al. teaches that the coupling means contain a cleaning element that travels toward the dispenser, but also notes that cooled sections of the flow path require less cleaning “because growth of bacteria is virtually prevented” (Paragraph 0043), so moving the cooler to the upstream side of the cleaning element would appear to have little impact on the cleaning function as well.
Regarding claims 9, 11, and 36-37, when modified as described above regarding claim 5, the inline cooler disclosed by Bax et al. would constitute cooling means arranged for cooling the beverage prior to dispensing the beverage at the dispensing opening, wherein the cooling means are arranged for cooling at least the upstream flow path section in the first dispensing line part such that a migration rate of microorganisms through the flow path section into the beverage container is reduced (as described in Paragraph 0043 of Bax et al., cited above). Bax is silent regarding the details of the cooling means, but Chiusolo et al. further teach a cooling means (refrigeration means 20) wherein “the coolant fluid is water and is used in conjunction with ice as the refrigeration means” (Paragraph 0024), thus the cooling means are arranged to cool the upstream flow path section of the dispensing line to a temperature approaching 0°C.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention of Bax-Chiusolo with ice as refrigeration means, as taught by Chiusolo et al., since Chiusolo et al. teach this as a suitable cooling means for a similar application. Thus the combined invention of Bax-Chiusolo would satisfy the limitations of claims 9, 11, 36, and 37, since the cooling means would be arranged to cool the upstream flow path to approximately the temperature of ice.
Regarding claims 22-23, Bax et al. disclose the beverage container of claim 20, but do not explicitly disclose that the flexible tube comprises a plurality of loops as a spiraling section. However, when the dispensing assembly of Bax et al. is modified in view of Chiusolo et al. according to claims 5-7 as described above, the flexible tube would meet these limitations. Thus, the combined invention of Bax-Chiusolo, as described above regarding claims 5-7, would disclose the beverage container claimed in claims 22 and 23.
Regarding claims 28-29 and 38-39, Bax et al. disclose the beverage dispensing assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first dispensing line part comprises a flexible tube arranged in a bend extending downwards in a flow direction from the beverage chamber to the coupling means (see the above rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)), but do not disclose that the bend defines an at least 360 degrees turn in the upstream flow path section. Instead, Bax et al. disclose an inline cooler formed by at least one looping in the downstream flow path section (see 14 in Fig. 1).
As described above regarding claims 5-7, Chiusolo et al. teach a first dispensing line part with an inline cooler including an upstream flow path section having a bend extending downwards that continues to extend such that it defines an at least 360 degrees turn and is provided as at least one looping in the upstream flow path section.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the assembly of Bax et al. with arrangement taught by Chiusolo et al., for the reasons described above regarding claims 5-7. When modifying the assembly of Bax et al. in this way, the 360 degrees turn and looping would be made in the flexible tube that makes up the first dispensing line part, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 30 and 35, Bax et al., modified in view of Chiusolo et al. as described above, renders obvious the beverage dispensing assembly of claim 5, and further teaches that the bend is provided as a looping in the first dispensing line part (i.e., the plurality of loops consecutively provided along the upstream flow path section described above regarding claims 5-7), thus meeting the limitations of claims 30 and 35.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for additional examples of couplers relevant to the claims of the instant application.
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 MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights