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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-6, 9-12, and 14-22 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and Remarks" filed on 09/23/25.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
establish antecedent basis in the specification for “[…] the tap opening […] includes a tap valve coupler configured to couple the tap body assembly with the tap valve assembly” (as per claim 12).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“[…] the tap opening […] includes a tap valve coupler configured to couple the tap body assembly with the tap valve assembly” (as per claim 12)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6, 9-12, and 14-20 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.
As per claim 12, the limitation “[…] the tap opening […] includes a tap valve coupler configured to couple the tap body assembly with the tap valve assembly” is ambiguous. Specifically, the depicted invention in the drawings conflicts the aforementioned limitation and the particular meaning is therefore uncertain.
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 1-5, 9-12, 14-16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9611131 to Lehman in view of US 4735348 to Santoiemmo in view of US 10703620 to Keeling.
As per claim 1, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Lehman discloses a tapper assembly for a beverage dispenser, comprising:
a container cap assembly (12);
a tap body assembly (33, 42); and
a tap valve assembly (50, 52);
wherein the container cap assembly includes:
an open container interface (31, 32) configured to couple with a container opening (Fig. 3), having a bottom end (Fig. 2),
a canister coupler (26, 26’, 27), arranged in fluid communication with the open container interface (Fig. 2), that is configured to receive pressured gas (Col. 2, Ln. 49-52; Col. 3, Ln. 36-40), and
a tap opening (28’, 29) configured to couple with the tap body assembly (Fig. 3);
wherein the tap body assembly includes:
a tube nozzle (33) configured to couple with a tube (30) below the bottom end of the open container interface such that the tube extends through the open container interface when the tap body assembly is coupled with the tap opening of the container cap assembly (Col. 4, ln. 6-10; Fig. 2-3),
a valve interface (46) configured to couple the tap body assembly with the tap valve assembly (Fig. 4), and
a faucet (42) configured to provide fluid communication between the tube nozzle and the valve interface (Col. 3, Ln. 15-17); and
wherein the tap valve assembly includes:
a tap nozzle (Fig. 3) configured to dispense a beverage from the tap valve assembly, and
a tap valve body (50, 52) configured to couple with the tap body assembly at the valve interface (Fig. 3) and comprising a handle (52).
Lehman does not disclose: internal structure of the canister coupler and a required structure for providing pressured gas where the canister coupler being configured to couple with a gas canister and receive the pressured gas from the gas canister; the functionality of the handle particularly providing selective fluid communication between the valve interface and the tap nozzle.
In regards to the limitations drawn to the canister coupler, Santoiemmo teaches a tapper assembly for a beverage dispenser comprising: a cap container assembly having a canister coupler (62, 76, 78, 74, 65, 68, 70, and see Fig. A - below) the canister coupler being configured to couple with a gas canister (52) and receive the pressured gas from the gas canister. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed in view of the aforementioned silence in Lehman to modify Lehman according to the aforementioned teachings from Santoiemmo to provide particular structure for providing pressured gas to the canister coupler of Lehman.
PNG
media_image1.png
501
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: US 4735348, Fig. 1 – annotated
In regards to the limitations drawn to the functionality of the handle, Keeling teaches a tap valve assembly (Fig. 2-3b) having a tap nozzle (Fig. 2-3b) and a handle (6), and the handle providing selective fluid communication (Fig. 3a-3b) between a valve interface (5) and the tap nozzle. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify The Lehman-Santoiemmo combination according the aforementioned teachings from Keeling to similarly provide the handle of Lehman with the functionality of providing selective fluid communication between the valve interface and the tap nozzle.
As per claims 2-3, Santoiemmo further discloses the canister coupler is configured to couple directly to the gas canister via a hose of the canister coupler.
As per claims 4-5, Santoiemmo further discloses a gas canister sleeve (50) configured to receive and hold the gas canister, wherein the canister coupler is configured to couple with the gas canister sleeve (Fig. 1) and a gas canister (52) coupled with the canister coupler (Fig. 1-2).
As per claim 9, Lehman further discloses the open container interface includes a container coupler configured to couple with the container opening (Fig. 3).
As per claims 10-11, Santoiemmo further discloses the canister coupler includes a canister coupler (62) configured to couple with the gas canister (Fig. 2), a gas canister (52) coupled with the canister coupler (Fig. 2).
As per claims 12, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Lehman further discloses the valve interface includes a tap valve coupler configured to couple the tap body assembly with the tap valve assembly (Fig. 3).
As per claim 14, Lehman further discloses a container, configured to receive and hold a liquid, wherein the container includes the container opening (Fig. 3).
As per claim 15, the aforementioned Lehman-Santoiemmo-Keeling combination discloses the claimed invention except for the particular connecting structure between the container opening and the container interface. Santoiemmo further teaches at least one of the container interface and the container opening includes a container coupler configured to couple a container interface with a container opening (28, 30). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to further modify the aforementioned Lehman-Santoiemmo-Keeling combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Santoiemmo to provide the particular connecting structure between the container opening and the container interface.
As per claim 16, Lehman further discloses the container opening is configured to receive the tube when the tube nozzle is coupled with the tube and the tap body assembly is coupled with the tap opening of the container cap assembly (Col. 4, ln. 6-10; Fig. 2-3).
As per claim 21, Lehman further discloses the tube nozzle is integrated with the faucet (Fig. 3-4).
As per claim 22, Lehman further discloses the tube nozzle is smaller in diameter than the open container interface (Fig. 2-3).
Claims 6 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9611131 to Lehman in view of US 4735348 to Santoiemmo in view of US 10703620 to Keeling in view of US 9919910 to Gibson.
As per claim 6, the Lehman-Santoiemmo-Keeling combination discloses the claimed invention except for the gas canister containing nitrogen. Gibson teaches a tapper assembly comprising a gas canister containing nitrogen (Col. 15, Ln. 50-59) to produce a nitro-beverage. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Lehman-Santoiemmo- Keeling combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Gibson to similarly produce a nitro-beverage.
As per claims 17-20, the Lehman-Santoiemmo-Keeling combination discloses the claimed invention except for the particular structure of the container opening. Gibson teaches a container comprising an unobstructed container opening (Fig. 8-10, 16). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application as effectively filed to modify the Lehman-Santoiemmo-Keeling combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Gibson to provide the particular structure of the container opening.
Lehman further discloses the container may be filled with beer (Col. 4, Ln. 1-2). The Lehman-Santoiemmo-Keeling-Gibson combination does not explicitly disclose the container is configured to receive a liquid poured directly into the container opening or the liquid being coffee, however, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). Further, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. See MPEP §2115. In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The Lehman-Santoiemmo-Keeling-Gibson combination discloses the claimed structure and is capable of receiving coffee poured directly into the container opening.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the objections to the specification and drawings and the rejection under 35 USC § 112, the arguments and amendments filed 09/23/25 are found persuasive in-part. All objections are withdrawn except for that maintained herein with regard to the limitation of claim 12: “the tap opening […] includes a tap coupler configured to couple the tap body assembly with the tap valve assembly”. Applicant has not addressed the maintained objections and rejection.
In regards to the claim rejections under prior art, the arguments and amendments filed 09/23/25 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant requests withdrawal of the claim rejections by arguing that Lehman does not disclose a coupling point of the tube nozzle and the tube arranged below the bottom end of the open container interface. However, in determining the relative weight to accord to rebuttal evidence, considerations such as whether a nexus exists between the claimed invention and the proffered evidence, and whether the evidence is commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, are appropriate. The mere presence of some credible rebuttal evidence does not dictate that an obviousness rejection must always be withdrawn. See MPEP § 2145. Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a coupling point of the tube nozzle and the tube arranged below the bottom end of the open container interface) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, and as previously set forth, Lehman discloses a tube (30) below the bottom end of the open container interface and a tube nozzle (33) configured to couple with the tube such that the tube extends through the open container interface when the tap body assembly is coupled with the tap opening of the container cap assembly (Col. 4, ln. 6-10; Fig. 2-3). Furthermore, there appears no support in the application for “a coupling point of the tube nozzle and the tube arranged below the bottom end of the open container interface such that the tube extends through the open container interface” –as asserted in the arguments filed 09/23/25.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 with expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 October 21, 2025