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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the beverage container of the beverage dispensing assembly of Lecomte is not removable. However, a review of the reference and as depicted in Fig. 5, shows a latched front cover that can be opened to access the beverage container for removal. Further, Lecomte expressly states as much in column 9, lines 44-45, beverage container is removable for at least cleaning.
In response to applicant's argument that Lecomte doesn’t teach supercooling a beverage, 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Lecomte discloses all the structures in place to cool a beverage to a desired temperature (Col. 15, lines 12-14, control module sets the temperature). Further, Lecomte expressly teaches rapid supercooling under pressure (Col. 14, lines 59-67) and a depressurization of the storage volume (Col. 10, lines 17-20), stating that the mixture, disposed in the storage volume, was initially at 27° C. Then fluid (CO2 or nitrogen), initially in the liquid state in the capsule, at approximately 20 bar, was ejected from the capsule into the mixture. This ejection caused expansion of the fluid, which itself chilled the fluid, now become a gas, to approximately −50° C. Injecting the gaseous fluid into the mixture reduced the temperature of the latter to approximately 5° C. in a few seconds.” This is only one example and it’s clear that further cooling can be accomplished depending on the recipe desired i.e. frozen cocktails where partially solidified components are inherently present. Since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further structural delineation is needed to adequately define the claimed invention from the prior art.
In response to applicant's argument that Lecomte does not receive a subsequent beverage container, 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the device of Lecomte due to the removable nature of the beverage container (Column 9, lines 44-45), the beverage dispensing system is implicitly capable of performing the function of receiving a subsequent beverage container.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-12, 14-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecomte et al. (US Patent No. 11,109,708).
Re: Claim 1, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of a method of dispensing a beverage from an assembly into a beverage container (121) including a storage volume (122) for receiving the beverage (Fig. 1), wherein the assembly receives the beverage container, comprising:
pressurizing the storage volume of the beverage container up to a first pressure (Col. 9, lines 60-66, pressuring the fluid within the storage volume);
dispensing the beverage into the storage volume of the beverage container while the storage volume is pressurized (Fig. 1, Col. 14, lines 10-15, dispensing into the storage volume, while pressurized); and
wherein the beverage is supercooled to a first temperature below a melting point of the beverage by a cooling unit positioned upstream of the beverage container or by a container cooling unit (150, 151) for cooling the beverage container such that the beverage container includes the supercooled beverage (Fig. 5, Col. 10, lines 38-51, a container cooling unit, Col. 14, lines 55-67, capable of rapid supercooling below a melting point under pressure an example giving of cooling to 5 degrees Celsius) except for expressly mentioning supercooling below melting point and the sequence of supercooling prior to depressurizing. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to cool to a first temperature below a melting point prior to decreasing pressure, since it has been held selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), and further cooling to below a melting point would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
decreasing the pressure in the storage volume of the beverage container to ambient pressure so as to create an at least partially solidified beverage within the beverage container (Fig. 1, Col. 10, lines 1-6, pressure reducer decreasing the pressure of beverage in the storage volume to ambient, Col. 15, lines 12-15, 41-46, chilled to desired temperature as dictated by the cocktail recipe i.e. if recipe calls for a frozen cocktail it will inherently have solidified particles),
wherein the beverage container with the at least partially solidified beverage is removable from the assembly (Column 9, lines 44-45, Fig. 5 depicts unlatching a front cover for removal of the beverage container from the dispensing assembly), and wherein the assembly is arranged for receiving a subsequent beverage container (Column 9, lines 44-45, the device of Lecomte due to the removable nature of the beverage container, the beverage dispensing system is implicitly capable of performing the function of receiving a subsequent beverage container).
Re: Claim 4, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of dispensing the beverage comprises providing the beverage at a third pressure (Col. 13, lines 35-50, dispensing beverage at a threshold pressure).
Re: Claim 5, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of the third pressure is substantially equal to the first pressure (Col. 13, lines 35-50, dispensing beverage at a desired pressure).
Re: Claim 6, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of while dispensing the beverage, decreasing the pressure in the storage volume of the beverage container from the first pressure to a second pressure (Fig. 1, Col. 10, lines 1-6, pressure reducer decreasing the pressure of beverage in the storage volume to ambient).
Re: Claim 7, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of the change from the first pressure to the second pressure is substantially stepwise (Fig. 1, Col. 10, lines 1-6, pressure reducer decreasing the pressure of beverage in the storage volume to ambient).
Re: Claim 8, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of the beverage has an alcohol by volume content of 0.5% or more (Col. 1 & 13, lines 10-12 & 59-61, controller also acts a sampling unit determining the nature of the ingredients of a cocktail implicitly includes sugar content alcohol etc.).
Re: Claim 9, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of the beverage comprises a dissolved gas (Col. 12, lines 17-20, carbon dioxide in the gas).
Re: Claim 10, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of the beverage has a sugar content of 2 grams per liter or more (Col. 1 & 13, lines 10-12 & 5-7,59-61, as required by recipe the controller also acts to determine the nature of the ingredients of a cocktail implicitly includes sugar content alcohol etc.).
Re: Claim 11, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of sampling the beverage before dispensing the beverage for obtaining beverage data indicative of at least one of: alcohol content; sugar content; and dissolved gas content (Col. 1 & 13, lines 10-12 & 59-61, controller also acts a sampling unit determining the nature of the ingredients of a cocktail implicitly includes sugar content alcohol etc.).
Re: Claim 12, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of while dispensing the beverage, decreasing the pressure in the storage volume of the beverage container from the first pressure to a second pressure (Fig. 1, Col. 10, lines 1-6, pressure reducer decreasing the pressure of beverage in the storage volume to ambient), and, based on the obtained beverage data, controlling at least one of: the first temperature; the first pressure; the second pressure; and when to decrease the pressure in the storage volume from the first pressure to the second pressure (Col. 15, lines 12-17, pressure and temp controlled).
Re: Claim 14, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of cooling the beverage container to a temperature below ambient temperature (Col. 14, lines 28-33, chills the container).
Re: Claim 15, Lecomte discloses the claimed invention including a beverage dispensing assembly for dispensing a beverage into a beverage container, comprising:
a cooling unit (150) for cooling a beverage to a first temperature below the melting point of the beverage (Col. 14, lines 55-67, capable of a first temp below melting point) to obtain a supercooled beverage (Col. 15, lines 12-14, control module sets the temperature; Col. 14, lines 59-67, rapid supercooling);
a pressurization unit (122) for pressurizing a storage volume of a beverage container (121) (Col. 9, lines 60-66, pressuring the fluid within the storage volume);
a dispensing unit (110) for dispensing the beverage cooled by the cooling unit into the pressurized storage volume of the beverage container (Fig. 1, Col. 14, lines 10-15, 43-45, dispensing into the storage volume, dispensing into pressurized storage volume); and
a pressure control unit (20) for controlling a pressure in the storage volume and arranged to decrease the pressure in the storage volume (Fig. 1, Col. 10, lines 1-6, pressure reducer decreasing the pressure of beverage in the storage volume);
wherein the beverage dispensing assembly is configured to allow removal of the beverage container from the beverage dispensing assembly when pressure in the storage volume is released to ambient pressure (Column 9, lines 44-45, Fig. 5 depicts unlatching a front cover for removal of the beverage container from the dispensing assembly).
Re: Claim 16, Lecomte discloses the claimed invention including the pressurization unit comprises a sealable pressure chamber arranged to receive the beverage container therein (Col. 9 & 15, lines 23-24 & 37-40, sealed pressurize-able chamber).
Re: Claim 17, Lecomte discloses the claimed invention including the pressurization unit comprises a sealing mechanism for sealing of the storage volume of the beverage container (Col. 9 & 15, lines 23-24 & 37-40, sealed pressurize-able chamber), and wherein the sealing mechanism comprises a gas passage (136) for allowing passage of a pressurized gas into the storage volume (Fig. 1).
Re: Claim 19, Lecomte discloses the claimed invention including a sampling unit for sampling the beverage before dispensing for obtaining beverage data indicative of at least one of: alcohol content; sugar content; and dissolved gas content (Col. 1 & 13, lines 10-12 & 59-61, controller also acts a sampling unit determining the nature of the ingredients of a cocktail implicitly includes sugar content alcohol etc.)
Re: Claim 20, Lecomte discloses the claimed invention including a controller (20) for controlling the pressure control unit and the pressurization unit, and a sensor unit for determining dispensing data (Col. 13, lines 59-61, dispensing data), wherein the controller is arranged for receiving the dispensing data and controlling the pressurization unit based on the dispensing data (Col. 15, lines 12-23, controlling pressure unit).
Re: Claim 21, Lecomte discloses the claimed invention including the dispensing data comprises data indicative of a volume of beverage present in the storage volume of the beverage container (13, lines 35-50, precise amounts of ingredients placed into storage volume).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References cited on the PTO-892 show additional beverage dispensing systems with cooling and/or removable containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. CHEYNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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.
/CHARLES P. CHEYNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights