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 09/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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. Further structural delineation is needed to adequately define the claimed invention from the prior art.
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) 1-17 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, comprising:
receiving a beverage container (121) with a storage volume (122) for receiving the beverage (Fig. 1);
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 pressurized storage volume of the beverage container (Fig. 1, Col. 14, lines 10-15, dispensing into the storage volume); and
decreasing the pressure in the storage volume of the beverage container to ambient pressure (Fig. 1, Col. 10, lines 1-6, pressure reducer decreasing the pressure of beverage in the storage volume to ambient),
cooling the beverage is cooled to a first temperature below a melting point of the beverage (Col. 14, lines 55-67, rapid supercooling below a melting point under pressure), and decreasing the pressure in the storage volume of the beverage container to ambient pressure (Col. 10, lines 17-20, depressurizing the storage volume) such that a supercooled beverage is obtained and a decreasing the pressure in the storage volume except for expressly mentioning 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).
Re: Claim 2, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of the beverage is dispensed into the pressurized storage volume at the first temperature (Col. 10, lines 38-44, dispensed at one temperature).
Re: Claim 3, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of the beverage is cooled to the first temperature after being dispensed into the pressurized storage volume of the beverage container (Col. 10, lines 38-44, dispensed and chilled to desired temperature).
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 13, Lecomte discloses a device capable of performing the claimed method of the dispensed beverage comprises solidified beverage at least after the pressure in the storage volume is decreased to the ambient pressure (Fig. 1, Col. 10, lines 1-6, pressure reducer decreasing the pressure of beverage in the storage volume to ambient).
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, 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 (121) of a beverage container (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)
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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