DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 3-23 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9, 14, and 18-19 have been amended. Claim 2 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,493,269. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed limitations of Claims 1 and 3-23 of the pending application are completely claimed by the patent cited above. While the claim language is not claim by claim verbatim, the overall invention is recited within the patented claims in an obvious manner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8-12, 16, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczensky (GB 247544 A) in view of Pierce (516,611).
Regarding Claim 1: Paczensky teaches a beverage chiller (1) for chilling a hot beverage (abstract), comprising: a beverage collection section (18 is a bowl, see Figure 2) configured to receive a beverage in a hot state (abstract), a lid (44) for covering and uncovering an opening leading into the beverage collection section (bowl 18) for introduction of the beverage in the hot state into the beverage collection section (abstract, functional limitation), a heat exchanger section (coolant medium 6, page 6, lines 5-6) configured to chill the beverage from the hot state to a predetermined chilled temperature (abstract), the heat exchanger section includes an outer housing (2, 8, see Figure 1) defining a chamber (interior of 24, internal volume 4) therein, a coiled tubing (19, 29, see Figure 3) disposed within the heat exchanger section (19, 29, in interior 24 and coolant medium 6), through which the beverage passes through via gravitational forces (functional limitation, abstract), the coiled tubing extends in a helical manner from a first end at or near a top surface of the heat exchanger section (see Figure 3) to a second end at or near a bottom surface of the heat exchanger section (see Figure 3), and a dispensing section (26, 28, 20) for dispensing the beverage at or near the predetermined chilled temperature (page 6, lines 19-20), wherein the beverage collection section (18), the heat exchanger section (19, 29, in interior 24 and coolant medium 6) and the dispensing section are directly coupled to each other to form a continuous uninterruptable fluid path (via 19, 29) to allow the beverage to flow therethrough via the gravitational forces (functional limitation) and the beverage collection section (18 is a bowl, see Figure 2), the heat exchanger section (19, 29, in interior 24 and coolant medium 6), the dispensing section, and the lid (44) are vertically stacked in a stacking direction relative to each other (see Figure 1).
Paczensky fails to teach wherein the chamber of the heat exchanger section is accessible when the beverage collection section, the heat exchanger section, the dispensing section, and the lid are vertically stacked.
Pierce teaches a chamber (47) of a heat exchanger section (ice in 47) is accessible (via side opening 49 with cover handle, see Figure 1) when a beverage collection section (15), the heat exchanger section (ice in 47), a dispensing section (23, 40, 41), and a lid (cover above 16 covered and shown in Figure 1) are vertically stacked (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the chamber of the heat exchanger section is accessible when the beverage collection section, the heat exchanger section, the dispensing section, and the lid are vertically stacked to the structure of Paczensky as taught by Pierce in order to advantageously provide additional ice without having to open the entire top of the cooler (see Pierce, page 2, lines 111-114).
Regarding Claim 8: Paczensky teaches wherein the outer housing (8) surrounds the chamber (see Figure 3, interior of 24, internal volume 4).
Regarding Claim 9: Paczensky teaches wherein the heat exchanger section (interior of 24 with 19, 29, and coolant 6) comprises a removable cover (14) defining the top surface of the heat exchanger section (abstract) and movable to expose an opening leading into the chamber (interior of 24) of the heat exchanger (6) for addition of a cooling medium (6, abstract) into the heat exchanger section (page 6, lines 29-32, functional limitation), the removable cover (14) disposable in a first plane that is substantially parallel to a second plane in which the lid (44) is disposable.
Regarding Claim 10: Paczensky teaches wherein the beverage collection section (18) is located at or near the top surface of the heat exchanger section (area interior of 24 with 19 and 6, see Figures 2-3), and wherein the beverage collection section (18) comprises a pre-chilling container (18 is a bowl, see Figure 2) configured to house the beverage in the hot state (page 6, lines 29-32, functional limitation).
Regarding Claim 11: Paczensky teaches wherein the heat exchanger section comprises a heat exchanger (area interior of 24 with 19 and 6, see Figures 2-3), and wherein the heat exchanger is at least one of an ice bath (6, abstract), a chiller water bath (6, abstract), a double-pipe condenser configured to receive refrigerant or a chiller brine bath.
Regarding Claim 12: Paczensky teaches wherein the first end (31) of the coiled tubing (19, 29) is fluidically connected to the beverage collection section (18 is a bowl, see Figure 2) at or near the top surface of the heat exchanger section (see Figures 2-3), and wherein the beverage (abstract) is introduced in the hot state into the first end of the coiled tubing (19, 29) and the beverage is dispensed at the predetermined chilled temperature to the dispensing section (26, 28, 30) from the second end of the coiled tubing (abstract).
Regarding Claim 16: Paczensky teaches wherein the heat exchanger section (19, 29, in the interior inside 24 with coolant medium 6, see Figures 2-3) is configured to automatically begin cooling the beverage upon introduction of the beverage into the beverage collection section (18, abstract).
Regarding Claim 22: Paczensky teaches wherein the beverage collection section (18) comprises a pre-chilling container (18 is a bowl, see Figure 2) disposed at or near the top surface of the heat exchanger section (area interior of 24 with 19 and 6, see Figures 2-3), the beverage collection section (18) configured to store the beverage until a user initiates a heat exchange process to chill the beverage from the hot state to the predetermined chilled temperature (abstract) at the heat exchanger section (page 6, lines 29-32, functional limitation).
Regarding Claim 23: Paczensky teaches wherein the coiled tubing (19,29) is configured to have a height and a length to cool the beverage from the hot state (abstract, poured into 18) to the predetermined chilled temperature when the beverage flows through the continuous uninterruptable fluid path (tubing 19, 29, to dispensing section 26, 28, 30).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczensky (GB 247544 A) in view of Pierce (516,611), as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Rist (4,599,872).
Regarding Claim 3: Paczensky modified supra fails to teach wherein the dispensing section is disposed directly below a central portion of the heat exchanger section.
Rist teaches a dispensing section (15) is disposed directly below a central portion of a heat exchanger section 20 (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the dispensing section is disposed directly below a central portion of the heat exchanger section to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Rist in order to advantageously provide for the liquid to dispense directly into a container (see Rist, Column 2, lines 34-41).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczensky (GB 247544 A) in view of Pierce (516,611), as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Wetherbee (US 2006/0026987 A1) and Prabucki (US 2005/0269361 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: Paczensky modified supra fails to teach wherein the dispensing section includes a base defining a bottom surface of the beverage chiller, the dispensing section includes a dispenser housing with a wall defining a cylindrical configuration and having a cutout forming an opening extending into the dispenser housing, and the dispensing section includes a spout disposed within the dispenser housing and fluidically connected to the second end of the coiled tubing.
Wetherbee teaches wherein a dispensing section (area by 125) includes a base (below 121) defining a bottom surface of the beverage chiller (see Figure 1), the dispensing section (area by 125) includes a dispenser housing (area by 125) having a cutout (see Figure 1) forming an opening extending into the dispenser housing, and the dispensing section (area by 125) includes a spout (125) disposed within the dispenser housing (area by 125) and fluidically connected to the second end of the coiled tubing (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the dispensing section includes a base defining a bottom surface of the beverage chiller, the dispensing section includes a dispenser housing having a cutout forming an opening extending into the dispenser housing, and the dispensing section includes a spout disposed within the dispenser housing and fluidically connected to the second end of the coiled tubing to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Wetherbee in order to advantageously provide various spaces for the user to rest a collection container when dispensing (see Wetherbee, paragraph [0019]).
Prabucki teaches a dispenser housing (curve in 1085 with 1080) with a wall (1085) defining a cylindrical configuration (see Figure 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the dispenser housing with a wall defining a cylindrical configuration to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Prabucki in order to advantageously provide various spaces for the cooler configure (see Prabucki, paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 5: Paczensky modified supra fails to teach further comprising a platform disposed within the opening extending into the dispenser housing and configured to receive a container through the opening for receiving the beverage dispensed at or near the predetermined chilled temperature from the spout of the dispensing section.
Wetherbee teaches a beverage chiller (see Figure 1) comprising a platform (see shelf below 125) disposed within an opening (see Figure 1) extending into a dispenser housing (area by 125) and configured to receive a container (abstract) through the opening for receiving a beverage dispensed at or near the predetermined chilled temperature from a spout of a dispensing section (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided comprising a platform disposed within the opening extending into the dispenser housing and configured to receive a container through the opening for receiving the beverage dispensed at or near the predetermined chilled temperature from the spout of the dispensing section to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Wetherbee in order to advantageously provide various spaces for the user to rest a collection container when dispensing (see Wetherbee, paragraph [0019]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczensky (GB 247544 A) in view of Pierce (516,611), as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Mohn (2,056,800).
Regarding Claim 6: Paczensky modified supra fails to teach further comprising a tube vertically disposed within the heat exchanger section for draining overflow of a cooling medium disposed in the heat exchanger section.
Mohn teaches a tube vertically (46) disposed within a heat exchanger section (1) for draining overflow of a cooling medium (melted ice in 1) disposed in the heat exchanger section (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a tube vertically disposed within the heat exchanger section for draining overflow of a cooling medium disposed in the heat exchanger section to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Mohn in order to advantageously drain the excess melted water that no longer cools the beverage to have space to add new ice (see page 2, lines 15-20 of Mohn).
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczensky (GB 247544 A) in view of Pierce (516,611) and Mohn (2,056,800) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wilson (2,144,004).
Regarding Claim 7: Paczensky modified supra fails to teach further comprising a drain fitting fluidically coupled to the tube disposed in the heat exchanger section, the drain fitting extending from a bottom surface of the base of the dispensing section, the drain fitting permitting automatic draining of the cooling medium from the heat exchanger section.
Wilson teaches a drain fitting (36 and 40) fluidically coupled to a tube (41, 42, 43) disposed in a heat exchanger section (chamber within 17), the drain fitting (36 and 40) extending from a bottom surface of a base (12) of a dispensing section (under spouts 29 and 25), the drain fitting (36 and 40) permitting automatic draining of the cooling medium from the heat exchanger section (chamber within 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a drain fitting fluidically coupled to the tube disposed in the heat exchanger section, the drain fitting extending from a bottom surface of the base of the dispensing section, the drain fitting permitting automatic draining of the cooling medium from the heat exchanger section to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Wilson in order to advantageously drain away melted ice to allow for more ice to be placed into the cooling area (see Wilson, page 2, first column, lines 5-2).
Regarding Claim 21: Paczensky modified supra fails to teach wherein the drain fitting is dimensioned and positioned to fit within a complementary opening in a countertop on which the beverage chiller is capable of being positioned.
Wilson further teaches wherein a drain fitting (valve 5 connecting to pipe 23) is dimensioned and positioned to fit within a complementary opening (see section for pipes in 15) in a countertop (13 and 46) on which a beverage chiller is capable of being positioned (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the drain fitting is dimensioned and positioned to fit within a complementary opening in a countertop on which the beverage chiller is capable of being positioned to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Wilson in order to advantageously place the beverage chiller for users to access (see Wilson, Figure 2, page 1, lines 1-9).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczensky (GB 247544 A) in view of Pierce (516,611), Wetherbee (US 2006/0026987 A1), and Prabucki (US 2005/0269361 A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wilson (2,144,004).
Regarding Claim 13: Paczensky modified supra fails to teach wherein the base of the dispensing section includes a drain for draining at least one of a cooling medium from the heat exchanger section or fluid on a platform of the dispensing section.
Wilson further teaches wherein a base (12 and 47) of a dispensing section (under spout 29) includes a drain (54) for draining at least one of a cooling medium from a heat exchanger section or fluid on a platform (56) of the dispensing section (via 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the base of the dispensing section includes a drain for draining at least one of a cooling medium from the heat exchanger section or fluid on a platform of the dispensing section to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Wilson in order to advantageously collect run off liquid (see Wilson, Figure 3, page 2, lines 55-62).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczensky (GB 247544 A) in view of Pierce (516,611) and Mohn (2,056,800) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2010/0079296 A1), hereafter referred to as “Chen.”
Regarding Claim 14: Paczensky modified supra fails to teach further comprising a monitoring device configured to monitor a temperature of the cooling medium within the heat exchanger section.
Chen teaches a monitoring device (3) configured to monitor a temperature of a cooling medium (122) within a heat exchanger section (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided comprising a monitoring device configured to monitor a temperature of the cooling medium within the heat exchanger section to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Chen in order to advantageously alert a user when the cooling apparatus medium is too hot to cool the beverage.
Regarding Claim 15: Paczensky modified supra to teach further comprising an alert section configured to output an alert when the temperature of the cooling medium within the heat exchanger section reaches a predetermined value.
Chen teaches comprising an alert section (alarm signals) configured to output an alert (paragraph [0026]) when a temperature of the cooling medium (122 cooling wafer 4) within the heat exchanger section (1) reaches a predetermined value (see Figure 4, S101, S102, S103, S104, S107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided comprising an alert section configured to output an alert when the temperature of the cooling medium within the heat exchanger section reaches a predetermined value to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Chen in order to advantageously draw the user’s attention to the monitoring device status of the cooling medium (see Chen, paragraphs [0025]-[0026]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczensky (GB 247544 A) in view of Pierce (516,611), as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Goeckner et al. (US 2008/0000358 A1), hereafter referred to as “Goeckner.”
Regarding Claim 17: Paczensky modified supra fails to teach wherein the dispensing section is configured to automatically dispense the beverage when the beverage reaches the predetermined chilled temperature.
Goeckner teaches wherein a dispensing section (60) is configured to automatically dispense a beverage (paragraph [0024], lines 9-16 via sensor 34 and controller 38) when a beverage reaches a predetermined chilled temperature (paragraph [0024], lines 9-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the dispensing section is configured to automatically dispense the beverage when the beverage reaches the predetermined chilled temperature to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Goeckner in order to advantageously fully automate the dispensing of the beverage based on a set desired temperature of the chilled beverage (see Goeckner, paragraph [0024]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczensky (GB 247544 A) in view of Pierce (516,611) and Mohn (2,056,800), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Cronin et al. (4,044,754), hereafter referred to as “Cronin.”
Regarding Claim 18: Paczensky modified supra fails to teach further comprising a sensor disposed within the heat exchanger section, wherein the cooling medium within the heat exchanger section is drained in an automatic manner upon sensing by the sensor that the cooling medium has reached a predetermined temperature.
Cronin teaches comprising a sensor (16) disposed within a heat exchanger section (10), wherein a cooling medium within the heat exchanger (10, Column 3, lines 25-39) section is drained in an automatic manner upon sensing by the sensor (16) that the cooling medium has reached a predetermined temperature (Column 3, lines 25-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a sensor disposed within the heat exchanger section, wherein the cooling medium within the heat exchanger section is drained in an automatic manner upon sensing by the sensor that the cooling medium has reached a predetermined temperature to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Cronin in order to advantageously drain the excess fluid away from the apparatus if the level is too hot and replace the cooling medium in order to effectively cool the beverage.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczensky (GB 247544 A) in view of Pierce (516,611) and Mohn (2,056,800), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Fukuhara (5,337,779).
Regarding Claim 19: Paczensky modified supra further comprising a sensor disposed within the heat exchanger section, wherein the cooling medium within the heat exchanger section is drained in an automatic manner upon sensing by the sensor that the cooling medium has reached a predetermined height within the chamber.
Fukuhara further teaches comprising a sensor (22) disposed within a heat exchanger section (20), wherein a cooling medium (liquid) within the heat exchanger section (20) is drained in an automatic manner upon sensing by the sensor (22) that the cooling medium (liquid) has reached a predetermined height within a chamber (Column 4, lines 9-15 and 21-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided comprising a sensor disposed within the heat exchanger section, wherein the cooling medium within the heat exchanger section is drained in automatic manner upon sensing by the sensor that the cooling medium has reached a predetermined height within the chamber to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Fukuhara in order to advantageously drain the cooling medium when the water level within the chamber is too high (see Fukuhara, Column 4, lines 21-35).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczensky (GB 247544 A) in view of Pierce (516,611), as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Wilson (2,144,004).
Regarding Claim 20: Paczensky modified supra fails to teach wherein the coiled tubing is a first coiled tubing, and the heat exchanger section includes a second coiled tubing through which the beverage passes, the second coiled tubing extending in a helical manner from the first end at or near the top surface of the heat exchanger section to the second end at or near the bottom surface of the heat exchanger section.
Wilson further teaches wherein a coiled tubing (28) is a first coiled tubing (first 28 connected to first 29), and a heat exchanger section (piping in 17) includes a second coiled tubing (second 28) through which a beverage passes, a second coiled tubing (second 28) extending in a helical manner (see Figure 2) from the first end at or near the top of the heat exchanger section to the second end at or near the bottom of the heat exchanger section (see Figure 2, page 1, second column, lines 28-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the coiled tubing is a first coiled tubing, and the heat exchanger section includes a second coiled tubing through which the beverage passes, the second coiled tubing extending in a helical manner from the first end at or near the top surface of the heat exchanger section to the second end at or near the bottom surface of the heat exchanger section to the structure of Paczensky modified supra as taught by Wilson in order to advantageously have multiple passes of the beverage for more dispensing and cooling (see Wilson, Figure 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chera (US 2012/0055584 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763