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 1-9, 11-12, 14-17 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of species Ia, IIa, IIIa, IVc, Ve, Via, VIIb, VIIIb, IXa, Xf, XIa, and XIIa in the reply filed on 12/15/25 is acknowledged. Applicant identified claims 1-9, 11-12, 14-20 as reading on the elected species. However, claims 18-20 species with a mixing chamber. Election Group XII is drawn to the embodiment comprising no mixing. Therefore, claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “measure” should be “measures”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 “cleaning source and a cleaning valve” of claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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:
identify the following terms in the specification by reference to the drawings, designating the corresponding part or parts therein to which each term applies: cleaning valve.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
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).
IN REGARDS TO US 12466720
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 11-12 of US 12466720. Although the claims at issue are not identical to that of US 12466720 they are not patentably distinct from each other because the aforemenionted claims of US 12466720 contain all the limitations of claims 1-9, 11-12, and 14 of the instant application as set forth in the table below.
Claim Nos. of Instant Application
Claim Nos. of US 12466720
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
11
11
12
12
14
12
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 12466720. Although the claims at issue are not identical to that of US 12466720, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations claim 1 of US 12466720 contain all the scope of claim 15 of the instant application except for “a cleaning source and cleaning valve”. Doelman teaches a dispensing system (Fig. 2) comprising a beverage ingredient contained in a flexible bag held in a pressure reservoir (32, 49) and that beverage ingredient feed to an outlet nozzle (30) and water fed to that outlet nozzle by a valve (46), wherein the water can be used to clean the nozzle (Col. 12, Ln. 36)—such that the water is a “cleaning source” and the valve is a “cleaning valve”, as claimed. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide the structure according to Doelman for reasons including to provide a means for cleaning an outlet nozzle.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 12466720. Although the claims at issue are not identical to that of US 12466720, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations claim 1 of US 12466720 contain all the scope of claim 16 of the instant application except for a dispensing system comprising a pressure transducer. Christiansen teaches a dispensing system comprising a pressure transducer (54) downstream of a pressurized vessel and along a beverage conduit conveying beverage from a flexible container within the pressurized vessel, to indicate if contents are flowing from the flexible container (Col. 15, Ln. 4-17). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide the aforementioned structure of Christiansen to similarly determine if elements are being transported from inside the bag.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 12466720. Although the claims at issue are not identical to that of US 12466720, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claim 1 of US 12466720 and the teachings of Christiansen, as set forth above with respect to claim 16, contain all the scope of claim 17 of the instant application except for the transducer configured to indicate a “sold-out condition”. 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). 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 combination of claim 1 of US 12466720 and Christiansen is configured to indicate if beverage is flowing downstream of the pressure vessel. This indication could be used for indicating an empty bag, and if those elements were sold—the empty bag being due to the elements being “sold-out”, as claimed.
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 1-17 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 1, the limitation “transport elements” has unclear antecedent basis in the claim. A correction may include “transport the elements”.
As per claim 15, there appears no depiction of both a pressure source coupled to a first valve that is coupled to an inlet of a pressure vessel, and a cleaning source and cleaning valve—as required by claim 15—and the particular scope is uncertain.
Claims 2-17 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”).
As per claim 1, Newton1 discloses a dispensing system (530) comprising:
a pressure vessel (126) with an inlet (valve 532 feeding gas into an inlet of the pressure vessel; Fig. 5c) and an outlet (valve 514 feeding concentrate from an outlet of the vessel; Fig. 5c);
a first valve (532) coupled to the inlet;
a second valve (514) coupled to the outlet;
a bag (128) with elements (128) in the bag coupled to the outlet and located inside the pressure vessel (Fig. 5c);
a pressure source (carbon dioxide coupled to input area 122; Fig. 5c; Col. 3, Ln. 46-48) coupled to the first valve (Fig. 5c); and
Newton1 does not explicitly disclose how the valve control transporting the elements in the bag. Newton2 teaches a dispensing system comprising a pressure vessel (10) and a bag (18) containing elements (20), the system comprising a first valve (52) coupled to an inlet of the pressure vessel and pressurizes the pressure vessel via the pressure source to transport elements in the bag (abstract). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Newton1 according to the aforementioned teachings from Newton2 to use the valves of Newton1 to transport elements from inside the bag to outside of the pressure vessel.
As per claim 7, Newton1 further discloses a solenoid (512) coupled to the second valve (Fig. 5c).
As per claim 11, Newton1 further discloses a fitting (piping immediately right of valve 514; Fig. 5c) which couples the bag with the second valve.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”) in view of US 8181822 to Doelman et al.
As per claims 2-3, the Newton1-Newton2 combination discloses the claimed invention except for a temperature sensor. Doelman teaches a dispensing system comprising: a pressure vessel having an interior environment and a compressible container containing liquid beverage disposed inside the pressure vessel (Col. 4, ln. 1-6) and a gas source providing gaseous pressure in the pressure vessel to exert force on an external surface of the compressible container (i.e. for expelling the beverage from the compressible container) (Col. 4, Ln. 13-16) and a temperature sensor disposed within the pressure vessel and a controller controlling the gas source (i.e. pressure material flow) based on input from the temperature sensor (Col. 4, Ln. 16-20) to dispense liquid from the compressible container at a desired flow rate (Col. 5, Ln. 3-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Newton1-Newton2 combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Doelman for reasons including to provide a precise amount of elements from the at a desired flow rate.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”) in view of US 7814931 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton3”).
As per claim 4, the Newton1-Newton2 combination discloses the claimed invention except for a first solenoid coupled to the first valve. Newton3 teaches a valve (Fig. 1, item 10) comprising a solenoid (54) coupled to the valve configured to shut off the valve by energizing the solenoid (Col. 3, Ln. 34-35 and ln. 66-67; Col. 4, Ln. 1-7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the first valve according to the aforementioned teachings from Newton3 to provide an operating means that similarly allows the first valve to serve as a shut off valve.
As per claim 5, Newton1 further discloses a second solenoid (512) coupled to the second valve (Fig. 5c).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”) in view of US 7814931 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton3”) in view of US 6595392 to Barnett in view of Official Notice.
As per claim 6, the Newton1-Newton2-Newton3 combination discloses the claimed invention except for a third solenoid configured to perform a pressure relief function. Barnett teaches a dispensing system comprising a pressure vessel containing a bag (Fig. 2) and a pressure relief valve (132) serving to relieve and limit the pressure in the pressure vessel. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Newton1-Newton2-Newton3 combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Barnett to provide a safety pressure relief valve in the pressure vessel for limiting the pressure in the vessel to within safe operating limit. Barnett does not disclose the particular structure of the valve. The office makes Official Notice that solenoid valves are old and well known in the art at it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to choose from among any known valves, including solenoid valves, for forming the safety pressure relief valve of the Newton1-Newton2-Newton3-Barnett combination.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”) in view of US 6595392 to Barnett in view of Official Notice.
As per claim 8, the Newton1-Newton2 combination discloses the claimed invention except for a third solenoid configured to perform a pressure relief function. Barnett teaches a dispensing system comprising a pressure vessel containing a bag (Fig. 2) and a pressure relief valve (132) serving to relieve and limit the pressure in the pressure vessel. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Newton1-Newton2-Newton3 combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Barnett to provide a safety pressure relief valve in the pressure vessel for limiting the pressure in the vessel to within safe operating limit. Barnett does not disclose the particular structure of the valve. The office makes Official Notice that solenoid valves are old and well known in the art at it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to choose from among any known valves, including solenoid valves, for forming the safety pressure relief valve of the Newton1-Newton2- Barnett combination.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”) in view of US 2751127 to Mitton.
As per claim 9, the Newton1-Newton2 combination discloses the claimed invention except for the particular structure of the pressure vessel. Mitton teaches a dispensing system comprising a pressure vessel (10) and a bag (32) contained within the pressure vessel, wherein the pressure vessel comprising a body (11) and a lid (21) with teeth attachments (20) for connecting to the body. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Newton1-Newton2 combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Mitton for reasons including to provide a means for opening the pressure vessel to service the bag contained within it.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”) in view of a second embodiment in US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1b”
As per claims 12 and 14, Newton1 further discloses the first valve is configured to maintain a relative constant flow of fluid from a variable pressure fluid supply to a fluid outlet (Col. Ln. 26 “CF valve”). The Newton1-Newton2 combination does not disclose the particular structure of the CF valve. Newton1b teaches a dispensing system comprising a constant flow valve including: a) a valve housing (22a) having an inlet port (30a) and an outlet port (54a) adapted to be connected to the variable pressure fluid supply and the fluid outlet; b) a diaphragm chamber interposed between the inlet port and the outlet port (Fig. 5g); c) a cup (38a) contained within the diaphragm chamber; d) a diaphragm (40a) closing the cup; e) a piston assembly (34a, 42a, 46a, 48a) secured to a center of the diaphragm (Fig. 5g), the piston assembly having a cap (46a) and a base (34a); f) a stem (42a) projecting from the cap through a first passageway (44a) in a barrier wall to terminate in a valve head (48a); and g) a spring (52a) in the cup coacting with the base of the piston assembly for urging the diaphragm into a closed position (Col. 5, Ln. 15-21), and the spring being responsive to fluid pressure above a predetermined level to adjust a size of a control orifice (Col. 7, Ln. 64-67). 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 of the Newton1-Newton2 combination regarding the particular structure of the constant flow valve to provide that CF valve according to the aforementioned teachings from Newton1b.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”) in view of US 8678234 to Doelman et al.
As per claim 15, and as the examiner can understand the claim, the Newton1-Newton2 combination discloses the claimed invention except for a cleaning source and cleaning valve. Doelman teaches a dispensing system (Fig. 2) comprising a beverage ingredient contained in a flexible bag held in a pressure reservoir (32, 49) and that beverage ingredient feed to an outlet nozzle (30) and water fed to that outlet nozzle by a valve (46), wherein the water can be used to clean the nozzle (Col. 12, Ln. 36)—such that the water is a “cleaning source” and the valve is a “cleaning valve”, as claimed. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Newton1-Newton2 combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Doelman for reasons including to provide a means for cleaning an outlet nozzle.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”) in view of US 11091360 to Christiansen.
As per claim 16, the Newton1-Newton2 combination discloses the claimed invention except for a pressure sensor. Christiansen teaches a dispensing system comprising a pressure transducer (54) downstream of a pressurized vessel and along a beverage conduit conveying beverage from a flexible container within the pressurized vessel, to indicate if contents are flowing from the flexible container (Col. 15, Ln. 4-17). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Newton1-Newton2 combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Christiansen to similarly determine if elements are being transported from inside the bag.
As per claim 17, the Newton1-Newton2-Christiansen combination discloses the claimed invention except for the transducer configured to indicate a “sold-out condition”. 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). 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 Newton1-Newton2-Christiansen combination is configured to indicate if beverage is flowing downstream of the pressure vessel. This indication could be used for indicating an empty bag, and if those elements were sold—the empty bag being due to the elements being “sold-out”, as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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