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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 have been cancelled. Claim 15 has been amended. Claims 22-25 are newly added. Claims 16-21 are as originally presented. Therefore, claims 15-25 are considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/08/2025 has been entered. All previously set forth objections to the Drawings and previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Opstal's pressure regulator does not have the ability to "selectively control flow" and cannot be operated to "open and close" by a controller, as required by the first valve of claim 15.” Furthermore, Applicant states that “[i]n Opstal, regulator 541 functions only to control the pressure of the liquid flowing through it (for example, to “approximately 10 psi”) (Remarks: p. 8 para. 6). The Examiner respectfully disagrees as van Opstal discloses that the regulator 541 may additionally, reduce the pressure to pressures other than 10 psi, (see van Opstal col. 8 ll. 6-7). Furthermore, van Opstal does not disclose that the pressure regulator is incapable of being set to 0 psi and the structure of van Opstal would function as intended given a condition in which the pressure regulator does not allow flow. Additionally, the capability of being able to set the pressure regulated to other pressures other than 10 psi constitutes the claimed feature of “selectively controlling flow.” Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of implying from the disclosure of van Opstal’s regulator 541 that is capable of “selectively controlling flow of the liquid from the liquid container” and can be set to both an open and closed position as required by claim 15. See MPEP 2144.01.
The Examiner maintains the previously set forth ground for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 16-18 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "fluid container" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends amending this limitation to read “liquid container.”
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Opstal et al. (US 10280060 B2) hereinafter van Opstal in view of Raber (US 8210736 B2) hereinafter Raber.
Regarding claim 15, van Opstal discloses a beverage dispense system configured to automatically mix a beverage in response to a user input, the beverage dispense system comprising: a liquid container (water source 130) configured to contain a liquid (col. 4 ll. 58-59); a gas container (gas cylinder 290) configured to contain a gas (col. 5 ll. 62-63); a flavoring container (micro-ingredient sources 200) configured to contain a flavoring (col. 4 ll. 51-67 and col. 5 ll. 2-4); a beverage container (micro-ingredient mixing chamber 510) selectively in fluid communication with the liquid container, the gas container, and the flavoring container that is configured to receive the liquid, gas, and flavoring respectively from the liquid container, gas container, and flavoring container (fig. 5); a first valve interposed (pressure regulator 541) between the liquid container and the beverage container that is configured to selectively control flow of the liquid from the liquid container to the beverage container (col. 8 ll. 47); a second valve (three-way valve 555) interposed between the gas container and the beverage container that is configured to selectively control flow of the gas from the gas container to the beverage container; a third valve interposed (micro-ingredient pumps 500) between the flavoring container and the beverage container that is configured to selectively control flow of the flavoring from the flavoring container to the beverage container (col. 8 ll. 49-53); an outlet (nozzle 220) configured to selectively dispense the beverage; and a controller. However, van Opstal remains silent to the beverage container comprises a transparent material that allows a user to observe mixing of the liquid, gas, and flavoring in the beverage container and a controller operatively connected to the first, second, and third valves, the controller comprising a computer having a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that are executed by the computer in response to the user input to cause the computer to open and close the first, second, and third valves to automatically mix the beverage in the beverage container. Raber teaches the beverage container comprises a transparent material (visualization window 10b) that allows a user to observe mixing of the liquid, gas, and flavoring in the beverage container (col. 4 ll. 41-44) and a controller (controller 26) operatively connected to the first, second, and third valves (col. 4 l. 65-col. 5 l. 3 for liquid and flavor flow valves and col. 5 ll. 11-14), the controller comprising a computer having a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that are executed by the computer in response to the user input to cause the computer to open and close the first, second, and third valves to automatically mix the beverage in the beverage container (col. 5 ll. 1-14, wherein the controller is programed and acts upon said programming, col. 5 ll. 36-39, which automatically mixes the liquid, flavoring, and gas within the beverage container by sequentially opening and closing the first, second, and third valves). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the beverage container and controller with coordinated valves before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In doing so, one can control the amounts of substances, as well as their sequencing, and facilitate cleaning procedures (Raber: col. 4 para. 6 and col. 5).
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitation of claim 15, the already modified controller further teaches wherein the instructions that are executed by the computer in response to the user input to cause the computer to open and close the first, second, and third valves to automatically mix the beverage in the beverage container cause the computer to open the first valve for a first period of time to cause the liquid to flow from the fluid container to the beverage container and close the first valve after expiration of the first period of time (Raber: col. 5 ll. 1-11, describing sequential valve operation during automatic mixing).
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, the already modified controller further teaches wherein the instructions that are executed by the computer in response to the user input to cause the computer to open and close the first, second, and third valves to automatically mix the beverage in the beverage container cause the computer to open the second valve, after expiration of the first period of time, for a second period of time to cause the gas to flow from the gas container to the beverage container and mix with the liquid in the beverage container and close the second valve after expiration of the second period of time (Raber: col. 5 ll. 9-14, describing sequential operation of a different valve during automatic mixing).
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 15, the already modified controller further teaches the computer, however, van Opstal remains silent to the computer comprises a button that provides an interface between the user and the computer and the user input comprises a push of the button. Raber teaches the computer comprises a button (selection buttons 60-65) that provides an interface between the user and the computer and the user input comprises a push of the button (col. 4 ll. 59-63). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of van Opstal with the controller and interface of Raber. In doing so, one skilled in the art can improve their device by ensuring ease of use by the consumer while maintaining step by step programming within the device.
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the limitations in claim 15, van Opstal discloses the outlet comprises a fourth valve (on/off valve 547), operatively connected to the controller (shown by its automatic usage during operational sequences col. 9 ll. 10-13, col. 8 ll. 45-47).
Claims 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Opstal et al. (US 10280060 B2) hereinafter van Opstal in view of Raber (US 8210736 B2) hereinafter Raber in further view of Shafir (US 11407630 B1).
Regarding claim 21, in addition to the limitations of claim 20, the already modified controller further teaches the controller capable of sequential valve control, however, remains silent to the controller opens the fourth valve after the liquid, gas, and flavoring are mixed into the beverage to dispense the beverage. Shafir teaches wherein the controller (control system 24) opens the fourth valve (control valve 42) after the liquid, gas, and flavoring are mixed into the beverage to dispense the beverage (col. 5 ll. 55-60, wherein the condition of fulling opening the valve allows after the mixture is complete is indicative of the claimed sequence). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fourth valve to be controller actuated in sequence. In doing so, one can control the amount of liquid being dispensed (Shafir: col. 5 ll. 55-65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-25 are allowed.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 CHRISTOPHER STEVEN PARISI whose telephone number is (571)270-5490. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S. PARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights