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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 27, 2023 and February 12, 2024 were filed before the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action. These submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 “control unit” and “controller valve 240” [Specification, pp. 34-9; Claims 21, 22, 25] must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "236" and "240" have both been used to designate “the controller valve” [Specification, p. 27 L 24, Fig.1] and “160” and “100” are used to designate “the cooling circuit” [Specification, p. 25]. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the second opening (370). 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because the there is no second opening (370) illustrated, and the third opening (375) is depicted at a different location than disclosed. The Specification [p. 29 L 27-28] describes the second opening 370 in the back wall 340, and the third opening 375 at the front wall 330, but 375 is illustrated at the back wall 340, and no 370 is illustrated in the figures.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the control element in claim 1 and the control unit in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding Claim 1, the claimed limitation “control element” does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and must rely on the Specification to disclose further structure that will perform the recited function. In the Specification, Applicant discloses, “the control element takes the form of a differential screw.” [Specification, p. 3 L 25-30] Accordingly, the control element will be understood to describe a differential screw valve control element and any equivalents thereof.
Regarding Claim 21, the claimed limitation “control unit” does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and must rely on the Specification to disclose further structure that will perform the recited function. In the Specification, Applicant discloses “control valve (not shown) in the or each additive dispenser 410 controls whether additive is delivered to mixing chamber 300. The control unit is electrically couple to each of the controller valve 240 … to control dispense of the carbonated water and additives.” [Specification, p. 34 L 26 – p. 35 L 2] Accordingly, the control unit will be understood to describe a control unit configured to control valve and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 10, 11, and 16 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.
The terms “approximately constant” in claim 10 and “substantially the same” in claim 11 are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The terms “approximately constant” and “substantially the same” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. These terms render the requisite spacing between the diameters of the inner body and compensator chamber indefinite. In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation of Claim 10 will be construed to mean in the diameters of the inner body and compensator channel remain unchanged (i.e. constant) between the inlet and middle region, and the limitation of Claim 11 will be construed to mean both diameters increase at the same fixed rate between the first and second regions.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation : a soda pressure between 5.5 bar and 6.9 bar and the claim also recites, preferably 6.2 bar, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim 16 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ESB EDELSTAHLSCHANKTECHNIK BALLENSTEDT GMBH (DE 102015014008 A1) [Hereinafter ESB]
Regarding Claim 1, ESB discloses A carbonated beverage dispenser for dispensing a carbonated beverage comprising soda and at least one additive, the carbonated beverage dispenser comprising a compensator for regulating the flow rate of soda (Examiner Note: For apparatus claims, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a claimed structure is considered intended use, and does not impart patentability to an apparatus claim (MPEP 2115). Accordingly, this claim merely requires a carbonated beverage dispenser with a compensator and capable of dispensing any carbonated beverage. ESB discloses a dispensing system with a compensator and thus discloses this limitation. (Para. 10)), the compensator [Fig. 1, paras. 27-34] (Examiner Note: The compensator of ESB will be understood to be the entire tap assembly as disclosed.) comprising:
an outer body [Tap body 2, Fig. 1] defining a compensator chamber [inside of the tap body, Fig.1] [Paras. 28-30] (Examiner Note: ESB discloses a tap body (2) with a connection piece (3), and conical channel (6) leading to the spout (5) that houses the compensator (7) and thus discloses this limitation.),
an inlet [Connection piece 3, Fig. 1] for delivering soda into the compensator chamber [Inside of tap body, Fig. 1] (Examiner Note: ESB discloses a connection piece (3) for connecting the tap body (2) with a beverage line and thus discloses an inlet.) , and
an outlet [Spout 5, Fig. 1] for delivering soda out of the compensator chamber [inside of the tap body, Fig.1] (Examiner Note: ESB discloses a spout (5) where the fluid exits the tap body (2) and thus discloses an outlet.),
an inner body [Compensator 7, Fig. 1, para. 28] arranged within the compensator chamber [Inside of the tap body, Fig.1] and between the inlet [Connection piece 3, Fig. 1] and the outlet [Spout 5, Fig. 1] (Examiner Note: ESB discloses a compensator (7) disposed between the inlet (2) and outlet (5).), wherein a gap [Spacing between flattened portions (9) and inside of tap body, Fig. 1] is defined between the inner body [Compensator 7, Fig. 1] and the outer body [Tap body 2, Fig. 1] for regulating the flow rate of soda passing between the inlet [Connection piece 3, Fig. 1] and the outlet [Spout 5, Fig. 1] [Paras. 28-32] (Examiner Note: ESB discloses the compensator (7) has flattened portions (9) disturbed circumferentially on the compensator (7) that allow fluid to pass by the compensator to the outlet. As displacement of the compensator changes the size of the gap between the outer body and the flattened portions, it is understood to provide regulation of the flow rate of the carbonated beverage, and thus discloses this limitation.), and
a control element [Pivot lever 10, Fig. 1] (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(f) interpretation above, the pivot lever (10) is construed as an equivalent structure to the control element as it provides control of the valve shutter, and thus discloses this limitation.) configured to receive a user input from a user and to control the size of the gap [Spacing between flattened portions (9) and inside of tap body, Fig. 1] in dependence on said user input, wherein, for a given user input, the control element [Pivot lever 10, Fig. 1] moves the inner body [Compensator 7, Fig. 1] relative to the control element to a first extent [Axial displacement of compensator 7, Fig. 1] and the outer body [Tap body 2, Fig. 1] relative to the control element to a second extent [Rotation of tap body 2 relative to pivot lever 10, Fig. 1], the first extent being non-equal to the second extent. [Para. 32] (Examiner Note: The pivot lever (10) provides control of the size of the gap based on the user input (turning of the lever), and provides displacement of the inner body relative to the control element to an extent non-equal to the outer body and thus discloses this limitation. The outer body can be understood to move rotationally to one extent with respect to the control element, and the inner body moves axially to a smaller extent, and thus moves in non-equal extents. Accordingly, the pivot lever (10) is understood to disclose the control element as claimed.)
Regarding Claim 2, ESB discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the control element [Pivot lever 10, Fig. 1] is rotatable, and wherein the user input is a rotation of the control element. [Pivot lever 10, Fig. 1, para. 32] (Examiner Note: As turning the pivot lever provides rotation, ESB is understood to disclose this limitation as rotation of the tap element provides user input of flow control.)
Regarding Claim 6, ESB discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the inner body [Compensator 7, Fig. 1] is non-rotational with respect to the outer body [Tap body 2, Fig. 1]. [Para. 32] (Examiner Note: As the compensator body is attached in a non-rotational manner, and provides purely axial displacement, ESB discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 7, ESB discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the control element [Pivot lever 10, Fig. 1] comprises an engagement portion [Grip on pivot lever 10, Fig. 1] that protrudes out of the outer body to define an engagement feature for engagement by a user. (Examiner Note: As the pivot lever protrudes out of the compensator chamber, and provides engagement for user input, it is understood to disclose this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 9, ESB discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses, wherein the compensator comprises a first region [Front of compensator 7, Annotated Fig. 1] proximal to the inlet [Connection piece 3, Annotated Fig. 1], a second region [Back of compensator 7, Annotated Fig. 1] proximal to the outlet [Spout 5, Annotated Fig. 1], and a middle region therebetween [Annotated Fig. 1]. (Examiner Note: ESB discloses a chamber with an outlet and inlet disposed on opposite sides. Therefore, ESB discloses a chamber having a first region proximal to the inlet and a second region proximal to the outlet, and thus the region in between is understood as the middle region)
PNG
media_image1.png
753
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claims 3-5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESB as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kimura (JP 2005155878)
Regarding Claim 3, discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
ESB does not disclose wherein the control element takes the form of a differential screw with a first portion comprising a first thread for engaging the outer body and a second portion comprising a second thread for engaging the inner body, the first thread having a different thread pitch to the second thread. (Examiner Note: While ESB does not disclose a differential screw control element, it does suggest that the pivot lever is replaceable with other suitable valve actuating arrangements including arrangements “directed towards the longitudinal axis of the compensator.” (Para. 20))
However, Kimura discloses wherein the control element [First stem 27, Fig. 1] takes the form of a differential screw with a first portion comprising a first thread for engaging the outer body [Male screw portion 29, Fig. 1] and a second portion comprising a second thread for engaging the inner body [Female screw portion 28, Fig. 1], the first thread having a different thread pitch to the second thread. [Paras. 10-11, 31] (Examiner Note: Kimura discloses a “a first stem 27 having a handle 32 fixed to an upper portion thereof and having a female screw portion 28 on a lower inner peripheral surface thereof and a male screw portion 29 having a pitch larger than a pitch of the female screw portion 28 on an outer peripheral surface thereof, a first stem support 34 having a female screw portion 36 threadedly engaged with the male screw portion 29 of the first stem 27 on an inner peripheral surface thereof.” As the first stem receives user input (from the handle/grip integral with the stem) and controls the size of the gap (by nature of moving the second stem) it is understood to teach this limitation. Kimura further discloses “a second stem 19 having a male screw portion 20 threadedly engaged with the female screw portion 28 of the first stem 27 on an upper outer peripheral surface thereof and having a diaphragm 10 connected to a lower end portion thereof, a diaphragm presser 21 located below the first stem support 34 and supporting the second stem 19 in a vertically movable and non-rotatable manner, and a bonnet 38 fixing the first stem support 34 and the diaphragm presser 21.”Accordingly, Kimura is understood to disclose a control element configured as differential screw (first stem) in threaded engagement with a non-rotational inner body (second-stem with diaphragm).)
Kimura is in the field of flow rate valves, and thus Kimura is not in the same field of the present application, beverage dispensing. However, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of the claimed invention is trying to solve, of proportional control of fluid flow rates. Specifically, Kimura provides a method to, “obtain a favorable proportional relationship of the flow rate … to perform the flow rate adjustment in a wide flow rate range.” [Para. 38] The MPEP states that a reference that is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention) is considered analogous art, see MPEP2141.01(a). I. As such, Kimura is analogous art as it satisfies the "reasonably pertinent" test.
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, ESB teaches a pivot lever that differs from the claimed control element because the pivot lever does not actuate the inner body of the compensator by rotation of a differential screw. The pivot lever of ESB and the first stem of Kimura both perform the function of actuating the valve shutter. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the pivot lever of with the first stem of Kimura to achieve predictable results because both references deal with valve shutters that function in the same manner in the environment of a flow control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve shutter of ESB by replacing the pivot lever with a first stem because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 4, ESB in view of Kimura discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3. ESB does not disclose wherein the first thread has a pitch of between 0.65 and 0.85mm, and wherein the second thread has a pitch of between 0.9mm and 1.1mm.
However, Kimura further teaches wherein the first thread [Thread of female portion 28, Fig. 1] has a pitch of between 0.65 and 0.85mm, and wherein the second thread [Thread of male portion 29, Fig. 1] has a pitch of between 0.9mm and 1.1mm. [Para. 24] (Examiner Note: As claimed the limitation requires the pitch difference between the first and second thread is between .05 - .45 mm. Kimura discloses a pitch difference between the female portion (28) and male portion (29) of .25 mm and thus discloses this limitation. Kimura further discloses that this pitch difference is favorable as it provides precise control of the valve without making the valve height too large.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kimura with ESB in order to provide precise control of the differential screw. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Kimura could be combined with ESB because they both relate to valve flow control devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kimura because the pitch difference provides fine actuation of the control element while minimizing the operating envelope of the device. [Para. 24] Accordingly, Claim 4 is rejected as obvious over ESB in view of Kimura.
Regarding Claim 5, ESB discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2. ESB does not disclose wherein for a full rotation of the control element, the control element causes relative longitudinal displacement between the inner and outer bodies of between 0.20mm and 0.30mm.
However, Kimura further teaches wherein for a full rotation of the control element [Grip 32 of First stem 27, Fig. 1] , the control element causes relative longitudinal displacement between the inner [Second stem 19 with diaphragm 10, Fig. 1] and outer bodies [First stem 27, Fig. 1] of between 0.20mm and 0.30mm. [Para. 31] (Examiner Note: Kimura discloses that when the first stem (27) is rotated once, the second stem (19) is raised by .25 mm, which is integral with the diaphragm (10) that closes the valve. As the one rotation is understood to be a full rotation of the control element, Kimura discloses this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kimura with ESB in order to provide sufficient displacement of the valve for flow control. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Kimura could be combined with ESB because they both relate to valve flow control devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kimura in order to provide sufficient displacement of the valve for variable flow control. This range of displacement allows the control element, “to perform the flow rate adjustment in a wide flow rate range.” [Para. 38] Accordingly, Claim 5 is rejected as obvious over ESB in view of Kimura.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESB as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10, ESB discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9.
ESB does not disclose wherein, in the first region, a diameter of the inner body [Front portion of Compensator 7, Fig. 1] and a diameter of the compensator chamber [Front section of Cone 6 of Tap body 2, Fig. 1] are approximately constant between the inlet and the middle region. (Examiner Note: This limitation is understood to allow the compensator to serve as the valve seat for the inlet because a constant diameter between the bodies is required to block valve flow. While ESB does not disclose this specific diametric relationship between the inner and outer bodies, it does disclose the outer body has a cone section (6) proximal to the inlet such that, “[t]he shape of the cone 6 in the connecting piece 3 corresponds to the shape of the conical compensator 7 in such a way that the cone 6 and the compensator 7 form a sealing form-fitting connection when the compensator 7 is inserted tightly into the cone 6,” and thus performs the same function as the immediate limitation. (Annotated Fig. 1, para. 28))
However, under MPEP 2144.04, changes in shape are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art “absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (MPEP 2144.04 (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Various modifications, including such a change in shape, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients” (MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the ESB such that the diameters of the inner and outer body are constant in the first region, because changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.04.] One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the shape of the valve seat can take a variety of shapes, and simply requires that it is congruent with the outer body to prevent fluid flow. One having ordinary skill in the art would have expected the conical valve seat of ESB to work equally well with constant inner and outer diameters because both shapes perform the function of preventing liquid flow past through the inlet. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected as obvious over ESB.
Regarding Claim 11, ESB discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9. ESB further discloses wherein, in the middle region, the or a diameter of the inner body [Compensator 7, Fig. 1] and the or a diameter of the compensator chamber [Remainder of Cone 6, Fig. 1] increase at substantially the same fixed rate between the first and the second regions. [Middle region, Annotated Fig. 1, para. 28] (Examiner Note: This limitation is understood to serve as the throttling section of the compensator. ESB discloses, the compensator is shaped such that“ the region of which with the greatest diameter is directed towards the tap body 2,” and, “ shape of the cone 6 in the connecting piece 3 corresponds to the shape of the conical compensator 7,” and thus understood to disclose a throttling section where the inner and outer bodies increase at the same fixed rate.)
Regarding Claim 12, ESB discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9.
ESB does not disclose wherein, in the second region, the or a diameter of the inner body and of the compensator chamber decrease at different fixed rates between the middle region and the outlet. (Examiner Note: This limitation is understood to create the gap where the size, and thus flow rate, is controlled by displacement of the compensator. While ESB does not disclose this specific diametric rate between the inner and outer bodies, it does disclose the inner body has six flattened portions (9) distributed over the circumference to create a gap for fluid flow, and then quickly decreases in diameter at a rate different than the outer chamber such that the compensator can be displaced to control the size of the gap, and thus performs the same function as the immediate limitation, but their diameters are not decreased at fixed rates. (Para. 29))
However, under MPEP 2144.04, changes in shape are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art “absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (MPEP 2144.04 (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Various modifications, including such a change in shape, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients” (MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the ESB such that the diameters of the inner and outer body decrease at different fixed rates in the second region, because changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice absent unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.04.] One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the shape of the second region of the compensator can take a variety of shapes, and simply requires that it allows displacement of the compensator. One having ordinary skill in the art would have expected the second region of the compensator of ESB to work equally well with fixedly decreasing diameters because both shapes perform the function of allowing displacement of the compensator to control fluid flow. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected as obvious over ESB.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESB as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Donabauer et al. (US 20170233237)
Regarding Claim 8, ESB discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
ESB does not disclose wherein the compensator further comprises a cooling conduit arranged within the outer body, wherein said cooling conduit is configured to receive a cooling liquid.
However, Donabauer teaches wherein the compensator further comprises a cooling conduit [First and second channels 5 & 6 within the tapping column 2 and chamber 7, Fig. 2] arranged within the outer body [Chamber 7, Fig. 2], wherein said cooling conduit is configured to receive a cooling liquid. [Circulating device 21, Fig. 2] [Paras. 33-34, 39-40, 52, 56] (Examiner Note: Donabauer teaches a compensator tap (3) connected to a tapping column (2) with a first and second channel (5,6), and a beverage line (8) extending through one of the channels (i.e. a tube in tube cooling configuration) and connected to the tap (3). The tap assembly comprises a first part connected to the beverage line, and a second part with a chamber (7) connected to the first and second channels. Donabauer further teaches a cooling system (20) with a liquid cooling medium comprising, “a circulating device 21 for circulating a cooling medium through at least the first and second channel 5, 6 and the chamber 7.” (Para. 39) Therefore, by circulating the cooling medium through the channels and chamber, the cooling system (20) performs cooling of the beverage along the length of the beverage line, and the tap itself. Accordingly, Donabauer is understood to disclose a compensator tap assembly with a cooling conduit, and thus teaches this limitation.)
Donabauer is in the same field of invention as the application because both relate to dispensing of carbonated beverages, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ESB with the teachings of Donabauer in order to provide cooling of both the dispensed beverage and dispenser system. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Donabauer could be combined with ESB as they both relate to carbonated beverage tap systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the cooling system of Donabauer because it ensures dispensing of beverage at the proper dispensing temperature. Donabauer further teaches that the cooling system helps maintain, “a proper micro climate and thus improved hygiene of the tapping assembly and especially the tap over prior art systems, in an easy and reliable manner.” [Para. 56]. Accordingly, Claim 8 is rejected as obvious over ESB in view of Donabauer.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESB as in view of Donabauer et al., applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Green (US 2017/0043992).
Regarding Claim 13, ESB in view of Donabauer discloses all of the limitations of Claim 8.
ESB and Donabauer do not disclose wherein the carbonated beverage dispenser further comprises a soda delivery system comprising a chiller-carbonator for chilling and carbonating soda for the compensator. (Examiner Note: While Donabauer does not specifically disclose a chiller-carbonator, it discloses a cooled container (25) connected in line with a container (26) of CO2 for pressurizing the beverage in the container. While a chiller-carbonator is understood to be a single structural unit, Donabauer does functionally disclose a chiller-carbonator as it chills and carbonates the dispensed beverage. (Para. 41))
However, Green teaches wherein the carbonated beverage dispenser further comprises a soda delivery system comprising a chiller-carbonator [Refrigerated carbonator 360, Fig. 12] for chilling and carbonating soda for the compensator. [Paras. 77-78] (Examiner Note: Green discloses a refrigerated carbonator (360) that chills and carbonates water and thus discloses this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Donabauer teaches a chiller-carbontor that differs from the claimed chiller-carbonator because it is not a single structural unit. The distinct chiller and carbonator of Donabauer and the chiller-carbonator of Green both perform the function of carbonating and chilling the liquid reservoir of the dispensing system. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the distinct chiller and carbonator of Donabauer with the chiller-carbonator of Green to achieve predictable results because both references deal with chilling and carbonation of the beverage reservoir that function in the same manner in the environment of a beverage dispensing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beverage dispenser of Donabauer by replacing the distinct chiller and carbonator with a unitary chiller-carbonator because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Claim 13 is rejected as obvious over ESB in view of Donabauer and Green.
Regarding Claim 14, ESB in view of Donabauer and Green discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13.
ESB does not disclose wherein the soda delivery system further comprises a first soda delivery conduit for transporting soda from the chiller-carbonator to the cooling conduit for cooling the compensator.
However, Donabauer further teaches wherein the soda delivery system further comprises a first soda delivery conduit [First channel 5 between the container 25 and inlet of tapping column 2, Fig. 2] for transporting soda from the chiller-carbonator to the cooling conduit for cooling the compensator. [Fig. 2, para. 40] (Examiner Note: For apparatus claims, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a claimed structure is considered intended use, and does not impart patentability to an apparatus claim (MPEP 2115). Accordingly, this claim merely requires transporting of a fluid from the chiller-carbonator to the compensator. Donabauer teaches that the first channel is extends the whole length between the container and tap forming a tube-in-tube with the beverage line submerged in the cooling medium, and provides cooling of the tap, and teaches that the cooling fluid can be any fluid, and thus could be soda water. As the container (25) has been substituted for the chiller-carbonator of Green, Donabauer discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 15, ESB in view of Green discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13.
ESB does not disclose wherein the soda delivery system further comprises a second soda delivery conduit for transporting soda water from the chiller-carbonator to the compensator for flow-regulation, when selectively operated by a user.
However, Donabauer further teaches wherein the soda delivery system further comprises a second soda delivery conduit [Beverage line 8, Fig. 2] for transporting soda water from the chiller-carbonator to the compensator for flow-regulation, when selectively operated by a user. [Fig. 2, para. 40] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the beverage line (8) extends from the chiller-carbonator to the tap (where fluid flows by the compensator to be dispensed), and dispenses beverage upon user operation of the tap, and thus teaches this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify ESB with the teachings of Donabauer in order to provide cooling along the entire dispensing path. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Donabauer could be combined with ESB as they both relate to carbonated beverage tap systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the cooling system of Donabauer because it provides cooling of the dispensed beverage (and beverage system) along the entire length of the dispensing path, ensuring the beverage is dispensed at the preferred temperature and uniform consistency. Donabauer further teaches that the cooling system helps maintain, “a proper micro climate and thus improved hygiene of the tapping assembly and especially the tap over prior art systems, in an easy and reliable manner.” [Para. 56]. Accordingly, Claims 14 and 15 are rejected as obvious over ESB in view of Donabauer and Green.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESB as in view of Donabauer et al. and Green, as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Koch (DE 102019008448)
Regarding Claim 16, ESB in view of Donabauer and Green discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13.
ESB, Donabauer and Green do not disclose wherein the chiller-carbonator is configured to pressurise soda to between 5.5 bar and 6.9 bar, and preferably 6.2 bar. (Examiner Note: While they disclose dispensing of carbonated beverages at a suitable pressure range for soda, it does not specifically disclose the claimed pressure range.)
However, Koch teaches wherein the chiller-carbonator is configured to pressurise soda to between 5.5 bar and 6.9 bar, and preferably 6.2 bar. [Para. 8] (Examiner Note: Koch discloses a dispensing system with a feed pump configured to pump in, “in a pressure range of approximately 1.5 - 6.0 bar,” and thus discloses this limitation. Koch further claims conveying, “a volume flow through the dispensing line (13,14,15) to the beverage dispensing device (11) at a suitable pressure level of 3.5 - 7.0 bar.” (Claim 11) )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a soda pressure of 5.5 to 6.9 bar. Under MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art." [MPEP 2144.05-I] The claimed range of 5.5-6.9 bar overlaps with the range of 1.5-6.0 bar disclosed by Koch. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected as obvious over ESB in view of Donabauer and Green, in further view of Koch.
Claims 17-20, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESB as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kelley (WO 2020047612)
Regarding Claim 17, ESB discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
ESB does not disclose wherein the carbonated beverage dispenser further comprises an additive dispensing system for dispensing at least one additive, and a mixing chamber for receiving soda from the compensator and at least one additive from the additive dispensing system and mixing the soda with at least one additive to form a soda-based drink.
However, Kelley teaches wherein the carbonated beverage dispenser further comprises an additive dispensing system [Additive dispenser 905, Annotated Fig. 9 (905)] for dispensing at least one additive, and a mixing chamber [Mixer 902, Conduit 903, Annotated Fig. 9] for receiving soda from the compensator and at least one additive from the additive dispensing system and mixing the soda with at least one additive to form a soda-based drink. [Annotated Fig. 9, paras. 159-160] (Examiner Note: Kelley is construed to teach a plurality of additive dispenser (905) with a mixing chamber consisting of conduit (903) and mixer (902) as they receive the additive and carbonated water and perform mixing of the soda to be dispensed. Although the final mixing occurs in the mixer (902), some mixing must occur when the additive first enters the conduit (903) with the carbonated water, and thus the mixer and conduit are together construed as the mixing chamber. Kelley further teaches the additive dispensing system is located along the path of the conduit (903) between the carbonator (901) and the mixer (902). As the compensator tap must be arranged after the carbonated beverage source in order to provide flow control of the unmixed beverage, but before the mixing chamber in order to allow post-mix dispensing, it is understood to be disposed between the carbonator (901) and entrance of the mixing chamber (conduit (903)) (See Annotated Fig. 9). Accordingly, Kelley is understood to teach a mixing chamber that receives soda from the compensator, and thus teaches this limitation.)
PNG
media_image2.png
489
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, ESB in view of Kelley discloses all of the limitations of Claim 17.
ESB does not disclose wherein the mixing chamber further comprises a first opening arranged in the mixing chamber, and wherein the additive dispensing system comprises at least one additive dispenser arranged to dispense at least one additive into the mixing chamber through the first opening, wherein a spacing is defined between the at least one additive dispenser and the mixing chamber.
However, Kelley further teaches wherein the mixing chamber further comprises a first opening arranged in the mixing chamber, and wherein the additive dispensing system comprises at least one additive dispenser [Additive reservoirs (905), Fig. 9] arranged to dispense at least one additive into the mixing chamber through the first opening, wherein a spacing [Spacing 908, Fig. 9] is defined between the at least one additive dispenser and the mixing chamber. [Fig. 9, para. 160] (Examiner Note: Kelley teaches the additive reservoirs (905) are dispensed by a pump (907) into the space (908) between the mixing conduit (903) and reservoirs (905) and then extracted by a venturi (910) into the conduit. As the space (908) is construed as a first opening, Kelley is understood to teach this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 19, ESB in view of Kelley discloses all of the limitations of Claim 18.
ESB does not disclose wherein the first opening is defined in an upper wall of the mixing chamber, and wherein the at least one additive dispenser is arranged above the mixing chamber.
However, Kelley further teaches wherein the first opening is defined in an upper wall of the mixing chamber, and wherein the at least one additive dispenser is arranged above the mixing chamber. [Fig. 9] (Examiner Note: Kelley teaches the additive dispenser (905) and spacing (908) are disposed above the mixing chamber and thus teaches this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 20, ESB in view of Kelley discloses all of the limitations of Claim 17.
ESB does not disclose wherein the mixing chamber further comprises a second opening for receiving soda from the outlet of the compensator, and a third opening for delivering carbonated beverage out of the mixing chamber.
However, Kelley further teaches wherein the mixing chamber further comprises a second opening for receiving soda from the outlet of the compensator [Inlet of conduit 903, Fig. 9], and a third opening [Outlet 913, Fig. 9] for delivering carbonated beverage out of the mixing chamber. [, paras. 159, 163] (Examiner Note: Kelley is understood to teach the conduit (903) receiving carbonated beverage from the compensator, and an outlet (913) for dispensing the soda, and thus teaches a second and third opening as claimed.)
Kelley is in the same field of invention as the application because both relate to dispensing of carbonated beverages, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ESB with the teachings of Kelley in order to provide post-mix dispensing. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Kelley could be combined with ESB as they both relate to dispenser systems for carbonated beverages. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kelley because it allows for post-mix additive mixing, allowing changing of flavor profiles and customization of mixing ratios for the dispensed beverage. Accordingly, Claims 17-20 are rejected as obvious over ESB in view of Kelley.
Regarding Claim 23, ESB in view of Kelley discloses all of the limitations of Claim 20.
ESB and Kelley do not disclose wherein the mixing chamber is removable from the carbonated beverage dispenser.
However, under MPEP 2144.V-C, the making a structure separable is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the mixing chamber disclosed by ESB in view of Kelley such that the mixing chamber is detachable because making separable is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.04-V-C] Applicant has not disclosed that a detachable mixing chamber provides any unexpected results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a detachable mixing chamber will function equally as well as an integral mixing chamber for mixing the beverage and additives. A person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that detachable dispensing components are well known in the beverage dispensing arts, and allows for ease of cleaning of components in contact with the dispensed beverage. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the detachable mixing chamber to work equally as well as the integral mixing chamber disclosed in the prior art, and thus, this limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, Claim 23 is rejected as obvious over ESB in view of Kelley.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESB in view of Kelley as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Makino (US 2017/0313566)
Regarding Claim 21, ESB in view of Kelley discloses all of the limitations of Claim 17. Kelley further teaches wherein the carbonated beverage dispenser comprises a control unit [Control 25, Fig. 1] for controlling the carbonated beverage dispenser during dispensing operations, wherein, the control unit is configured to control a dispensing flow of soda [Solenoid Valve 12, Fig. 1] and additive. [Peristaltic Pump 907, Fig. 9] [Paras. 86-7, 139-40, 160] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Kelley is understood to teach a beverage dispensing system with the compensator tap disposed between the liquid beverage supply and mixing chamber to control the flow rate of the carbonated beverage to be mixed. Noting the 112(f) interpretation above, Kelley further teaches that the dispenser system has a solenoid valve (12) disposed at the liquid supply inlet to control an amount of liquid carrier released, and peristaltic pumps (907) at the additive dispensers to control the amount of additive released. Finally, Kelley discloses a control (25) configured to control all of the control components of the dispensing system (para. 139-140). Accordingly, Kelley teaches a control system for controlling the amount of soda and additive dispensed, with the compensator providing control of flow rate and carbonation level.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to further modify ESB in view of Kelley with the teachings of Kelley to provide ratio-metric control of mixing. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Kelley could be combined with ESB as they both relate to dispenser systems for carbonated beverages. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kelley in order to provide specific control of mixing ratios between the liquid to be mixed and additives. As drink recipes are generally dependent on volumetric ratios of each ingredient, it is necessary to provide control of the amount of beverage dispensed in addition to the flow rate.
ESB and Kelley do not disclose the control unit is configured to control a dispensing such that, at the end of each dispensing operation, the last liquid that passes through the mixing chamber is soda, with no dispensed additive(s). (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Kelley discloses a control system for individual control of the dispensers and carbonated beverage, but does not specifically discuss controlling the last liquid passing through the mixing chamber. Nevertheless, Kelley specifically considers when, “a single mixer is provided, it is preferred that the mixer be flushed or otherwise cleaned in order to remove any residual material from the previous beverage, preferably immediately after each beverage is dispensed … using water from the inlet water supply 11.” (Para. 134))
However, Makino teaches the control unit [Control section 20, Fig. 5] is configured to control a dispensing such that, at the end of each dispensing operation, the last liquid that passes through the mixing chamber is soda, with no dispensed additive(s). [Paras. 76-80] (Examiner Note: Makino teaches a method for supplying carbonated flavor added beverage, where the control section (20) controls the actuation of the syrup dispensers to stop dispensing additives (closes valves (25, 28) and stop actuation of pump motors (26, 29)), while keeping the carbonated water solenoid valve (22) open for an additional prescribed time to clean the nozzle with carbonated water. Accordingly, Makino is understood to disclose a control system configured to control dispensing of the additives and carbonated beverage such that the carbonated beverage without additive is the last liquid passing through the mixing chamber.)
Makino is in the same field of invention as the application because both relate to methods of dispensing carbonated beverages, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Makino with ESB in view of Kelley in order to prevent cross-contamination of subsequent dispensed beverages. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Makino could be combined with ESB in view of Kelley as they relate to additive control systems for dispensing systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Makino because it automatically cleans the mixing chamber which prevents cross-contamination of subsequent beverages in the mixing chamber, and reduces maintenance/cleaning required by the user. Accordingly, Claim 21 is rejected as obvious over ESB in view of Kelley, and further in view of Makino.
Regarding Claim 22, ESB in view of Kelley and Makino discloses all of the limitations of Claim 21. Makino further teaches, wherein the control unit [Control section 20, Fig. 5] is configured to stop the additive dispensing system dispensing an additive into the mixing chamber before the control unit stops the compensator dispensing soda into the mixing chamber. [Paras. 76-80] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Makino specifically discloses the controller (20) stops actuation of the syrup dispensers (closes the valves, and stops the pumps) a short time before closing the carbonated water solenoid valve, and thus teaches this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Makino with ESB in view of Kelley in order to prevent cross-contamination of subsequent dispensed beverages. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Makino could be combined with ESB in view of Kelley as they relate to additive control systems for dispensing systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Makino because it provides automatic cleaning of the mixing chamber. Accordingly, Claim 22 is rejected as obvious over ESB in view of Kelley, and further in view of Makino.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESB in view of Kelley, and further in view of Spivey et al. (US 20190276298)
Regarding Claim 24, ESB in view of Kelley discloses all of the limitations of Claim 23. ESB in view of Kelley teaches wherein the compensator comprises a first connection part about the outlet [Spout 5, Fig. 1 of ESB], and wherein the mixing chamber comprises a second connection part about the second opening [Inlet of conduit 903, Fig. 9 of Kelley]. [Kelley: Paras. 159-60] (Examiner Note: As discussed in Claim 17 above, ESB as modified per Kelley is understood to teach attaching the conduit (903) to the outlet of the compensator tap of ESB to provide post-mix additive dispensing for the dispensed beverage. Accordingly, there must be some connection between the outlet of the compensator and inlet of the mixing chamber to allow fluid communication between them.)
ESB and Kelley do not disclose wherein one of the first and second connection parts is male and the other is female, and wherein the first and second connection parts fit with a frictional fit.
However, Spivey teaches wherein one of the first [Connection element 108, Fig. 3A & 3B] and second [Fitment, Figs. 3A & 3B] connection parts is male and the other is female, and wherein the first and second connection parts fit with a frictional fit. [Para. 83] (Examiner Note: Spivey discloses a liquid dispense system where the liquid containers (102) are removeable and have a male or female connection element (108) that connects with the fitment. Spivey further discloses that the first connection element can be a friction fit with the fitment to allow removeable connection between the containers and dispensing system.)
Spivey is in the same field of invention as the application because both relate to methods of dispensing carbonated beverages, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid dispensing system of ESB in view of Kelly with the teachings of Spivey to provide a sealing removable connection between the mixing chamber and compensator. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Spivey could be applies to ESB as they are both directed to beverage dispensing systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Spivey because it provides a effective sealing between fluid conduits while allowing for removal of the mixing chamber for cleaning or replacement. Accordingly Claim 24 is rejected as obvious over ESB in view of Kelley and Spivey.
Claims 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESB in view of Kelley, and further in view of Bond (US 20200071151)
Regarding Claim 25, ESB in view of Kelley discloses all of the limitations of Claim 23. Kelley further teaches wherein the carbonated beverage dispenser comprises the or a control unit [Control system 25, Fig. 1] for controlling the operation of the carbonated beverage dispenser. [Figs. 1, 9, paras. 86-7, 139-40, 160] (Examiner Note: As discussed in Claim 21 above, Kelley is understood to teach a beverage dispensing system with a control system (25) for controlling the amount of soda and additive dispensed, with the compensator providing control of flow rate and carbonation level, and thus discloses this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to further modify ESB in view of Kelley with the teachings of Kelley to provide ratio-metric control of mixing. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Kelley could be combined with ESB as they both relate to dispenser systems for carbonated beverages. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kelley in order to provide specific control of mixing ratios between the liquid to be mixed and additives. As drink recipes are generally dependent on volumetric ratios of each ingredient, it is necessary to provide control of the amount of beverage dispensed in addition to the flow rate.
ESB and Kelley do not teach wherein the control unit is configured to detect whether the mixing chamber has been removed from the carbonated beverage dispenser, and to prevent the compensator and/ or the additive dispensing system from dispensing when the mixing chamber has been removed from the carbonated beverage dispenser.
However, Bond teaches wherein the control unit [Control means, paras. 83-84] is configured to detect whether the mixing chamber has been removed from the carbonated beverage dispenser, and to prevent the compensator and/ or the additive dispensing system from dispensing when the mixing chamber has been removed from the carbonated beverage dispenser. [Fig. 3a, paras. 207-13] (Examiner Note: Bond teaches a fluid dispensing apparatus with a dispensing nozzle assembly (2) with a control means configured to stop the flow of fluid from the actuator assembly through the dispensing nozzle through actuation of a magnetic switch when the nozzle is not in proximity with the housing portion (24). Proximity is detected by a magnetic sensor in communication with the control means that detects proximity of the magnetic strips (40) on the nozzle to determine when to dispense. As the compensator assembly is understood as the actuator assembly of the present invention, Bond teaches control unit configured to prevent the compensator from dispensing when the assembly is not connected to the housing. As this limitation is listed in the alternative, the controller only needs to stop dispensing through a compensator or the additive dispensing system, and thus teaches this limitation.)
Bond is in the same field of invention as the application because both relate to systems for dispensing carbonated beverages, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to further modify ESB in view of Kelley with the teachings of Bond to provide presence detection of the mixing chamber. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Kelley could be combined with ESB as they both relate to dispenser systems for carbonated beverages. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bond in order to prevent dispensing of beverage without a mixing chamber. This reduces potential waste and mess and prevents damage of components from misuse of the device. Accordingly, Claim 25 is rejected as obvious over ESB in view of Kelley and further in view of Bond.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Peirsman et al. (US 20190241420 A1) discloses a dispensing system with a displaceable compensator to control flow regulation and a mixing chamber designed to prevent cross contamination of additives in the mixing chamber with subsequent beverages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/J.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights