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, 8, 11 and 12 have been amended. Claims 2-7, 9-10, and 13 are as originally presented. Claims 14-19 have been withdrawn from consideration. Therefore, claims 1-13 are pending and considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/02/2026 has been entered. All previously set forth objections to the specifications and 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection responds to substantive amendments to independent claims 1 and 11 requiring further delineation of prior art references.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the beverage dispensing diffuser,” which differs in phrasing from the “diffuser end of the beverage dispenser.” It is unclear if applicant intends for these features to be synonymous. The examiner recommends amending the claim to keep the claim terminology consistent and avoid antecedent basis issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the device is only used for cleaning the beverage dispenser,” lacks support within applicant’s specification. Referring to, at least, paras. 0005 (wherein an aspect of the present invention is to clean), 0029 (wherein the device changes the flow dynamics of the fluid leaving the dispenser), 0033 (wherein the device throttles the fluid flow, deflecting at least some of the fluid flow direction towards the diffuser for cleaning), and 0037 (to sanitize and clean) depicts multiple contemplated uses by applicant. Furthermore, applicant does not define any additional structure which could be capable of precluding any/all of the other aforementioned functions, but rather inherently discloses functions other than cleaning (refer to fig. 1, wherein the drain port 28 is capable of draining/dispensing a beverage).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-4, 6-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Man (US 4619378 A).
Regarding claim 1, de Man discloses a device for removably coupling to a beverage dispenser, the device comprising:
a main body (hollow member 136) comprising:
a base portion having an open end therein for receiving a diffuser end (inner member 136) of the beverage dispenser (beverage dispensing head 4) therein (upper end of 136, receiving inner member 138, fig. 4);
a cleaning chamber (inner area of hollow member 136 including the area of the mixing region 154); and
a cleaning flow creator (restriction regions 150 and 154 and the interior side walls of hollow member 136, refer to col. 5 l. 64 to col. 6 l. 6 and fig. 4) comprising one or more surfaces configured to create a cleaning flow at least partially in the cleaning chamber (refer to annotated figure below and MPEP 2125)
PNG
media_image1.png
400
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(it is the examiner’s position that restriction regions would result in turbulent flow, as no structure designed for inducing laminar flow is present, and such turbulent flow is sufficient for cleaning the surfaces of the dispensing diffuser)
for one or more surfaces of the diffuser end of the beverage dispenser received within the base portion (outer surfaces of inner member 138, which are received inside hollow member 136) from fluid dispensed from the beverage dispensing diffuser (wherein the fluid being cleansed is syrup, col. 5 l. 68 to col. 6 l. 6) through the cleaning chamber to the cleaning flow creator (refer to the annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image2.png
400
867
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and wherein the cleaning flow is sufficiently turbulent to physically clean surfaces of the beverage dispensing diffuser (col. 5 ll. 52-63), and wherein the device is only used for cleaning the beverage dispenser.
It is the examiner’s position that restriction regions 150 and 154, which are responsible for mixing (de Man, col. 5 l. 52 to col. 6 l. 6) physically force a change in fluid velocity and direction contributing to turbulent flow and is further referenced by the introduction of back pressure within the mixing chamber. Such a chamber is intended to clean the diffuser of residual syrup (de Man, col. 5 l. 64 to col. 6 l. 6). Furthermore, de Man discloses a condition for the device only being used for cleaning, such as washing the beverage dispensing diffuser via residual soda remaining in chambers 150 and 146 (de Man, col. 6 ll. 1-6) or by dispensing only soda (de Man, col. 6 l. 54 to col. 7 l. 21).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, de Man further discloses wherein the cleaning flow creator comprises a truncated conical surface (side walls of hollow member 136 and regions 150 and 154) positioned at least partially within an interior of the cleaning chamber (refer to fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 2, de Man further discloses wherein the cleaning flow creator is a truncated conical surface wherein a base of the truncated conical surface is positioned within the cleaning chamber and at a distal end of the cleaning chamber and extends towards a proximal end of the cleaning chamber wherein the proximal end of the cleaning chamber terminates in connection with the base portion (refer to fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitation of claim 1, de Man wherein an inner surface of the base portion comprises a coupling mechanism (hollow member 134 snaps onto inner member 138 via O-ring 144) for removably coupling the device to the beverage dispenser (col. 5 ll. 44-51).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, de Man further discloses wherein the cleaning chamber is a truncated cone having a drain port in a top surface and wherein a bottom of the cleaning chamber is open and configured to receive a tip of the beverage dispenser including the diffuser passing through the base portion into the cleaning chamber (refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
423
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 2, de Man further discloses an open space between an outer surface of the cleaning flow creator and an inner surface of the cleaning chamber (space within, at least, interior wall 157).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, de Man further discloses wherein the device is removable and reusable (via non-permanent coupling of hollow member 136 to inner member 138 via O-ring 144, col. 5 ll. 44-51).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, de Man further discloses wherein the cleaning flow cleans one or more surfaces within the beverage dispensing nozzle (col. 5 ll. 52-63) and wherein the fluid dispensed from the beverage dispensing nozzle is transformed into the cleaning flow without altering a flow rate or PSI of the fluid flow. It is the examiner’s position that the generation of back pressure within the cleaning chamber (col. 5 l. 64- col. 6 l. 6) is a result of constant and consistent pressure from the fluid dispensed from the beverage dispensing nozzle.
Regarding claim 11, de Man discloses a device for cleaning a diffuser of a beverage dispensing system, the device comprising
a nozzle cap (hollow member 136) for removably coupling to the beverage dispensing system (beverage dispensing head 4 including inner member 138, and col. 5 ll. 44-51 describing the removable nature of the hollow member 136) and the nozzle cap comprising a cleaning chamber (inner area of hollow member 136 including the area of the mixing region 154), a cleaning flow creator (restriction regions 150 and 154 and the interior side walls of hollow member 136, refer to col. 5 l. 64 to col. 6 l. 6 and fig. 4) having at least one surface which forms a turbulent fluid flow in the cleaning chamber (refer to the annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image1.png
400
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(it is the examiner’s position that restriction regions would result in turbulent flow, as no structure designed for inducing laminar flow is present, and such turbulent flow is sufficient for cleaning the surfaces of the dispensing diffuser) and a drain port (refer to the annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image4.png
388
609
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and wherein the nozzle cap is configured to clean the diffuser of the beverage dispensing system without removing the diffuser from the beverage dispensing system (col. 5 l. 52 to col. 6 l. 6) and while dispensing charged or carbonated water from the beverage dispenser (col. 5 l. 64 to col. 6 l. 6).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, the already modified device teaches wherein the beverage dispensing system is a manual beverage dispensing system comprising a handheld controller supporting the diffuser (de Man: refer to fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Man (US 4619378 A) in view of Baron et al. (US 20150136180 A1).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 4, de Man remains silent to the coupling mechanism comprises a threaded end or plurality of spaced apart tabs such that the nozzle coupling mechanism frictionally engaged with an exterior surface of the beverage dispenser. Baron teaches the coupling mechanism comprises a threaded end (Baron: screw connection, para. 0026). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle to be removable. Doing so is advantageous as the base portion can be easily detached and replaced if damaged.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Man (US 4619378 A), as applied in claim 1, in view of Le (CN 209336389 U).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, de Man remains silent to an external surface tab having an aperture therein. However, Le teaches an external surface tab having an aperture therein (semi-ring 6). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main body to include an external tab with an aperture therein. In doing so, the main body can be stored in close proximity to the beverage dispenser for ease of storage.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Man (US 4619378 A), as applied in claim 11, in view of Gates et al. (US 20130140328 A1).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, de Man already discloses a vortex generated with the device physically cleans and sanitizes the diffuser (due to the truncated conical shape of the device in vortices are created during fluid flow), however, remains silent to the device configured to receive a liquid or a solid sanitizing component therein for mixing or dissolving in the water dispensed from the diffuser such that the vortex cleans and sanitizes the diffuser. Gates teaches the device configured to receive a liquid or a solid sanitizing component (sanitizing agent 206) therein for mixing or dissolving in the water dispensed from the diffuser (para. 0052). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device to include a sanitizing agent. Advantageously, the inclusion of a sanitizing component enhances cleaning and sanitizing (para. 0048).
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