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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-20 in the Remarks, filed 16 June 2026, with respect to claims 8-12 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on page 14 of the Remarks that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references in regards to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 8 by Aquirre in view of Chang, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Chang discloses a quick-release coupling (which uses a sleeves, spherical balls and a spring) which allows users to easily and quickly couple and uncouple fluid systems without tools while ensuring a leak-proof connection, as was explained in the previous Action.
The Applicant argues on page 14 of the Remarks that modifying Aguirre with Chang’s teaching would require significant modification. The 35 USC §103 rejection is based on that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Aguirre, as taught by Chang. The modification would incorporate the sleeves, spherical ball, springs and other components to work with a beverage bottle opening and the neck threading, thereof.
Chang’s detailed figures and explanation (paragraph [0018]: After insertion of the mating male connector 6 into the front end 12 of the socket body 11 of the socket 1, the mating male connector 6 (in this case, the bottle neck) is firmly secured to the socket body 11 by the sliding chuck 21 and rolling balls 23 of the locking member 2”) would facilitate the redesign of Aquirre by one with ordinary skill in the art without the need of undue experimentation.
In response to Applicant's argument on page 16 of the Remarks that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Applicant argues on page 17 of the Remarks, in regards to the rejection of claims 11 and 12, that prior art Cuppari does not disclose:
a user being located within a pre-defined range of a beverage dispensing device;
a proximity determination between a user and a beverage dispensing device;
identifying beverage dispensing devices based on proximity to a user;
rendering beverages available from beverage dispensing devices located within a predefined distance of the user; or
any "pre-defined range" between a user and a beverage dispensing device.
However, as explained in the previous Action, Cuppari is capable of performing the method steps in claims 11 and 12. Cuppari discloses in col. 10, lines 47-50: “The rules engine 154 may further establish location (e.g., food outlet, geographic, etc.) as a rule that may be used in determining qualified pour.” Cuppari also discloses in col. 5 lines 16-22: “By individually identifying a user, the user may be tracked across dispenser locations, including within one or across multiple food outlets (e.g., different restaurant brands) so that a regional, nationwide, or global promotion may be supported by a producer of beverages dispensed by the dispenser 102.” Cuppari also discloses in col. 11, lines 35-46: “The tracking engine 158 may be configured to receive communications with user pours 162 from dispensers (or other electronic systems) from one or more food outlets that operate dispensers that are capable of supporting functionality for promoting beverage dispenses. In particular, the individually identifiable beverage dispenses may be associated with a user by identifying a user ID, mobile ID, or any other information that identifies a user who engages with one or more dispenser to obtain rewards and/or promotions for dispensing beverages”.
Cuppari tracks a user’s locations relative to the location of dispensers. Cuppari uses a mobile phone app to identify and interact with a dispenser in proximity to the user. The user cannot interact with (and pour a beverage) from a dispenser that is not in proximity to the user. Cuppari obviously uses criteria, such as distance-to-dispenser, to identify when a user is in the required proximity to a dispenser to allow for dispensing.
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(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguirre, et al. (“Aguirre”) (U.S. Pat. 7,044,335) in view of Chang (U.S. Pub. 2013/0292591).
Regarding claim 8, Aguirre discloses a cap assembly (Figs. 8A-8E: 12) for beverage bottles (10), the cap assembly comprising:
a cork (12) comprising:
a first end comprising:
an outlet port (84) configured to:
receive a tube (16); and
dispense, via the tube, a beverage from within a beverage bottle;
an intermediate cylindrical surface (Fig. 8C: 82) comprising:
an inlet port configured to receive a pressurized gas (“air”) from a pressurized gas vessel (44) via a gas tube (18);
a second end, wherein the intermediate cylindrical surface is positioned between the first end and the second end, and wherein the second end comprises a plurality of grooves (102), and O-rings cooperating with the plurality of grooves;
an inner sleeve (100), wherein the second end of the cork is attached to the inner sleeve via a collar (96).
Aguirre is silent that the inner sleeve comprises a plurality of spherical metal balls and a spring.
Chang discloses a quick-release coupling comprising an inner sleeve (12) which comprises a plurality of spherical metal balls (23) and a spring (22); and
an outer sleeve (21), wherein the inner sleeve and the outer sleeve are assembled with each other via the plurality of spherical metal balls and the spring, and wherein the outer sleeve is configured to move relative to the inner sleeve between a up position and a down position to put a leak-proof device (4) in a locked state or an unlocked state at an opening of a male connector (6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Chang to modify Aguirre’s cap assembly with a quick-disconnect coupling and Aguirre’s bottle necks to accept the quick-connect, to allow the user the quickly connect and disconnect the cap without tools while ensuring a leak-proof connection.
Regarding claim 9, Aguirre, as modified by Change, discloses that the plurality of the spherical metal balls is configured to move radially between a first position and a second position, and wherein, in the locked state, the plurality of the spherical metal balls is at the first position and the outer sleeve is at the down position, and wherein, in the unlocked state, the plurality of the spherical metal balls is at the second position and the outer sleeve is at the up position. (¶ [0015])
Regarding claim 10, Aguirre discloses the outlet port of the cork comprises an airtight seal (112) for inserting the dispensing tube into the beverage bottle.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cuppari (U.S. Pat. 10,899,595).
Regarding claim 11, Cuppari discloses an apparatus that capable of performing the following steps during normal use, which is for providing beverage at a location of a user, the method comprising:
rendering to a user, via a user device (110), a list of a plurality of beverages (seen in Fig. 2A) within each of a portable beverage dispensing device (102), wherein the list comprises a type of each of the plurality of beverages (Fig 2A), an amount of each of the plurality of beverages (Fig. 2B), and additional attributes associated with each of the plurality of beverages, and wherein the location of the user is within a pre-defined range of each of the portable beverage dispensing device (col. 10, lines 47-50); receiving from the user, via the user device, a command (224) associated with at least one of the plurality of beverages within one of the portable beverage dispensing device in response to rendering, wherein the command comprises a request to provide the at least one of the plurality of beverages at the location of the user and one or more of the additional attributes selected by the user corresponding to at least one of the plurality of beverages; and displaying to the user, via the user device, a confirmation message (Fig. 2C) for providing the at least one of the plurality of beverages at the location of the user in response to receiving the command.
Regarding claim 12, Cuppari discloses an apparatus that capable of performing the following steps during normal use, which is for providing beverage at a location of a user, the method comprising:
receiving, by a server (118, 116), a command associated with at least one of a plurality of beverages (seen in Fig. 2A) within at least one of a portable beverage dispensing device (102) available within a pre-defined range of a user location (col. 10, lines 47-50), wherein the command (224) comprises a request to provide the at least one of the plurality of beverages at the user location and one or more additional attributes selected by the user corresponding to the at least one of the plurality of beverages; transmitting (114), by the server (118, 116) to at least one of the portable beverage dispensing device, the command associated with the at least one of the plurality of beverages; receiving, by the server from the at least one of the portable beverage dispensing device, a confirmation message for providing the at least one of the plurality of beverages at the user location with fulfilment of the one or more of the additional attributes; and transmitting, by the server, the confirmation message (Fig. 2C) to a user device (110).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed for the reasons stated in the previous Office Action dated 18 March 2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL J. MELARAGNO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights