DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 7-8, “and configured to be define a variable area across the fluid path” should read “and configured to define a variable area across the fluid path”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 11-12, “and configured to be define a variable area across the fluid path” should read “and configured to define a variable area across the fluid path”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phallen et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9394155).
Regarding claim 1, Phallen discloses fluid dispensing tap (col. 7, line 55 to col. 8, line 3) comprising:
a housing having a fluid path extending therethrough from an input aperture to an output aperture in a spout of the tap (col. 10, lines 40-62; Fig. 15);
a display positioned on a user-facing surface of the housing (col. 11, line 63 to col. 12, line 3; Figs. 16-17; display 1680);
at least one sensor positioned along the fluid path and configured to generate parameter data representing a parameter of fluid flowing along the fluid path (col 18, line 62 to col. 19, line 9; Fig. 28, sensors 2844, 2846);
a variable opening valve positioned along the fluid path and configured to define a variable area across the fluid path (col. 26, lines 25-32; col. 66, lines. 18-48; Fig. 32,94A variable opening valve 110, 101000);
an actuator configured to open and close the variable opening valve (col. 26, lines 63 to col. 27, line 18, col. 66, lines. 18-48; Figs. 32, 94B, actuator 3410, 101005); and
a controller (col. 63, lines 6-15; Fig. 86, controller 10160) configured to:
receive the parameter data from the at least one sensor (col. 18, line 62 to col. 19, ln. 9; col. 63, lines 6-15 );
based at least partly on the parameter data, determine an extent to which to open or close the variable opening valve, wherein determining the extent is based on real-time sensing of the parameter data (col. 18, line 62 to col. 19, ln. 9; col. 63, lines 6-15; col 35, lines 18-26; the variable opening valve is adjustable during a pour);
control the actuator to open or close the variable opening valve to the determined extent (col. 18, line 62 to col. 19, line 9; col. 63, lines 6-15 ); and
generate an output for presentation on the display based at least partly on the parameter data (col. 31, line 31-50).
Regarding claim 5, Phallen discloses all limitations of claim 1. Phallen further discloses the controller is configured to output alerts or status indicators on the display in real time based on the parameter data (col. 40, lines 26-43).
Regarding claim 6, Phallen discloses all limitations of claim 1. Phallen further discloses a network connectivity module configured to transmit the parameter data over a network (col. 42, lines 36-40).
Regarding claim 7, Phallen discloses all limitations of claim 1. Phallen further discloses the fluid comprises beer, and wherein the controller is configured to determine the extent to which to open or close the variable opening based at least partly on a type of the beer (col. 41, lines 20-34; controller configures the dispenser based upon the brand or type of beer) .
Regarding claim 8, Phallen discloses all limitations of claim 1. Phallen further discloses the at least one sensor comprises a pressure sensor, temperature sensor, and flow meter (col 18, line 62 to col. 19, line 9; Fig. 28, temperature sensor 2844, pressure sensor 2846).
Regarding claim 12, Phallen discloses all limitations of claim 1. Phallen further discloses wherein the controller is configured to output sensed fluid parameters, maintenance reminders, and alerts when sensed parameters indicate potential problems with a keg, beverage line, beverage, cooling system, gas pressure, draft beverage tower, or tap within a draft beverage system (col. 40, lines 26-53).
Regarding claim 13, Phallen discloses all limitations of claim 1. Phallen further discloses wherein the controller is configured to identify specific problems that are likely occurring based on the sensed parameters and to recommend corrective actions to fix the problems (col. 20, lines 9-31).
Regarding claim 14, Phallen discloses all limitations of claim 1. Phallen further discloses wherein the controller is configured to output alerts or status indicators on a network-equipped computing device including desktop computers, laptops, smartphones, tablets, e-readers or gaming consoles in real time based on the parameter data (col. 40, lines 26-53, col. 42, lines 36-40).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phallen et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9394155) in view of McDonald et al. (International Application Publication No. WO 2017105541).
Regarding claim 2, Phallen discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Phallen further discloses creating foam on the poured beverage by using the cyclic activation of the nozzle plug. However, Phallon does not explicitly disclose a creamer positioned along the fluid path and configured to agitate the fluid and to cause the fluid to transform from a liquid into a foam; and
wherein the controller is further configured to: in response to receiving a creamer activation signal, activate the creamer to agitate the fluid.
McDonald discloses a creamer positioned along the fluid path and configured to agitate the fluid and to cause the fluid to transform from a liquid into a foam (para. [0032]-[0033]; Fig. 1; creamer 22); and
wherein the controller is further configured to: in response to receiving a creamer activation signal, activate the creamer to agitate the fluid (para. [0040]).
Phallen and McDonald are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automatically dispensing beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dispenser of Phallen and incorporate the teachings in Macdonald of adding creamer positioned along the fluid path and configured to agitate the fluid and to cause the fluid to transform from a liquid into a foam in response to receiving a creamer activation signal, to improve the control of foam density by controlling the bubble size of the foam so any desired foam density can be dispensed (McDonald: Para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Phallen and McDonald in combination disclose all limitations of claim 2.
Phallen further discloses a variable opening valve comprises a pinch valve (col. 66, lines. 18-48; Fig. 94A, pinch valve).
McDonald further discloses what Phallen lacks, specifically a creamer comprising an ultrasonic transducer (para. [0032]-[0033]; Fig. 1; creamer 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Phallen and incorporate the teachings in McDonald of using a creamer comprising an ultrasonic transducer, to improve the control of foam density by controlling the bubble size of the foam so any desired foam density can be dispensed (McDonald: Para. [0052]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phallen et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9394155) in view of McDonald et al. (International Application Publication No. 2017105541) and in further view of Hansson et al. (GB 2415763 A).
Regarding claim 4, Phallen and McDonald in combination disclose all limitations of claim 2. Phallen as modified by McDonald, does not disclose a variable opening valve comprising a mechanical valve, and wherein the creamer comprises an opening in the mechanical valve having a diameter of less than 1 mm.
Hansson discloses a beverage dispenser comprising a variable opening valve comprising a mechanical valve (pg. 5, lines 1-13; Fig. 2, valve 23 with variable opening positions A, B and C) and wherein the creamer comprises an opening in the mechanical valve having a diameter of less than 1 mm (pg. 6, lines 1-8; small apertures 31 on valve).
Phallen, McDonald, and Hansson are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dispensing beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dispenser of Phallen as modified by Macdonald and incorporate the teachings in Hansson of using a mechanical valve to adjust flow and using an opening with a diameter of less than 1 mm to produce foam would merely constitute as substitution of known elements i.e. the valve of Phallen and the creamer of McDonald with another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phallen et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9394155) in view of Simson (GB 2221209 A).
Regarding claim 9, Phallen discloses all limitations of claim 1. Phallen does not disclose at least one sensor comprising a color sensor configured to detect a color of the fluid.
Simson discloses a beer dispenser where at least one sensor comprises a color sensor configured to detect a color of the fluid (Abstract, pg. 4, lines 29-33).
Phallen and Simson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automatically dispensing beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dispenser of Phallen and incorporate the teachings in Simson of using a color sensor configured to detect the color of the fluid as it would provide the added benefit of customizing the automated dispensing procedure depending on the type of beer being dispensed as identified by the color sensor.
Regarding claim 10, Phallen discloses all limitations of claim 1. Phallen does not disclose at least one sensor comprises a pH sensor configured to detect a pH of the fluid.
Simson discloses a beer dispenser where at least one sensor comprises a pH sensor configured to detect a pH of the fluid (Abstract, pg. 4, lines 15-27).
Phallen and Simson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automatically dispensing beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dispenser of Phallen and incorporate the teachings in Simson of using a PH sensor configured to detect the PH of the fluid as it would provide the added benefit of customizing the automated dispensing procedure depending on the type of beer being dispensed as identified by the PH sensor.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phallen et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9394155) in view of Newman et al. (U.S. Application Publication No. 2019/0272068).
Regarding claim 11, Phallen discloses all limitations of claim 1. Phallen does not disclose a rotatable dial positioned around the display on an exterior of the housing, wherein the controller is configured to:
receive a signal representing a positioning of the rotatable dial relative to the housing;
identify a pour volume indicated by the positioning of the rotatable dial;
update the display based at least partly on the pour volume; and identify selected user interface options based on user rotation of the rotatable dial.
Newman discloses a dispenser with a rotatable dial positioned around the display on an exterior of the housing (para. [0071]; Fig. 11, rotatable dial 913 around the display 912), wherein the controller (para. [0063]; Fig. 8, controller 802) is configured to:
receive a signal representing a positioning of the rotatable dial relative to the housing (para. [0090]-[0091]);
identify a pour volume indicated by the positioning of the rotatable dial (para. [0071]; the display shous aspects of pour mode, pour volume is an expected aspect);
update the display based at least partly on the pour volume; and identify selected user interface options based on user rotation of the rotatable dial (para. [0071], [0079]).
Phallen and Newman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automatically dispensing beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dispenser of Phallen and incorporate the teachings in Newman of using a rotatable dial positioned around the display on an exterior of the housing, with a controller receiving signal representing a positioning of the rotatable dial relative to the housing to identify a pour volume and update the display based at least partly on the pour volume as well as identify selected user interface options based on user rotation of the rotatable dial to reduce the space that would otherwise be taken by a separate user interface and display arrangement. Providing a compact selector with integrated display would also allow for displaying various information like beer names, ABV, brewery info and other beneficial information that would improve the customer experience.
Claim 15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al. (U.S. Application Publication No. 20140263447) in view Giles (U.S. Patent No. 7753231).
Regarding claim 15, Peters discloses a networked draft beverage system (para. [0031], Fig. 1) comprising:
a server (para. [0033]; Fig. 1, server 126) including:
a data repository configured to store pouring instructions associated with a beverage (para. [0036]; Fig. 1, data repository 128A); and
a module configured to connect the server to a network and transmit the pouring instructions to a designated fluid dispensing tap (para. [0044]; Fig. 1, server 126 in communication with network 104); and
a fluid dispensing tap remote from the server and configured for pouring the beverage (para. [0044]; Fig. 1; Fluid dispenser 102A with tap 124 remote from server), the fluid dispensing tap including:
a controller (para. [0047]; Fig. 1, controller 106) configured to:
receive the pouring instructions over the network (para. [0047]; controller 106 communicates with server 126 to obtain pouring instructions); and
during pouring of the beverage, control the actuator to open or close the variable opening valve to a determined extent based on the received pouring instructions (para. [0047]; processor 106 operates valve 122 using information from server to dispense beverage).
Peters does not disclose the fluid dispensing tap including a housing having a fluid path extending therethrough from an input aperture to an output aperture in a spout of the tap;
a variable opening valve positioned along the fluid path and configured to define a variable area across the fluid path;
an actuator configured to open and close the variable opening valve.
Giles discloses the fluid dispensing tap including a housing having a fluid path extending therethrough from an input aperture to an output aperture in a spout of the tap (col. 2, lines 43-60; Fig. 1, housing 18);
a variable opening valve positioned along the fluid path and configured to be define a variable area across the fluid path (col. 3, line 55 to col. 4, line 8);
an actuator configured to open and close the variable opening valve (col. 3, line 55 to col. 4, line 8); Fig. 4; actuator 52).
Peters and Giles are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automatically dispensing beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Turner and incorporate the teachings in Giles, of adding a variable opening valve along the fluid path, with a housing and an actuator to improve the accuracy of dispensing by accounting for the variation of flowrate that could arise due to fluctuations in the pressure of the beverage in the supply line due to inconsistencies of the different fluids (syrup, water, carbonated water etc.) dispensed by the dispenser. By incorporating a variable opening valve, the controller can quickly adapt to changes in flow rate to dispense a proper quantity of beverage (Giles: col. 4, line 62 to col. 5, line 25).
Regarding claim 17, Peters and Giles, in combination, discloses all limitations of claim 15. Peters further discloses the server is configured to store data representing an inventory of a plurality of beverages served at a venue of the fluid dispensing tap (para. [0036]; product information correlated with data in databases 128A-128C for identification); and
send pouring instructions to the fluid dispensing tap for pouring each of the plurality of beverages (para. [0047]; controller 106 operates tap using information from server to dispense beverage).
Regarding claim 18, Peters and Giles, in combination, disclose all limitations of claim 15. Peters further discloses the controller is configured to store the pouring instructions for each of the plurality of beverages (para. [0047]; Fig. 1, controller has a local memory 110);
the fluid dispensing tap includes a display configured to display a beverage selection user interface (para. [0047]; Fig. 1, display 112 to show beverage selection and accept selection input using buttons) ;
the fluid dispensing tap includes user interface controls enabling a user to make selections from the user interface (para. [0047]; Fig. 1, display 112 to show beverage selection and accept selection input using buttons) ; and
the controller is configured to (para. [0047]; Fig. 1, controller 106) :
cause the display to present, in the beverage selection user interface, a list of the plurality of beverages (para. [0047]; Fig. 1, control 106 facilitating user selection via display 112 ); and
in response to receiving user input selecting the beverage from the list, configure the fluid dispensing tap to pour the beverage according to the stored pouring instructions associated with the beverage (para. [0047]; processor 106 operates tap using information from server to dispense beverage).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al. (U.S. Application Publication No. 20140263447) in view Giles (U.S. Patent No. 7753231) and in further view of Newman et al. (U.S. Application Publication No. 2019/0272068).
Regarding claim 16, Peters and Giles discloses all limitations of claim 15. Peters further discloses the fluid dispenser includes a display configured to display a beverage selection user interface and user interface controls enabling a user to input information indicating that the fluid dispensing tap is fluidically connected to a keg containing the beverage (para. [0047]; Fig. 1, display 112 to show beverage selection and accept selection input using buttons), and
wherein the controller is configured to send the information to the server with a request for the pouring instructions (para. [0047]; controller 106 communicates with server 126 to obtain pouring instructions).
However, Peters as modified by Giles, does not disclose the dispensing tap including a display configured to display a beverage selection user interface and user interface controls enabling a user to input information.
Newman discloses a dispensing tap with a display configured to display a beverage selection (para. [0069]; Fig. 9, 16, the display 912 showing beverage selection),
and user interface controls enabling a user to input information indicating that the fluid dispensing tap is fluidically connected to a keg containing the beverage (para. [0058], [0073]; Fig. 16, user interface controls 1402, 1404, 1406).
Peters, Giles, and Newman are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automatically dispensing beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Newman to Peters as modified by Giles, of using a dispensing tap with a display configured to display a beverage selection and user interface controls that enable a user to input information indicating that the fluid dispensing tap is fluidically connected to a keg containing the beverage to reduce the space that would otherwise be taken by a separate user interface and display arrangement which is beneficial for smaller devices. Providing a compact selector with integrated display would also allow for displaying various information like beer names, ABV, brewery info and other beneficial information which would improve the customer experience.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al. (U.S. Application Publication No. 20140263447) in view Giles (U.S. Patent No. 7753231) and in further view of Metropulos et al. (U.S. Application Publication No. 2012/0158173).
Regarding claim 19, Peters and Giles discloses all limitations of claim 15. Peters as modified by Giles, does not disclose the pouring instructions are configurable by a producer that produces the beverage or a distributor of the beverage, and wherein the server is configured to receive the pouring instructions from the producer or the distributor over the network.
Metropulos discloses a dispenser where the pouring instructions are configurable by a producer that produces the beverage or a distributor of the beverage, and wherein the server is configured to receive the pouring instructions from the producer or the distributor over the network (para. 0035; pouring schema may be preprogrammed by a system manager, an operator, or by another individual).
Peters, Giles, and Metropulos are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automatically dispensing beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Metropulos to Peters as modified by Giles, of having the pouring instructions being configurable by an individual that has intimate knowledge of the characteristics of the beverage dispensed would allow for a more accurate calibration and improve the pouring accuracy. Receiving instructions over a network would also be possible as the system Peters is already configured to send and receive instructions over the network.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al. (U.S. Application Publication No. 20140263447) in view Giles (U.S. Patent No. 7753231), in further view of Nicol et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9499387)
Regarding claim 19, Peters and Giles discloses all limitations of claim 15. Peters further discloses a mobile device configured with an application that allows a user to identify the beverage that is fluidically connected to the fluid dispensing tap and to send information regarding the beverage to the server (para. [0036]; Fig. 1; reader/scanner 118A; product ingredient package, can be read, scan, or identified from a serial number or identification code associated with the product ingredient package).
Peters as modified by Giles, does not disclose wherein the server is configured to: identify that the beverage is not represented in the data repository;
identify the pouring instructions based on pouring instructions for another beverage analogous to the beverage or based on default pouring instructions for a style of the beverage; and
update the data repository to include the beverage.
Nocol discloses a server is configured to: identify that the beverage is not represented in the data repository (col. 9, lines 12-30; Fig. 2, server 102);
identify the pouring instructions based on pouring instructions for another beverage analogous to the beverage or based on default pouring instructions for a style of the beverage (col. 9, lines 12-30); and
update the data repository to include the beverage (col. 9, lines 12-30; creating new beverage for inclusion in the predefined list of beverages).
Peters, Giles, and Nicol are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automatically dispensing beverages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Nicol to Peters as modified by Giles, of identifying that the beverage is not represented in the data repository; identify the pouring instructions based on pouring instructions for another beverage analogous to the beverage or based on default pouring instructions for a style of the beverage; and update the data repository to include the beverage as it would allow the system to continue operation and avoid service interruption that would lead to financial loss.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Petermann (US2016/0297665) discloses a beverage dispensing tap with a housing having a fluid path extending therethrough from an input aperture to an output aperture in a spout of the tap, and at least one sensor positioned along the fluid path and configured to generate parameter data representing a parameter of fluid flowing along the fluid path. It also discloses a creamer plate with holes having a diameter from 0.5 mm to 0.7 mm.
Libby et al. (US8610536) discloses a networked beverage dispensing apparatus that controls one or more beverage dispensers (e.g., beer taps), one or more valves to control the flow of fluid (e.g., beer) to the beverage dispensers, one or more controllers that actuate the valves, as well as input/output interfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMESGEN M. MARU whose telephone number is (571)272-0039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
/TEMESGEN M. MARU/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655