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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petermann (US pub 20160297665) in view of Parker (US pub 2004/0045623).
Regarding claim 1, Petermann discloses a networked draft beverage system (figs. 14; plurality of beverages systems are connected in a network in a geographical region or venue; sec 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084) comprising:
a fluid dispensing tap adapted to dispense a beverage (figs. 1, 2, 12, 13 shows a tap comprising of units 3-10; sec 0032, 0033, 0046, 0069), said fluid dispensing tap having a housing (housing a shaded with a hatch; fig. 1) with a fluid path extending therethrough from an input aperture to an output aperture in a spout of said fluid dispensing tap (fig. 1; see housing having an inlet/outlet connected to fluid paths; sec 0032, 0033, 0046; 0069);
at least one sensor positioned along the fluid path and configured to generate parameter data as to fluid flowing along the fluid path based on real-time sensing of the parameter of fluid flowing or at least one sensor positioned along a beverage delivery fluid path of a fluid delivery system that provides the beverage to said fluid dispensing tap and configured to generate parameter data representing a parameter of fluid flowing along the beverage delivery fluid path based on the real-time sensing of the parameter (1, 2, 27, 32; thermistor, pressure sensor, foam beer detector, liquid sensor; sec 0032, 0033, 0040, 0041, 0042, 0046, 0047);
a network connectivity module configured to transmit the parameter data over a network (sec 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084); and
a server remote (sec 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084) from the fluid dispensing tap, said server configured to:
receive the parameter data (sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084);
determine a remaining inventory of the beverage based on the parameter data (keg exhaustion alarm that may be set from 90-95% nominal value; determine when keg will empty; sec 0052, 0062); and
compare the remaining inventory to ordering settings of a beverage system of a venue of said fluid dispensing tap (compare by obtaining data from historical amounts, and determine when amount in container is approaching an empty level; ability to set operating parameters of system in a venue; sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Petermann discloses the networked draft beverage system, but did not particularly recite, “place an order for at least one additional keg of the beverage”. However, Parker teaches of a networked draft beverage system, wherein said server is configured to automatically place an order for at least one additional keg of the beverage with a producer of the beverage or a distributor of the beverage in response to determining that the remaining inventory is less than an amount specified in the ordering settings of the beverage system (figs. 1-7; sec 0042-0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Petermann as taught by Parker so as to include ability to place orders and purchase beverages for the purpose of improving Petermann to provide business services to clients in a venue e,g, a stadium who are thirsty for a drink.
Regarding claim 22, Petermann/ Parker discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 21, wherein the server is further configured to provide an alert to a user regarding the remaining inventory in response to determining that the remaining inventory is less than the amount specified in the ordering settings (compare by obtaining data from historical amounts, and determine when amount in container is approaching an empty level; ability to set operating parameters of system in a venue; alerts are provided and setting changed based thereon; sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Regarding claim 23, Petermann/ Parker discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 22, further comprising:
a mobile device configured to receive the alert (using a mobile network for receiving alerts or alarms; sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Regarding claim 24, Petermann/ Parker discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 23, wherein said mobile device is further configured to display a user interface including a user-selectable element that enables the user to place an order for the at least one additional keg of the beverage with the producer of the beverage or the distributor of the beverage in response to the alert (sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Regarding claim 25, Petermann/ Parker discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 24, wherein said mobile device is further configured to display a purchasing order user interface responsive to the user placing the order, wherein the purchasing order user interface has an additional user-selectable element that enables the user to approve the purchase order (sec 0032-0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Regarding claim 26, Petermann/ Parker discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 25, wherein said mobile device is further configured to send the approved purchase order to the server for forwarding to the producer or distributor or to send the approved purchase order to the producer or distributor (sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Regarding claim 27, Petermann/ Parker discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 21, wherein said fluid dispensing tap comprises:
a controller configured to receive the parameter data from the at least one sensor and to generate an output for presentation on a display in real time based on the parameter data (sec 0032, 0033, 0040, 0041, 0042, 0046, 0047).
Regarding claim 28, Petermann/ Parker discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 27, wherein said controller is configured to output sensed fluid parameters and maintenance reminders and alerts when sensed parameters indicate potential problems with a keg or a beverage line or a beverage or a cooling system or a gas pressure or a draft beverage tower or a tap within the draft beverage system (sec 0032, 0033, 0040, 0041, 0042, 0046, 0047).
Regarding claim 29, Petermann/ Parker discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 27, wherein said controller is configured to identify specific problems that occur based on the sensed parameters and to recommend corrective actions to fix the specific problems (sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Regarding claim 30, Petermann/ Parker discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 27, wherein said controller is configured to output alerts or status indicators on a network-equipped computing device (sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Regarding claim 31, Petermann/ Parker discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 27, wherein said controller is configured to output information regarding at least one of keg status, keg levels, quality, beverage brands, how many gallons sold vs how many gallons poured, keg yield, when a keg was tapped, pricing information, sales date and time, sales with respect to staffing (sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
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.
Claims 32-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petermann (US pub 20160297665)
Regarding claim 32, Petermann discloses a networked draft beverage system (figs. 14; plurality of beverages systems are connected in a network in a geographical region or venue; sec 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084) comprising:
a fluid dispensing tap configured to dispense a beverage (figs. 1, 2, 12, 13 shows a tap comprising of units 3-10; sec 0032, 0033, 0046, 0069),
said fluid dispensing tap having a housing (housing a shaded with a hatch; fig. 1) with a fluid path extending therethrough from an input aperture to an output aperture in a spout of said fluid dispensing tap (fig. 1; see housing having an inlet/outlet connected to fluid paths; sec 0032, 0033, 0046; 0069);
at least one sensor positioned along the fluid path and configured to generate parameter data as to fluid flowing along the fluid path or at least one sensor positioned along a beverage delivery fluid path that provides the beverage to said fluid dispensing tap and configured to generate parameter data representing a parameter of the fluid flowing along the beverage fluid delivery path (1, 2, 27, 32; thermistor, pressure sensor, foam beer detector, liquid sensor; sec 0032, 0033, 0040, 0041, 0042, 0046, 0047);
a network connectivity module configured to transmit the parameter data over a network (sec 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084); and
a server (sec 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084) remote from said fluid dispensing tap, said server configured to receive the parameter data (sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084) and to determine an actual volume of dispensed beverage based on the parameter data (keg exhaustion alarm that may be set from 90-95% nominal value; determine when keg will empty; sec 0052, 0062) and to compare the actual volume of the dispensed beverage to actual sales of beverage of a venue of said fluid dispensing tap (compare by obtaining data from historical amounts, and determine when amount in container is approaching an empty level; ability to set operating parameters of system in a venue; sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Regarding claim 33, Petermann discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 32, wherein said server is further configured to provide an alert or report a fraud to a user in response to determining that the actual sales of beverage is less than the actual volume of dispensed beverage in a volume above a threshold or at volumes exceeding a predetermined rate of change over a window of time (sec 0032, 0033, 0040, 0041, 0042, 0046, 0047).
Regarding claim 34, Petermann discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 32, wherein the server is further configured to: determine the difference between the actual volume of the dispensed beverage and the actual sales of beverage at the venue of said fluid dispensing tap is due to spillage or over-pouring or foam pour-out based on the parameter data (sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Regarding claim 35, Petermann discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 32, wherein said fluid dispensing tap comprises: a controller configured to receive parameter data from the at least one sensor and to generate an output for presentation on a display in real time based on the parameter data (sec 0032, 0033, 0040, 0041, 0042, 0046, 0047).
Regarding claim 36, Petermann discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 35, wherein said controller is configured to output sensed fluid parameters and maintenance reminders and alerts when sensed parameters indicate potential problems with at least one of a keg, a beverage line, a beverage, a cooling system, a gas pressure, a draft beverage tower, or a tap (sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Regarding claim 37, Petermann discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 35, wherein said controller is configured to identify specific problems that occur based on the sensed parameters and to recommend corrective actions to fix the specific problems (sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Regarding claim 38, Petermann discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 35, wherein said controller is configured to output alerts or status indicators on a network-equipped computing device (sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Regarding claim 39 Petermann discloses the networked draft beverage system of claim 35, wherein said controller is configured to output information regarding at least one of keg status, keg levels, quality, beverage brands, how many gallons sold vs how many gallons poured, keg yield, when a keg was tapped, pricing information, sales date and time, sales with respect to staffing (sec 0047, 0052, 0061, 0071-0073, 0083, 0084).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims have been amended with corrections to overcome the 112 rejections.
Applicant traverses the rejections on the basis that the prior art does not read on the claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertions. Petermann discloses determine a remaining inventory of the beverage based on the parameter data (keg exhaustion alarm that may be set from 90-95% nominal value; determine when keg will empty; sec 0052, 0062). In Peterman, determine when keg will empty implies determining the remaining inventory.
Applicant’s arguments are basically based on the premise or matching words, haec verba. Matching or words is not supported in the MPEP. In addition, applicant also basically rearranged the claim limitations into new claims.
The prior art reads on the claims
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights