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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of Alpmen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11820641). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim element of the instant application is disclosed by the dependent claim 4 and claim 1 from which it depends, Alpmen as presented below.
A networked draft beverage system comprising: a fluid dispensing tap configured for pouring a beverage, 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 (Alpmen Claim 4: A networked draft beer system comprising the fluid dispensing tap of claim 1, the fluid dispensing tap comprising a smart tap configured for pouring a beer, the smart tap including);
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 and/or at least one sensor positioned along a beverage delivery fluid path of a fluid delivery system providing beverage to the tap and configured to generate parameter data representing a parameter of the fluid flowing along the beverage delivery fluid path (Alpmen Claim 1: 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 based on real-time sensing of the parameter); and
a network connectivity module configured to transmit the parameter data over a network (Alpmen Claim 4: a network connectivity module configured to transmit the parameter data over a network);
a server remote from the fluid dispensing tap and including (Alpmen Claim 4: a server remote from the smart tap and including):
a module configured to connect the server to the network to receive the parameter data (Alpmen Claim 4: a module configured to connect the server to the network to receive the parameter data);
a data repository configured to store the parameter data (Alpmen Claim 4: a data repository configured to store the parameter data and data representing draft beer pouring quality standards associated with the beer);
an analytics engine configured to analyze the parameter data (Alpmen Claim 4: an analytics engine configured to analyze the parameter data to determine compliance with the draft beer pouring quality standards); and
a recommendations engine configured to: generate a recommendation or report based on the analytics engine analyzing the data (Alpmen Claim 4: a recommendations engine configured to: generate a recommendation based on the analytics engine analyzing the data, the recommendation representing whether a venue of the smart tap complied with the draft beer pouring quality standards).
Claim Objections
Claim 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims recite the limitation "networked draft beer system” in the preamble --line 1--. This language is inconsistent with the preamble claim language “networked draft beverage system” recited in the claims they depend from, see for example, the preamble of claim 1.
Appropriate correction for consistency is required.
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are 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.
Claims 12 and 13 are directed to an analytics engine that is configured to determine whether, for each glass of the beverage poured through the fluid dispensing tap, that the glass was provided with the specified quantity of head. The specification discloses a creamer for providing a specified quantity of head (para. [0052], [0073]). The specification fails to describe how the analytics engine determines that a glass of beverage poured is provided with a specified quantity of head, as the measurement mechanism is undefined. It is also not clear as to what the quantity is measured by, volume, height, ratio or another metric.
It is also not clear as to which parameter data is used to determine head quantity, with regard to claim 13, and as to how such parameter data correlates to the quantity of head per glass.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-13 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.
Claims 12 recites, in part: “the analytics engine is configured to determine whether, for each glass of the beverage poured through the fluid dispensing tap, that the glass was provided with the specified quantity of head.”
Claim 13 further recites: “the analytics engine is configured to determine whether the glass was provided with the specified quantity of head based on the parameter data.”
Regarding claim 12, the measurement mechanism is undefined, it is not clear as to what quantity is measured by, volume, height, ratio or another metric.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “based on the parameter data” is not clear as to which parameter data is used to determine head quantity, and as to how such parameter data correlates to the quantity of head per glass.
Accordingly, claims 12 and 13 are indefinite because the manner in which the analytics engine determines the specified quantity of head per glass is unclear, and the claims do not provide sufficient guidance to inform one of ordinary skill in the art the scope of these claim limitation with reasonable certainty.
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 1 -10, 14-20, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiv (U.S. Patent No. 10789605) in view of Petermann (U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0297665).
Regarding claim 1, Agiv discloses networked draft beverage system comprising:
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 and/or at least one sensor positioned along a beverage delivery fluid path of a fluid delivery system providing beverage to the tap and configured to generate parameter data representing a parameter of the fluid flowing along the beverage delivery fluid path (col. 9, lines 43-50); and
a network connectivity module configured to transmit the parameter data over a network (col. 8, line 65 to col. 8, line 9);
a server remote from the fluid dispensing tap and including: a module configured to connect the server to the network to receive the parameter data (col. 10, lines 10-23; col. 21, lines 13-20; Fig. 6, server 608);
a data repository configured to store the parameter data (col. 10, lines 24-28; Fig. 1, data repository 116);
an analytics engine configured to analyze the parameter data (col. 11, lines 28-42, lines 61-63; Fig. 1; analytics engine 112); and
a recommendations engine configured to: generate a recommendation or report based on the analytics engine analyzing the data (col. 15, line 64 to col. 16, line. 13; recommendation 308 generated based on data analyzed at 306).
Petermann discloses what Agiv lacks, a fluid dispensing tap configured for pouring a beverage, 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 (para. [0033]; Fig. 1; fluid dispensing tap with housing -shaded portion in Figure 1, with a fluid path extending therethrough from an input “beer inlet” and output “beer outlet”).
Agiv teaches a beverage dispensing tap used for dispensing beverages (col. 21, line 63 to col. 22, line 3) but does not elaborate on the internal structural details of the tap. However, Agiv clearly contemplates a functional tap for dispensing a beverage, which necessarily requires a fluid path from an inlet to an outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agiv to incorporate the teachings in Petermann of including a housing with fluid path extending therethrough from an input aperture to an output aperture in a spout of the tap as it would have been an obvious design choice to implement the tap of Agiv using the well-known and conventional structural configuration taught by Petermann.
Regarding claim 2, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 1. Agiv further discloses the data repository is further configured to store data representing draft beverage pouring quality standards associated with the beverage (col. 10, lines 24-28; data repository is used for storing raw signals; col. 17, lines 22-33; the signals received from one or more other sensors measuring parameters indicative of beverage quality, for example, temperature sensors generating signals indicative of the temperature of the beverage, color sensors generating signals indicative of the color of the beverage, or other sensors).
Regarding claim 3, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 1. Agiv further discloses the analytics engine is further configured to analyze the parameter data to determine compliance with draft beverage pouring quality standards (col. 17, line. 36 to col. 18, line. 13).
Regarding claim 4, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 1. Agiv further discloses the recommendation or report represents whether a venue of the fluid dispensing tap complied with draft beverage pouring quality standards (col. 17, line. 36 to col. 18, line. 13).
Regarding claim 5, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 1. Agiv further discloses the recommendations engine is configured to cause output of the recommendation or report to a producer that produces the beverage or a distributor of the beverage (col. 9, lines 16-20; col. 9, lines 29-42; data is analyzed, the data for patterns and/or present the data as insights for decision making for manufactures (e.g., manufacturers such as breweries 150, distributors 152, facility managers 154 such as bar owners and/or beverage consumers 156).
Regarding claim 6, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 1. Agiv further discloses the recommendations engine is configured to cause output of the recommendation or report to a designated venue of the fluid dispensing tap (col. 9, lines 16-20; col. 9, lines 29-42).
Regarding claim 7, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 1. Agiv further discloses a plurality of fluid dispensing taps configured to pour the beverage and located at different venues (col. 20, lines 36-51),
wherein the data repository is configured to receive and store parameter data from each of the plurality of fluid dispensing taps (col. 20, lines 36-51), and
wherein the recommendation or report represents whether each of the different venues has complied with draft beverage pouring standards (col. 17, line. 36 to col. 18, line. 13).
Regarding claim 8, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 2. Petermann further teaches what Agiv lacks, the draft beverage pouring standards are configurable by the producer that produces the beverage or a distributor of the beverage (para. [0060]; a user is allowed to configure pouring standards).
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 beverage dispensing system of Agiv as modified by Petermann, and further incorporate the teachings in Petermann of having the pouring standards being configurable by the producer or a distributor of the beverage as it would have resulted in better quality of poured beverage, as someone having an intimate knowledge of how and under what parameters the beverage should be served, a producer or a distributer, would be able to configure the right set of parameters.
Regarding claim 9, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 1. Agiv further discloses the draft beverage pouring standards include a specified temperature for serving the beverage (col. 8, lines 28-32; col. 17, lines 22-33; quality profile is indicative of the temperature pattern),
wherein the at least one sensor comprises a thermistor configured to sense temperatures of the beverage flowing through the housing and/or fluid delivery system providing the fluid to the tap (col. 17, lines 22-33), and
wherein the analytics engine is configured to determine whether the sensed temperatures correspond to the specified temperature (col. 11, lines 28-42, lines 61-63; Fig. 1; analytics engine 112).
Regarding claim 11, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 8. Petermann further discloses what Agiv lacks, specifically the draft beverage pouring standards include a specified pressure for serving the beverage, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a pressure sensor configured to sense pressures of the beverage flowing through the housing and/or fluid delivery system providing the beverage to the tap, and wherein the analytics engine is configured to determine whether the sensed pressures correspond to the specified pressure (para. [0065]-[0066]).
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 beverage dispensing system of Agiv as modified by Petermann, and further incorporate the teachings in Petermann of including a pressure sensor configured to sense pressures of the beverage flowing through the housing and/or fluid delivery system providing the beverage to the tap, and wherein the analytics engine is configured to determine whether the sensed pressures correspond to the specified pressure to improve the quality of beverage dispensed as a pressure value below a set minimum would indicate a low beer gas source which would affect the quality of beer (Petermann: para. [0058], [0066]).
Regarding claim 14, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 8. Agiv further discloses the draft beverage pouring standards include freshness of the beverage, wherein the analytics engine is configured to determine whether the fluid flowing through the housing and/or fluid delivery system providing the beverage to the tap is fresh based on the parameter data (col. 8, lines 11-18; system detects the number of days since a beverage container is changed or opened, which indicates degradation of quality or freshness).
Regarding claim 15, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 8. Agiv further discloses the analytics engine is configured to determine whether maintenance is needed regarding cleaning the tap and the fluid delivery system providing the beverage to the tap based on the parameter data (col 17, line 53 to col. 18, line 13, message is sent to user to indicate poor adherence to maintenance).
Regarding claim 16, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 1. Agiv further discloses the fluid dispensing tap comprises a display positioned on a user-facing surface of the housing, wherein the display is configured to display the recommendation or report (col. 21 line 63 to col. 22 line 25; Fig. 11, display 1102 showing recommendation).
Regarding claim 17, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 1. Agiv further discloses a plurality of fluid dispensing taps, wherein the analytics engine for each fluid dispensing tap is further configured to analyze the parameter data to identify trends in the parameter data (col. 11, lines 28-42, lines 61-63; Fig. 1; analytics engine 112); and wherein the recommendations engine for each fluid dispensing tap is further configured to generate a recommendation or report based on the analytics engine analyzing the data (col. 15, line 64 to col. 16, line. 13; recommendation 308 generated based on data analyzed at 306).
Regarding claim 18, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 17. Agiv further discloses the recommendations engine is configured to cause output of a user interface to a designated user of the recommendation or report based on the trends in the parameter data (col. 21, lines 41-46).
Regarding claim 19, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 17. Agiv further discloses the recommendations engine is configured to: generate the recommendation or report, the recommendation or report including a beverage trending in a particular demographic (col. 12, lines 49-64; col. 14); and
cause output of a user interface to a designated user associated with a venue of the fluid dispensing tap (col. 14, lines 25-34).
Regarding claim 20, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 18. Agiv further discloses the user interface includes the recommendation or report and a user-selectable element configured to enable the designated user to place an order for the beverage (col. 14, lines 39-53; customers can make selection on the user interface).
Regarding claim 21, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 17. Agiv further discloses at least one sensor comprises a flow meter, wherein the parameter data comprises volume of beverage flowing through the plurality of fluid dispensing taps, and wherein the analytics engine is configured to identify that the beverage has been poured above a threshold volume or at volumes exceeding a predetermined rate of change over a window of time (col. 12, line 65 to col. 13, line 6; col. 20, lines 16-43; Fig. 6, flow meter 602, the system has flow meters 602 used to detect flow through the tap and has the capability to detect waste by detecting over pouring).
Regarding claim 22, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 17. Agiv further discloses the analytics engine is configured to: analyze aggregate subsets of the parameter data; and identify sales performance of various beverages and producers that produce the beverage (col. 11, line 64 to col. 12, line 9).
Regarding claim 23, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 22. Agiv further discloses the recommendations engine is configured to generate a recommendation or report indicating the sales performance of at least one beverage of the beverages produced by a producer compared to other beverages, sales of the at least one beverage in other regions, or sales of the at least one beverage at different venues (col. 12, lines 10-29; correlating one brand to another brand; correlation between different bars in a city).
Regarding claim 24, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 23. Agiv further discloses the recommendations engine is configured to cause output of a user interface to a designated user associated with one of the various producers or a designated user associated with a venue of the fluid dispensing tap, the user interface including the recommendation or report (col. 9, lines 16-20; col. 21, lines 41-46; users are manufacturers, breweries, consumers, facilities).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiv (U.S. Patent No. 10789605) in view of Petermann (U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0297665) and in further view of Kirk (U.S. Patent No. 5988859).
Regarding claim 10, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 9. Agiv further discloses the at least one sensor comprises a color sensor configured to sense color of the beer flowing through the housing and/or fluid delivery system providing the beverage to the tap (col. 17, lines 38-52).
However, Agiv as modified by Petermann, does not explicitly disclose the draft beer pouring standards including a specified temperature specific to a particular beer or style of beer brewed by a brewery.
Kirk discloses a beer dispenser where the draft beer pouring standards include a specified temperature specific to a particular beer or style of beer brewed by a brewery (col. 5, lines 36-59; Fig. 6).
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 beverage dispensing system of Agiv as modified by Petermann, and further incorporate the teachings of Kirk where a draft beer pouring standards include a specified temperature specific to a particular beer or style of beer brewed by a brewery as serving a particular type of beer at the correct temperature improves the freshness of beer as well as reduce over foaming during pouring which could lead to spillage and waste (col. 1, lines 29-48).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiv (U.S. Patent No. 10789605) in view of Petermann (U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0297665) and in further view of Weems (U.S. Patent No. 8162011).
Regarding claim 12, Agiv as modified by Petermann discloses all limitations of claim 8. However, Agiv as modified by Petermann, does not disclose the draft beverage pouring standards include a specified quantity of head per glass of the beverage, and
wherein the analytics engine is configured to determine whether, for each glass of the beverage poured through the fluid dispensing tap, that the glass was provided with the specified quantity of head.
Weems discloses a beverage dispenser wherein the draft beverage pouring standards include a specified quantity of head per glass of the beverage (col. 3, lines 38-44), and
wherein the analytics engine is configured to determine whether, for each glass of the beverage poured through the fluid dispensing tap, that the glass was provided with the specified quantity of head (col. 5, lines 45-65).
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 beverage dispensing system of Agiv as modified by Petermann, and further incorporate the teachings of Weems to have draft beverage pouring standards include a specified quantity of head per glass of the beverage, and configure the analytics engine to determine whether, for each glass of the beverage poured through the fluid dispensing tap, that the glass was provided with the specified quantity of head as applying a correct quantity of head to a glass of draft beer improves quality, customer satisfaction, and reduce waste from spilling due to over foaming of the beer (Weems: col. 3, lines 23-36).
Regarding claim 13, Agiv as modified by Petermann and Weems, discloses all limitations of claim 12. Weems further discloses what the combination of Agiv and Petermann lacks, specifically the analytics engine is configured to determine whether the glass was provided with the specified quantity of head based on the parameter data (col. 5, lines 9-21; Fig. 1, level sensors 1255 generate parameter data about specified quantity of head).
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 beverage dispensing system of Agiv as modified by Petermann, and further incorporate the teachings of Weems of using analytics engine to determine whether the glass was provided with the specified quantity of head based on parameter data, as analytics engine of Agiv as modified by Petermann and Weems already includes the capability to receive parameter data from various sensors, and analyze the data for making quality determinations, it would have been an obvious step to include the level sensor output as a parameter data that can be used to determine a specified quantity of head which is beneficial as applying a correct quantity of head to a glass of draft beer improves quality, customer satisfaction, and reduce waste from spilling due to over foaming of the beer (Weems: col. 3, lines 23-36).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adams et al. (U.S. Application Publication No. 2009/0192834) discloses a networked beverage dispensing system with a controller that receives system parameters from pressure sensors, temperature sensors, and flow meters and analyzes the data to render conclusions and reports regarding operation of the beverage dispensing system with respect to at least temperature, pressure, gas detection, and flow characteristics [para. [0052]-[0054],[0068]-[0072] Fig. 3, server 310, database 312).
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