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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed 06/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 25-46 are pending in the application. Claims 1-24 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, applicant contends that the prior art references provide no disclosure of storing data representing draft beverage pouring quality standards. Furthermore, Applicant contends that Agiv stores measured or observed data generated by sensors and does not store "quality standards" which are normative reference data that define criteria for acceptable or optimal pouring quality. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Agiv expressly discloses that the database 116 stores not only raw and process sensor signals, but also "initialization data, facilities parameter, and/or other data" (col. 17, lines 22-33). The disclosed database therefore stores reference and configuration data in addition to observed measurements. Moreover, the quality control method of Fig. 4 discloses receiving a maintenance schedule downloaded from the beverage manufacturer, maintenance guidelines downloaded from a government agency and a selected target profile. The system then compares detected sanitation events against a "required" cleaning or sanitation schedule to determine whether proper maintenance is being performed and whether applicable food-and beverage standards are satisfied (col. 17, lines 60-65). Agiv also discloses temperature sensors generating signals indicative of the temperature of the beverage, and evaluates whether beer has been maintained below approximately 4 degree centigrade to generates a quality profile or score based on adherence to those criteria (col. 8, lines 28-32; col. 17, line 66 to col. 18, line 6). These schedules, guidelines, target profiles and temperature criteria are not sensor-generated observations, they are normative reference data defining acceptable beverage dispensing conditions. The fact that Agiv does not use the term "pouring quality standard" is immaterial. Claim 25 requires "data representing" such standards, and does not prescribe a particular label or format. A required sanitation schedule, manufacturer-provided target profile, and acceptable temperature criteria constitute data representing standard against which actual dispensing conditions are evaluated. In particular, the disclosed temperature criterion corresponds directly to a serving-temperature standard, which affects beer quality during dispensing and therefore reasonably falls within "draft beverage pouring quality standards". Thus, Agiv reasonably discloses or renders obvious storing quality standards in the disclosed database.
Applicant also contends that prior art fails to show or disclose "the analytics engine is further configured to analyze the parameter data to determine compliance with draft beverage pouring quality standards". Examiner respectfully disagrees. Agiv expressly discloses an analysis module 112 that analyzes beverage dispensing data received from sensors .The analysis module receives inputs from beverage flow sensors and sensors measuring beverage-quality parameter, specifically temperature and color (col. 17, lines 22-33).
In addition, Agiv evaluates parameter data against predefined normative criteria as it discloses that a maintenance schedule may be downloaded from the beverage manufacturers' server, and maintenance guidelines may be downloaded from a government-agency server. These are compliance criterion against which the actual dispensing conditions are evaluated.
Agiv further combines the temperature, sanitation and keg-age determination into a quality profile or quality score representing the quality level of the dispensed beer. The fact that sanitation concerns the beer line does not exclude it from representing draft-beverage pouring quality. The beer line forms part of the draft beverage delivery path and its sanitation directly affects the quality of beer subsequently poured through the tap. Thus, the disclosed quality score is not merely based on operational and maintenance events but rather represents the result of evaluating actual dispensing conditions against predetermined acceptable conditions.
Accordingly, Agiv discloses the claimed compliance determination with draft beverage pouring quality standards through its analysis module 112. At minimum, its analysis of measured beer temperature against an approximately 4 degree centigrade criteria and its comparison of detected sanitation events against required schedule teach an analytics engine configured to analyze parameter data to determine compliance with draft beverage pouring quality standards.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 regarding the combination of Agiv with Petermann has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 –
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maser et al. (US 20060113322), hereinafter Maser.
Regarding claim 1, Maser discloses networked draft beverage system comprising: a fluid dispensing tap adapted to pour a beverage, said fluid dispensing tap having a housing with a fluid path extending therethrough from an input aperture to an output aperture in a spout of said fluid dispensing tap (para. [0028]-[0030], [0059]; Fig. 1, dispensing tap ,handle 103, housing (not labeled), a fluid path from inlet connected to beverage line 108 and outlet shown above drinking article 112);
at least one sensor positioned along the fluid path and adapted to generate parameter data, the parameter data representing a parameter of a fluid flowing along the fluid path or along a beverage fluid delivery path of a fluid delivery system providing a beverage to said fluid dispensing tap and adapted to generate parameter data representing a parameter of the beverage flowing along the fluid path or the beverage delivery fluid path (para. [0049]; Fig. 4, plurality of sensors 302, 304, 306, and 307 along the fluid path or along a beverage fluid delivery path); and
a network connectivity module configured to transmit the parameter data of the fluid flowing along the fluid path or of the beverage fluid delivery path over a network (para. [0056]; Fig. 3, communication device 309); and
a server remote from said fluid dispensing tap (para. [0056]; Fig. 3. server 310), said server comprising:
a module configured to connect said server to said network so as to receive the parameter data (para. [0102]; Fig. 10, network connectivity module 1011);
a data repository configured to store the parameter data, said data repository being further configured to store data representing draft beverage pouring quality standards for the beverage (para. [0065]-[0067], [0072], [0079]; the temperature readings, pressure readings and gas level readings collected are analyzed against threshold readings to determine conformance to user specification. The user specification defines the threshold values that are used to determine if the dispensed beverage is appropriate threshold for human consumption or if it is being dispensed at the appropriate temperature); and
a recommendations engine configured to generate a recommendation or report based on the analysis of said analytics engine (para. [0058],[0072]-[0073]; based on the analysis of sensed data the server generates a report).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 25-31, 36-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiv (U.S. Patent No. 10789605) in view of Maser (US 2006/0113322 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Agiv discloses networked draft beverage system comprising:
at least one sensor positioned along the fluid path and adapted to generate parameter data, the parameter data representing a parameter of a fluid flowing along the fluid path or along a beverage fluid delivery path of a fluid delivery system providing a beverage to said fluid dispensing tap and adapted to generate parameter data representing a parameter of the beverage flowing along the fluid path or the beverage delivery fluid path (col. 9, lines 43-50; col. 17, lines 22-33; flow sensors 602, 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); and
a network connectivity module configured to transmit the parameter data of the fluid flowing along the fluid path or of the beverage fluid delivery path over a network (col. 8, line 65 to col. 8, line 9; network interface); and
a server remote from said fluid dispensing tap (col. 10, lines 10-23; col. 21, lines 13-20; Fig. 6, server 608), said server comprising:
a module configured to connect said server to said network so as 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, said data repository being further configured to store data representing draft beverage pouring quality standards for the beverage (col. 10, lines 24-28; col. 20, lines 36-43; Fig. 1, 6; data repository 116, initialization data, temperature data, flow meter data, );
an analytics engine configured to analyze the parameter data to determine compliance with the draft beverage pouring quality standards (col. 11, lines 28-42, lines 61-63; col. 17, lines 22-33; Fig. 1, 6; analytics engine 112); and
a recommendations engine configured to generate a recommendation or report based on the analysis of said analytics engine (col. 15, line 64 to col. 16, line. 13; recommendation 308 generated based on data analyzed at 306).
Agiv discloses a tap for dispensing a beverage but does not explicitly disclose a fluid dispensing tap having a housing with a fluid path extending therethrough from an input aperture to an output aperture in a spout of said fluid dispensing tap.
Maser discloses a networked beverage dispenser with a fluid dispensing tap adapted to pour a beverage, said fluid dispensing tap having a housing with a fluid path extending therethrough from an input aperture to an output aperture in a spout of said fluid dispensing tap (para. [0028]-[0030], [0059]; Fig. 1, dispensing tap ,handle 103, housing (not labeled), a fluid path from inlet connected to beverage line 108 and outlet shown above drinking article 112).
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 substitute the generally disclosed tap of Agiv with the teachings in Maser of a known tap including a housing with fluid path extending therethrough from an input aperture to an output aperture in a spout of the tap as the would have been an obvious design choice to implement the tap of Agiv using the well-known and conventional structural configuration taught by Maser.
Regarding claim 26, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 25. 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; the quality of served beverage is affected by sanitation, number of days ked has been opened, and temperature of the beer, these factors are used to generate a quality score associated with a quality profile of a user and is outputted as a report).
Regarding claim 27, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 25. Agiv further discloses said recommendations engine is configured to output 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).
Regarding claim 28, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 25. Agiv further discloses the recommendations engine is configured to output the recommendation or report to a designated venue of the fluid dispensing tap (col. 9, lines 16-20; col. 9, lines 29-42; presenting the analyzed data to bar owners contemplates outputting a report to a designated venue of the fluid dispensing tap).
Regarding claim 29, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 25. Agiv further discloses a plurality of fluid dispensing taps configured to pour the beverage and located at different venues (col. 20, lines 36-51; multiple beverage dispensing facilities),
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; data recorded by sensors stored in database 606), 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; the quality of served beverage is affected by sanitation, number of days ked has been opened, and temperature of the beer, these factors are used to generate a quality score associated with a quality profile of a user and is outputted as report).
Regarding claim 30, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 25. Maser further discloses what Agiv lacks, specifically, the draft beverage pouring standards are configurable by the producer that produces the beverage or a distributor of the beverage (para. [0071],[0078]; the threshold values are user defined and stored in local memory or database).
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 in view of Maser, and further incorporate the teachings in Maser 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 acceptable thresholds the beverage should be served, a producer or a distributer, would be able to configure the right set of parameters.
Regarding claim 31, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 25. 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; checking if beverage is always maintained below about 4 degrees Celsius),
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 36, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 30. 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 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 37, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 30. Agiv further discloses said analytics engine is configured to determine whether maintenance of the fluid dispensing tap or the fluid delivery system is needed 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 38, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 25. Agiv further discloses said fluid dispensing tap has a display positioned on a user-facing surface of the housing, the display configured to display the recommendation or report (col. 21 line 63 to col. 22 line 25; Fig. 11, display 1102 showing recommendation).
Regarding claim 39, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 25. Agiv further discloses said fluid dispensing tap comprises a plurality of fluid dispensing taps, wherein said analytics engine for each fluid dispensing tap of the plurality of fluid dispensing taps is 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), wherein said recommendations engine for each fluid dispensing tap of the plurality of fluid dispensing taps configured to generate a recommendation or report based on said analytics engine analyzing the parameter data (col. 15, line 64 to col. 16, line. 13; recommendation 308 generated based on data analyzed at 306).
Regarding claim 40, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 39. Agiv further discloses said recommendations engine is configured to 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 41, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 39. Agiv further discloses the recommendations engine is configured to generate the recommendation or report including a beverage trending in a particular demographic (col. 12, lines 49-64); and
cause output of a user interface to a designated user associated with a venue of the fluid dispensing tap (col. 14, lines 24-34).
Regarding claim 42, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 40. Agiv further discloses the user interface has 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 43, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 39. Agiv further discloses the at least one sensor is a flow meter, wherein the parameter data is a 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 period 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 44, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 39. 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 45, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 44. 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 a sales performance of other beverages or the 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 46, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 45. Agiv further discloses said recommendations engine is configured to output a user interface to a designated user associated with one producer of various producers or a designated user associated with a venue of said fluid dispensing tap, the user interface having the recommendation or report (col. 9, lines 16-20; col. 21, lines 41-46; users are manufacturers, breweries, consumers, facilities).
Claim 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiv (U.S. Patent No. 10789605) in view of Maser (US 2006/0113322 A1), and in further view of Kirk (U.S. Patent No. 5988859).
Regarding claim 32, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 31. Agiv further discloses the at least one sensor is a color sensor configured to sense color of the particular beer or style of beer flowing through the housing or fluid delivery system providing the beverage to the tap. (col. 17, lines 38-52).
However, the specified temperature of the draft beer pouring standards is 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. 6, line 65 to col. 7, line 10; 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 in view or Maser, 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).
Regarding claim 33, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 30 Agiv in view of Maser does not disclose the draft beverage pouring standards is 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 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.
Kirk discloses a beer dispenser where the draft beverage pouring standards is 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 or fluid delivery system providing the beverage to the tap (col. 3, lines 4-19; Fig. 1, pressure sensor 26), and wherein the analytics engine is configured to determine whether the sensed pressures correspond to the specified pressure (col. 9, line 65 to col. 10, line 8).
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 in view of Maser, and incorporate the teachings in Kirk of including a pressure sensor configured to sense pressures of the beverage flowing through the housing 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 beer dispensed by controlling over foaming as well are reducing revenue loss due to spillage by maintain pressure within a specified pressure by providing an alert when pressures are identified outside specified range (Kirk: col. 1, lines 28-48).
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiv (U.S. Patent No. 10789605) in view of Maser (US 2006/0113322 A1), and in further view of Weems (U.S. Patent No. 8162011).
Regarding claim 34, Agiv in view of Maser discloses all limitations of claim 30. Agiv in view of Maser does not disclose the draft beverage pouring standards include a specified quantity of head per glass of the beverage, or 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 for each glass of the beverage poured through said fluid dispensing tap based on at least one of a ratio of a foam to a liquid volume and a volume of the foam.
Weems discloses a beverage dispenser where the draft beverage pouring standards include a specified quantity of head per glass of the beverage (col. 3, lines 38-44),
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 for each glass of the beverage poured through said fluid dispensing tap based on at least one of a ratio of a foam to a liquid volume and a volume of the foam (col. 5, lines 9-21; level sensors are used to detect foam/liquid interface and second volume of foam above the interface and control foam based on the difference).
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 in view of Maser, 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 for each glass of the beverage poured through said fluid dispensing tap based on at least one of a ratio of a foam to a liquid volume and a volume of the foam 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 35, the combination of Agiv, Maser and Weems, discloses all the limitations of claim 34. Weems further discloses said analytics engine is configured to determine whether the glass was provided with the specified quantity of head based on the parameter data including at least one of a flow rate and a pressure and a temperature and a color and a creamer activation data (col. 5, lines 45-60; specified quantity of head is controlled based on temperature, pressure and flow rate).
See rejection of claim 34 for motivation statement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vok (US 20080189078) discloses a drink dispensing apparatus with sensors to detect parameters of dispensed beer including temperature, color, flowrate and determine if values are within predetermined operating range by comparing sensed values with acceptable ranges stored in memory set by the beverage supplier (para. [0327], [0356], [0372]; Fig. 1).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights