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 .
The amendment filed on 6/9/2026 has been entered.
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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Veltrop (US 2012/0067920).
Regarding claim 9, Veltrop discloses a flowable food product dispenser (fig.1-18), the dispenser comprising: a frame (15); a body (50) coupled to the frame, the body defining a cavity for receiving a bag (115) storing the flowable food product, wherein the body includes a bottom wall (130) defining an opening (125) and a fitment acceptor at least partly received in the opening (see fitment being attached to 130 in fig.7); a valve (40) configured to selectively allow the flowable food product to flow out of the bag; and a control system (30) configured to control the valve to control an amount of flowable food product dispensed from the bag ([0026]), the control system configured to receive an indication of a desired amount of flowable food product, open the valve, determine a flow rate of the flowable food product ([0050]), and determine, based on the flow rate, a time for the valve to remain open to dispense the desired amount of flowable food product ([0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Veltrop discloses a user input device, wherein the control system is configured to receive an indication of a user engaging with the user input device and open the valve for as long as the user engages with the user input device ([0028]).
Regarding claim 11, Veltrop discloses the control system is further configured to determine a total amount of dispensed flowable food product over a period of time based on an amount of time that the valve is open over the period of time ([0026], [0066], [0074-0076]), and selectively provide an alert based on the total amount of dispensed flowable food product ([0038], [0065], various liquid level determinations via control system relays to the interface, see [0026] and [0033]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Veltrop (US 2012/0067920) in view of Gutierrez (US 2003/0116584) and Bolger (US 2007/0157640).
Veltrop is silent in disclosing a display and a temperature sensor, wherein the temperature sensor is positioned near the opening to determine a temperature of the flowable food product in the bag proximate to the opening, and wherein the display is configured to display the temperature; and a heating element configured to selectively heat the bag, wherein the control system is configured receive the temperature from the temperature sensor, and, in response, adjust power to the heating element to control an amount of heat provided to the bag. However, Gutierrez teaches the commonality of having a flowable food product dispenser that includes a display and a temperature sensor, wherein the temperature sensor is positioned near the opening to determine a temperature of the flowable food product in the bag proximate to the opening ([0076], via 31-32; see fig.7-8), and wherein the display is configured to display the temperature; and a heating element configured to selectively heat the bag, wherein the control system is configured receive the temperature from the temperature sensor, and, in response, adjust power to the heating element to control an amount of heat provided to the bag ([0075], via heater 31, see fig.7-8 and “variable power density”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to add a heating system as taught by Gutierrez to the flowable food product bag of Veltrop, in order to offer a drink at a desired temperature. Furthermore, regarding the display is configured to display the temperature of the food, Bolger teaches the obviousness of having a display unit within a dispensing system to show the temperature and an option to alter the power ([0023-2-0023]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to add a temperature display unit as taught by Bolger to the flowable food product dispenser of Veltrop and Gutierrez in combination in order to operate the device efficiently.
Claims 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veltrop (US 2012/0067920) in view of Kurosawa (JP 2007291882 A).
Regarding claim 15, Veltrop discloses a flowable food product dispenser (fig.1-18), the dispenser comprising: a valve (40) configured to selectively allow flowable food product to flow out of a bag received in the flowable food product dispenser; and a control system (30) configured to control the valve to control an amount of flowable food product dispensed from the bag ([0026]) the control system configured to: receive an input regarding a portion-controlled dispensing mode of operation or a manual mode of operation for the flowable food product dispenser ([0050]); in response to the input indicating the portion-controlled mode of operation ([0052]), open the valve, determine a flow rate of the flowable food product, determine a time to dispense a desired portion size of flowable food product based on the determined flow rate ([0050]), and start a timer; and in response to the valve being opened for more than the determined time based on operation of the timer, closing the valve to cease dispensing of the flowable food product.
Veltrop is silent in disclosing in response to the input indicating the portion-controlled mode of operation, open the valve and start a timer; and in response to the valve being opened for more than a predetermined time based on operation of the timer, closing the valve to cease dispensing of the flowable food product. However, Kurosawa teaches the commonality of having a dispensing system that includes in response to the input indicating the portion-controlled mode of operation, open the valve and start a timer; and in response to the valve being opened for more than a predetermined time based on operation of the timer, closing the valve to cease dispensing of the flowable food product (see attached translation, page 7, ll. 29-36; and page 11, ll. 9-17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the control unit of the device of Veltrop as such to include a time measuring device as taught by Kurosawa, in order to “minimize the leak loss” (see Kurosawa, page 8, ll. 14-17).
Regarding claim 16, Veltrop discloses the control system is further configured to receive an input regarding the desired portion size of flowable food product in the portion-controlled mode of operation ([0029], [0051], [0048]).
Regarding claim 17, Veltrop discloses the input includes a continuous input that causes the manual mode of operation to be initiated and the valve to be opened as long as the continuous input remains (via user interface [0056]).
Regarding claim 19, Veltrop discloses the control system is further configured to determine a total amount of dispensed flowable food product over a period of time based on an amount of time that the valve is open over the period of time ([0026], [0066], [0074-0076]), and selectively provide an alert based on the total amount of dispensed flowable food product ([0038], [0065], various liquid level determinations via control system relays to the interface, see [0026] and [0033]).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Veltrop (US 2012/0067920) in view of Kurosawa (JP 2007291882 A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Gutierrez (US 2003/0116584) and Bolger (US 2007/0157640).
Veltrop and Kurosawa in combination are silent in disclosing a heating element configured to selectively heat the bag, wherein the control system is configured receive a temperature from a temperature sensor, and, in response, adjust power to the heating element to control an amount of heat provided to the bag; and a display and a temperature sensor, wherein the temperature sensor is positioned to determine a temperature of the flowable food product in the bag, and wherein the display is configured to display the temperature. However, Gutierrez teaches the commonality of having a flowable food product dispenser that includes and a heating element configured to selectively heat the bag, wherein the control system is configured receive the temperature from the temperature sensor, and, in response, adjust power to the heating element to control an amount of heat provided to the bag ([0075], via heater 31, see fig.7-8 and “variable power density”); and a display and a temperature sensor, wherein the temperature sensor is positioned near the opening to determine a temperature of the flowable food product in the bag proximate to the opening ([0076], via 31-32; see fig.7-8), and wherein the display is configured to display the temperature. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to add a heating system as taught by Gutierrez to the flowable food product bag of Veltrop and Kurosawa in combination, in order to offer a drink at a desired temperature. Furthermore, regarding the display is configured to display the temperature of the food, Bolger teaches the obviousness of having a display unit within a dispensing system to show the temperature and an option to alter the power ([0023-2-0023]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to add a temperature display unit as taught by Bolger to the flowable food product dispenser of Veltrop, Kurosawa and Gutierrez in combination in order to operate the device efficiently.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above claims have been considered but are 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bob Zadeh whose telephone number is (571)270-5201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm E.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BOB ZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights