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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears that “the first second nozzles,” should instead read “the first and second nozzles.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears that “transport the carbonated water to a respective channel,” should instead read “transport the respective concentrated flavored liquid to a respective channel.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kross et al. (3940019).
Regarding claim 1, Kross discloses a device for mixing a beverage, comprising: a first channel (176) configured to dispense a non-alcoholic liquid ingredient for the beverage into a container for the beverage (col. 8, lines 54-56); a second channel (178) fluidly isolated from first channel configured to dispense an alcoholic liquid ingredient (col. 8, lines 65-68), the first channel and the second channel directed such that the non-alcoholic liquid ingredient and the alcoholic liquid ingredient combine with one another while falling through air above or within the container (col. 8, lines 59-62); and a controller configured to control flow of fluids through the first channel and the second channel such that the non-alcoholic liquid ingredient is dispensed simultaneously with the alcoholic liquid ingredient (col. 2, lines 62-66).
Regarding claim 12, the device further comprising: a manifold (40) that comprises the first channel and the second channel.
Regarding claim 13, the manifold is formed as a single piece (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 14, in accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device (i.e., 3D printing) is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Regarding claim 20, Kross discloses the claimed invention except for the beverage is a cocktail and contains ice and a garnish. However, Kross discloses all of the ingredients necessary to make a cocktail containing ice and a garnish (Fig. 3; col. 7, lines 13-34). Therefore, Kross is capable of producing a cocktail containing ice and a garnish. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kross et al. in view of Murphy et al. (20170251879).
Regarding claim 15, Kross DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the manifold is composed of a food-grade plastic manufactured using polylactic acid. Attention, however, is directed to the Murphy reference, which discloses a beverage dispenser including a food-grade plastic manufactured using polylactic acid (par. 0254).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kross reference in view of the teachings of the Murphy reference by forming the manifold using a food-grade plastic manufactured using polylactic acid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kross et al. in view of Lee et al. (11780721).
Regarding claim 16, Kross DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the device further comprising: a vertical conveyor configured to move the manifold vertically to lower the manifold toward the container when the alcoholic and non-alcoholic liquid ingredients are being dispensed and to raise the manifold away from the container when the beverage is complete. Attention, however, is directed to the Lee reference, which discloses a vertical conveyor configured to move the manifold vertically to lower the manifold toward the container when the alcoholic and non-alcoholic liquid ingredients are being dispensed and to raise the manifold away from the container when the beverage is complete (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kross reference in view of the teachings of the Lee reference by including a vertical conveyor for the purpose of lowering the manifold to prevent splashing during dispensing (col. 2, lines 50-53 of Lee).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kross et al. in view of Lee et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Brown (20150069087).
Regarding claim 17, Kross DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the device further comprising: a door configured to close to prevent a customer from accessing the container when the alcoholic liquid ingredients and the non-alcoholic liquid ingredients are being dispensed and to open to allow the customer to retrieve the container when the beverage is complete. Attention, however, is directed to the Brown reference, which discloses a door (16b) configured to close to prevent a customer from accessing the container when the alcoholic liquid ingredients and the non-alcoholic liquid ingredients are being dispensed and to open to allow the customer to retrieve the container when the beverage is complete.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Kross reference in view of the teachings of the Brown reference by including a door for the purpose of containing splashes during dispensing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNELL ALAN LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM-5PM.
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.
/DONNELL A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754