DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 102
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schuetz Udo KG (DE-7615545).
Schuetz Udo KG discloses intermediate piece (5) for connecting a liquid container (1) to a beverage dispensing outlet (17), which comprises a lower portion (19) for coupling to a connecting piece (3) of the liquid container; and an upper portion (18) for coupling to a valve piece (6), wherein the intermediate piece is a rigid component without movable parts and consists of exactly one single material as seen Figure 4; wherein the upper portion has a cylindrical structure extending along a longitudinal axis as seen in Figure 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuetz Udo KG (DE-7615545) in view of Spengler 5,131,572.
Schuetz Udo KG has taught all the features of the claimed invention except that the one single material is polyethylene. Spengler teaches the use of an intermediate piece (32) being made of a single material of polyethylene (col. 3, ll. 8-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to have the intermediate piece of Schuetz Udo KG be made of polyethylene as taught by Spengler in (col. 3, ll. 8-15), in order to use a material that is durable, resistant to impact and does not retain bacteria, as such is notoriously know in the art.
12. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuetz Udo KG (DE-7615545) in view of Rutter 6,053,630.
Schuetz Udo KG has taught all the features of the claimed invention except that a closure for blocking a connection between the liquid container and the beverage dispensing outlet when in an unopened state. Rutter teaches the use of a closure/valve arrangement (39) over an intermediate piece (20) for blocking a connection between a liquid container (12) and a beverage dispensing outlet (44) when in an unopened state as seen in Figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to provide Rutter’s closure onto the intermediate piece of Schuetz Udo KG, in order to provide a hermetic seal for the container.
13. Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuetz Udo KG (DE-7615545) in view of Rutter 6,053,630 as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Nagy 4,860,932.
Schuetz Udo KG-Rutter in combination, have taught all the features of the claimed invention except that the valve piece comprises a sealing ring. Nagy teaches the use of a valve piece (2) having a sealing ring (16), and the valve piece is made of different material from the sealing ring as seen in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to provide Nagi’s sealing ring onto the valve piece of Schuetz Udo KG and Rutter, in order to provide a water-tight seal within the valve piece.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 20-26, 28-32, 34-35 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.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-35 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
16. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK C NICOLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM -:4:00 PM.
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 R. 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.
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights