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 .
Preliminary Amendment
2. The preliminary amendment filed on 4/19/2024 has been entered.
Specification
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains multiple paragraphs. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
4. Claims 20, 31 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 20, line 1, “the cylindrical” should be --the cylindrical structure--; in claim 31, the narrative recitation “its interior” leads to issue with antecedent basis and clarity; in claim 32, line 2, “)” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 17-18, 21-26, 28-35 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.
I- Regarding claim 17, the numerous uses of the phrases “in particular” and "preferably" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
II- Regarding claim 21, the numerous uses of the phrases "preferably" and “in particular” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
III- Regarding claim 23, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
IV- Regarding claim 25, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase is part of the claimed invention.
V- Regarding claim 28, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
VI- In claim 29, the claimed limitations “a valve piece, a liquid container, a beverage dispensing outlet, and an intermediate piece” are positively recited for a second time. This renders the claims confusing as it raises issues of double inclusion.
VII- Regarding claim 30, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
VIII- Regarding claim 31, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
IX- Regarding claim 32, the numerous uses of the phrases “in particular” and "preferably" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
X- Regarding claim 33, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
XI- In claim 34, the claimed limitations “a valve piece, a liquid container, a beverage dispensing outlet, and an intermediate piece” are positively recited for a second time. This renders the claims confusing as it raises issues of double inclusion.
XII- In claim 35, the claimed limitations “a valve piece, a liquid container, a beverage dispensing outlet, and an intermediate piece” are positively recited for a second time. This renders the claims confusing as it raises issues of double inclusion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 16, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. 5,050,806.
Anderson et al. disclose intermediate piece (20) for connecting a liquid container (6) to a beverage dispensing outlet (outlet from element 10), which comprises a lower portion (22) for coupling to a connecting piece (4) of the liquid container; and an upper portion (24) for coupling to a valve piece (10), wherein the intermediate piece is a rigid component without movable parts as seen Figure 1; wherein the upper portion has a cylindrical structure extending along a longitudinal axis as seen in Figure 1; wherein the cylindrical has a diameter that is smaller than the diameter of a cylindrical accommodating section (30) of the valve piece, so that the upper portion can be received in the accommodating section of the valve piece as seen in Figure 1; a fastening element (28) arranged in the upper portion for reversibly fastening the valve piece to the intermediate piece, preferably by a relative rotation between the valve piece and the intermediate piece, in particular a relative rotation about a longitudinal axis of the intermediate piece as seen in Figure 1; wherein the fastening element is arranged in a region of the upper portion located adjacently to the lower portion as seen in Figure 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. 5,050,806 in view of Spengler 5,131,572.
Anderson et al. have taught all the features of the claimed invention except that the intermediate piece consists of exactly one single material, in particular 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 Anderson et al. 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. Claims 27, 29, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. 5,050,806 in view of Rutter 6,053,630.
Anderson et al. have 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 Anderson et al., 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 Anderson et al. 5,050,806 in view of Rutter 6,053,630 as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Nagy 4,860,932.
Anderson et al.-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 Anderson et al. and Rutter, in order to provide a water-tight seal within the valve piece.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 23-26, 28, 30-32 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.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
16. 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