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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species C, Subspecies I in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 4-17 and 19 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton et al. (US 2021/0347624), and further in view of Tewari (US 2019/0276297).
Regarding Claim 1: Newton teaches a CIP system comprising: a first dispensing area (Fig. 1, element 28); a first clean-in-place device (Figs. 11, 12, 18; [0089]; and one or more processors configured to control the first clean-in-place device to clean the first dispensing area [0089, 0119].
Newton does not expressly disclose a second dispensing area and an Nth dispensing area wherein the processor is configured to control the first clean-in-place device to clean the second or Nth dispensing areas. However, Tewari teaches a similar CIP system comprising first, second, and Nth dispensing areas each cleaned by a CIP device of the system [0039, 0045, and 0052]. Tewari teaches that having multiple dispensing areas allows for variety of products without cross-contamination [0040]. 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 system of Newton with an Nth dispensing area cleaned by the first clean-in-place device in order to provide greater variety of product dispensed from the system, as suggested by Newton.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3: Newton and Tewari teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Newton teaches that cleaning agents are coupled to the system to allow cleaning solutions to clean all parts of the dispensing system [0059] but does not expressly disclose a first cleaning recipe to clean the first dispensing area and a second cleaning recipe to clean the second dispensing area, and an Nth cleaning recipe to clean the Nth dispensing area. However, Newton teaches that the system allows for multiple cleaning chemicals and cleaning cycles utilizing the chemicals for varying different lengths of time as needed to clean for different products which is beneficial because different products require different chemicals and different flush times [0094]. Therefore, 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 system of Newton and Tewari wherein the processor utilizes a first, second, and Nth cleaning recipe to clean the first, second, and Nth dispensing areas respectively in order to clean for different products more efficiently, as suggested by Newton.
Regarding Claim 18: Newton further teaches the system comprises a first CFValve coupled to the first clean-in-place device and the first CFValve is configured to maintain a relative constant flow of fluid from a variable pressure fluid supply to a fluid outlet, the CF Valve including: a) a valve housing having an inlet port and an outlet port adapted to be connected to the variable pressure fluid supply and the fluid outlet; b) a diaphragm chamber interposed between the inlet port and the outlet port; c) a cup contained within the diaphragm chamber; d) a diaphragm closing the cup; e) a piston assembly secured to a center of the diaphragm, the piston assembly having a cap and a base; f) a stem projecting from the cap through a first passageway in a barrier wall to terminate in a valve head; and g) a spring in the cup coacting with the base of the piston assembly for urging the diaphragm into a closed position, and the spring being responsive to fluid pressure above a predetermined level to adjust a size of a control orifice [0100].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
