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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/06/2025, 01/22/2026, 02/06/2026, 03/05/2026 and 05/01/2026 is compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over
LAZZARINI et al. (EP 2255673 A1, see attached doc.) in view of Brill et al. (US
5058773).
In regards to claim 1, LAZZARINI discloses a spout cover (a cover element 18 with a chute 20; Figs. 1 and 4) of a frozen drink maker (a machine 1), the spout cover (18/20) comprising: an upper portion (a first end 21) configured to cover a spout (a dispensing hole 13) of the frozen drink maker (1) that dispenses a drink product (refer to pars. 4 and 17) from the frozen drink maker (1) in a horizontal direction (a horizontal mixing and cooling unit 2; par. 18; also, as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 4); and a lower portion (a second end 22) extending downward from the upper portion (as can be seen in Fig. 1), the lower portion including an inner wall (wall of lower portion) defining a channel (refer to par. 38; Figs. 1 and 4), the channel including a first region (a region near lower dispensing hole 13) configured to be positioned below the spout (13) and configured to direct a flow of the drink product; a front panel (dispensing door 14; Fig. 4), and a second region (a region near opening 23) extending downward from the first region and configured to direct the flow of the drink product in an at least substantially vertically downward direction (via opening 23, as can be seen in Fig. 4). LAZZARINI fails to explicitly teach the channel including a first region configured to direct a flow of the drink product at an angle relative to the front panel of the frozen drink maker.
Brill teaches a beverage and ice bodies dispensing apparatus (10; Fig. 4) wherein the channel (corresponding to channel inside the spout 12) including the first region (angled portion of the spout 12) configured to direct a flow of the drink product at an angle (ø; Fig. 4) relative to a front panel (corresponding to chute 14 that is vertically disposed) of the frozen drink maker (as can be seen in Fig. 4).
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 funnel of LAZZARINI such that the channel including a first region configured to direct a flow of the drink product at an angle relative to a front panel of the frozen drink maker as taught by Brill in order to provide less foaming and better carbonation retention for carbonated beverages (refer to col.10, lines 50-53 of Brill).
In regards to claim 2, LAZZARINI as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Further, LAZZARINI teaches wherein the funnel (18/20) is configured to position the channel below the spout (13), (as can be seen in Fig. 4).
In regards to claim 3, LAZZARINI as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Brill teaches wherein the angle (ø; Fig. 4) is between about 15 and 40 degrees (about 15 degrees; refer to col.10, lines 50-53 of Brill) relative to the front panel (14).
In regards to claim 4, LAZZARINI as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Further, LAZZARINI teaches wherein the second region (a region near opening 23) of the channel includes a dispenser opening (an opening 23), (refer to par. 39).
In regards to claim 5, LAZZARINI as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4. Further, LAZZARINI teaches wherein the channel is configured to direct the flow of the drink product from the spout (13) through the dispenser opening (23).
In regards to claim 6, LAZZARINI as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a diameter of the dispenser opening is selected to be wider than a diameter of the spout.
LAZZARINI does however teach in par. 38 that a chute 20 located below the dispensing hole 13. The chute 20 operates in conjunction with the cover element 18, forming a channel for the passage of the product dispensed. In particular, the cover element 18 covers both a portion of the dispensing door 14 which comprises the through opening 15 and the portion of the machine extending below the dispensing door 14. Therefore, a diameter of the dispenser opening (corresponding to opening 23; Fig. 4 of LAZZARINI) is selected to be wider than a diameter of the spout (corresponding to dispensing hole 13) are each recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is the forming a channel for the passage of the product dispensed and to allow controlled dispensing of the ice cream (pars. 26 and 38). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. different openings for the dispenser opening and spout openings, were disclosed in the prior art by LAZZARINI, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range or value by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify LAZZARINI, by setting a diameter of the dispenser opening to be selected to be wider than a diameter of the spout.
In regards to claim 7, LAZZARINI as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4, but fails to explicitly teach wherein wherein a diameter of the dispenser opening is between about 5% and 20% wider than a diameter of the spout.
LAZZARINI does however teach in par. 38 that a chute 20 located below the dispensing hole 13. The chute 20 operates in conjunction with the cover element 18, forming a channel for the passage of the product dispensed. In particular, the cover element 18 covers both a portion of the dispensing door 14 which comprises the through opening 15 and the portion of the machine extending below the dispensing door 14. Therefore, a diameter of the dispenser opening (corresponding to opening 23; Fig. 4 of LAZZARINI) is selected to be wider than a diameter of the spout (corresponding to dispensing hole 13) are each recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is the forming a channel for the passage of the product dispensed and to allow controlled dispensing of the ice cream (pars. 26 and 38). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. different openings for the dispenser opening and spout openings, were disclosed in the prior art by LAZZARINI, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range or value by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify LAZZARINI, by setting a diameter of the dispenser opening to be between about 5% and 20% wider than a diameter of the spout.
In regards to claim 8, LAZZARINI as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a shape of the dispenser opening is circular. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to change the shape of the dispenser opening to form a circular shaped opening since a change in shape is generally recognized at being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of a device (in the instant case, the rounded corners of the case) are significant, then to change the shape of the device (in the instant case, dispenser opening to form a circular shape) would be a matter of choice of a person having ordinary skill in the art (refer to MPEP2144.04-IV-A).
In regards to claim 9, LAZZARINI as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Further, LAZZARINI teaches wherein the second region (a region near opening 23) of the channel is at least partially defined by the inner wall (inner wall of cover 18 and chute 20).
In regards to claim 10, LAZZARINI as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Further, LAZZARINI teaches wherein the second region (a region near opening 23) of the channel is further defined by an outer wall (outer wall of cover 18) extending substantially parallel to the front panel (14), (as can be seen in Fig. 4).
In regards to claim 11, LAZZARINI as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Further, LAZZARINI teaches wherein the front panel (14) of the frozen drink maker (1) is arranged in an at least substantially vertically downward direction (as can be seen in Fig. 4).
In regards to claim 12, LAZZARINI as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Further, LAZZARINI teaches wherein the upper portion (21) of the funnel (18/20) is removably attachable to a dispenser assembly of the frozen drink maker (as can be seen in Fig. 5).
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered Applicant's arguments on 02/25/2026 but respectfully maintains the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lazzarini et al. (EP 2,255,673) in view of Brill et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,058,773) for the following reasons.
Applicant argues that the cover element (18) of Lazzarini does not extend downward from the chute (20), and vice versa, and therefore the combination of these elements cannot satisfy the claimed "lower portion extending downward from the upper portion."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation requires a spout cover comprising an upper portion and a lower portion extending downward therefrom, it does not prescribe the precise structural relationship or orientation that Applicant implies. As shown in Lazzarini's Fig. 4, the cover element (18) and the chute (20) together form a unitary directing structure. The Examiner's mapping of these elements to the claimed upper and lower portions is based on their functional relationship in directing dispensed product flow, not merely their geometric arrangement in isolation. Applicant's argument attacks the references individually rather than addressing the Examiner's proposed combination, which is improper.
Furthermore, the claim language does not require that the upper and lower portions be separately manufactured components. The combined structure of Lazzarini, as modified in view of Brill, would result in a spout cover having a portion that directs flow at an angle and a portion that directs flow in a substantially vertical downward direction, as claimed.
Applicant argues that neither Lazzarini's chute (20)/cover element (18) nor Brill's spout (12) discloses "a first region configured to direct a flow of the drink product at an angle" and "a second region configured to direct the flow in an at least substantially vertically downward direction."
The Examiner maintains that Lazzarini discloses a dispensing path that inherently directs product flow at an angle relative to the front panel of the machine (the functional equivalent of the claimed first region), and that Brill's angled spout geometry, taken as a whole, teaches the concept of an angled-to-vertical flow transition to minimize turbulence and splashing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating a vertically-directed final discharge region, as suggested by Brill's design rationale, into the chute structure of Lazzarini would yield predictable results. ("the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results").
The claim language uses the term "configured to," which is a functional limitation. The Examiner's position is that the prior art structures, as combined, are reasonably capable of performing the recited functions, and therefore the limitation is met.
Applicant contends that combining Lazzarini (an ice cream machine) with Brill (a soda dispenser) is improper because concerns about foaming and carbonation retention are irrelevant to ice cream dispensing.
The Examiner notes that the motivation to combine references need not arise from the same field of endeavor. The relevant inquiry is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the known spout geometry of Brill to the dispensing structure of Lazzarini. The underlying problem solved by Brill, controlling the trajectory and flow characteristics of a viscous or semi-fluid product dispensed through a spout, is analogous to the dispensing of frozen or semi-frozen dessert products in Lazzarini. Both applications involve directing a flowable product from a dispensing mechanism into a receiving vessel while minimizing splashing and mess. The specific benefit cited (carbonation retention) is but one of the reasons Brill's design is advantageous; the broader principle of controlled, directed flow is equally applicable to the frozen dessert context.
Moreover, it is well established that a reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches, not merely the specific problem it was designed to solve. The geometric teachings of Brill regarding angled-to-vertical flow direction are not limited in their applicability to carbonated beverages.
Applicant argues that Brill's spout (12) is more analogous to Lazzarini's dispensing hole (13) than to the chute (20) or cover element (18), and that this incompatibility undermines the proposed combination.
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner's rejection does not propose substituting Brill's spout (12) wholesale for any single element of Lazzarini. Rather, the rejection relies on Brill for its teaching of directing dispensed product flow through a defined angular-to-vertical path. The concept of incorporating such a flow-directing geometry into or below the dispensing exit of Lazzarini would have been within the ordinary skill in the art. The structural incompatibility alleged by Applicant does not preclude the combination, as the combination involves incorporating the teachings of Brill, not bodily incorporating its structure into Lazzarini. For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
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 MARTHA TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-0590. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights