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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-12 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 09/16/24 has been acknowledged and considered by the Office.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/03/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) because the plane upon which each sectional view is taken, is not indicated on the view from which the section is cut.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The determination that “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather, it is a conclusion reached by weighing all the above noted factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404.
As per claim 1, the claim requires inter alia a system comprising a gas backfill system “[…] to prevent a buildup of a vacuum therein”. The specification indicates that the valve of the backfill system functions to prevent a buildup of vacuum by being actually triggered by a presence of vacuum (i.e. already built-up vacuum) in the container ([0144] “[…] causing the vacuum regulator valve to open with a small vacuum at the outlet membrane”). It is unclear how the application enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and or use an invention commensurate with the aforementioned subject matter—i.e. such that a valve can function to prevent a buildup of vacuum while also being trigger by the presence of a built-up vacuum.
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
As per claim 1, the limitation “a buildup of a vacuum” is ambiguous. The term “buildup” is a relative term for which the specification lacks some standard for measuring the degree intended. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). “Buildup” in relation to what baseline?
Further, as per claim 1, the term “semi-rigid […] walls” is ambiguous. The specification suggests “semi-rigid walls” be interpreted as “allowing only a limited amount of sidewall flexing ([0136]). “Limits” are inherent and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of “limited amount” in this context.
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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.
Claims 1, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2006/0278657 to Roatis.
As per claim 1, Roatis discloses a beverage dispensing system for dispensing a fluid, comprising:
a nozzle (8);
a container (5) with the fluid therein (abstract);
the container comprising semi-rigid plastic walls ([0045]);
a pump (7) for pumping the fluid from the container to the nozzle; and
a gas backfill system in communication with the container ([0064], Ln. 8-10);
wherein the gas backfill system provides a gas to the container as the fluid is pumped from the container to prevent a buildup of a vacuum therein ([0064], Ln. 8-10).
As per claim 10, Roatis further discloses the container comprises an offset spout (10; Fig. 3).
As per claim 11, Roatis further discloses the container comprises a flat bottom wall (see Figure A, below) and a rounded top wall (see Figure A, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
625
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
440
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure A: US 2006/0278657, Figs. 2 & 3 - annotated
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6843391 to Jones in view of Official Notice.
As per claim 1, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Jones discloses a beverage dispensing system for dispensing a fluid, comprising:
a container (1) with the fluid therein (Col. 2, Ln. 59);
a pump (6) for pumping the fluid from the container to dispense it (Col. 2, Ln. 39-44; Fig. 3); and
a gas backfill system (2, 10, 3, 4) in communication with the container;
wherein the gas backfill system provides a gas to the container as the fluid is pumped from the container to prevent a buildup of a vacuum therein (Col. 2, Ln. 59-61; Col. 3, ln. 34-39).
Jones does not disclose: a nozzle, and the pump for pumping the fluid to the nozzle; the container comprising semi-rigid plastic walls.
In regards to the limitations drawn to a nozzle, the Office makes official notice that draft beverage systems commonly have a nozzle placed at a terminal outlet for directing a beverage into a receptacle. It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide such a nozzle downstream of the pump of Jones, in the system of Jones, for similarly directing a beverage into a receptacle.
In regards to the limitation drawn to the material of the container walls of Jones, Jones is silent. However, the Office makes official notice that it is well known to form a keg wall with plastic. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the aforementioned silence of Jones, to form the walls of the container of Jones from plastic—i.e. where that plastic is inherently “semi-rigid”, as claimed.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6843391 to Jones in view of Official Notice applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 3746036 to Hunt et al.
As per claim 2, Jones further discloses the gas backfill system comprises a valve (4) in communication with a carbon dioxide supply (10) with gas therein and the valve opening to introduce carbon dioxide into the container in order to keep pressure within the keg within a predetermined level (Col. 3, Ln. 36-49). The Jones-Official Notice combination does not explicitly disclose the particular structure of the valve or the valve being a “vacuum regulator” valve. Hunt teaches a valve (Fig. 4) being triggered by vacuum (Col. 5, Ln. 35-37; “the outlet at a pressure below atmospheric pressure) to allow passage of fluid. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the aforementioned silence of Jones-Official combination regarding the structure of the valve, to provide the valve of Hunt for maintained pressure within the keg at a predetermined level –wherein that valve is triggered by vacuum and therefore constitutes a “vacuum regulator”.
As per claim 3, Jones further discloses an inlet communicating with the carbon dioxide supply and an outlet in communication with the container (inherent). Hunt further discloses the vacuum regulator valve comprises an inlet having an inlet membrane (212) in communication with the fluid supply and an outlet having an outlet membrane (12).
As per claim 4, Hunt further discloses the vacuum regulator valve opens when an outlet force on the outlet membrane exceeds an inlet force on the inlet membrane (Col. 5, Ln. 35-41).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6843391 to Jones in view of Official Notice in view of US 3746036 to Hunt et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 3231154 to Johnston.
As per claim 5, Jones further discloses a coupler (2) and the coupler comprising the valve (4). The Jones-Official Notice-Hunt combination omits the particular structure of the coupler. Johnston teaches a beverage dispense system comprising a container (20) and a gas backfill system (30, 44, 26, 32), wherein the gas backfill system comprising a gas-fluid adaptor (44) in communication with the container (Fig. 1-2), a gas valve (26, 32; Col. 4, ln. 30-33), and a beverage dispensing conduit (38). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the aforementioned silence in the Jones-Official Notice-Hunt combination, to provide the coupler according to the aforementioned teachings from Johnston –wherein the pump is downstream the beverage dispensing conduit and the adapter is therefore in communication with the pump, as claimed.
As per claim 6, Johnston further discloses the gas-fluid adapter is in communication with the container and the valve via a gas path (58, 62).
As per claim 7, Johnston further discloses the gas-fluid adapter is in communication with the container and the pump via a fluid path (66).
As per claims 8-9, the Jones-Official Notice-Hunt-Johnston combination as applied to claim 5 above discloses the claimed invention except for the container comprising a backfill closure. Johnston further discloses the container comprising a backfill closure (76, 90) comprising a check valve (90) and one or more ports (89). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to further modify the Jones-Official Notice-Hunt-Johnston combination as applied to claim 5 above according to the aforementioned teachings from Johnston for reasons including to provide a means to close the container when the container is separated from the adapter.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6843391 to Jones in view of Official Notice applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 8348086 to Apps.
As per claim 12, the Jones-Official Notice combination discloses the claimed invention except for a particular plastic used for the semi-rigid container walls. Apps teaches a kegs comprising semi-rigid container walls made of polyethylene terephthalate (Claim 8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the aforementioned silence of the Jones-Official Notice combination, to similarly provide walls of the keg of Jones made from polyethylene terephthalate like taught by Apps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 February 23, 2026