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 Invention I claim 1-10 in the reply filed on 06/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,19-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,024,417 in view of Dejardins et al. DK 160402.
The present claims differ from the previously allowed claims with regard to the specifics of the housing and the display window.
Dejardins teaches the specifics of the housing and the display window (3,5 figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify they system of 12,024,417 to include the specifics of the housing and the display window because it provides a physical structure to container the dispensing system and allows the flavoring levels to be visually tracked.
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(s) 1,2,4-10,19-22 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethuy et al. US 2016/0368753 in view of Dejardins et al. DK 160402 (translation attached).
Bethuy discloses a beverage dispenser, comprising:
(Re claim 1) “an upper housing” (figure 3) The part of the housing about the drain. “a lower housing disposed below the upper housing” (figure 3) The part of the housing containing the drain and below. “a flavoring source disposed in one of the upper housing and the lower housing” (para 0005, 402 figure 11). “a nozzle disposed on an exterior of the upper housing” (116 figure 3). “a diluent source disposed in one of the upper housing and the lower housing and configured to supply a diluent to the beverage dispenser, wherein the beverage dispenser is configured to use the nozzle to dispense a beverage formed from at least the diluent” (190, 200 figure 11, para 0054).
Bethuy does not disclose a display window disposed in one of the upper housing and the lower housing and positioned to allow the flavoring source to be visible from an exterior of the upper housing and the lower housing.
Dejardins teaches a display window disposed in one of the upper housing and the lower housing and positioned to allow the flavoring source to be visible from an exterior of the upper housing and the lower housing (3,5 figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify they system of Bethuy to include a display window disposed in one of the upper housing and the lower housing and positioned to allow the flavoring source to be visible from an exterior of the upper housing and the lower housing because it allows an operator or customer to quickly determine inventory levels.
(Re claim 2) “a gas tank disposed in the lower housing, the beverage dispenser configured to use a gas disposed in the gas tank to form the beverage” (119 figure 3).
(Re claim 4) “a user interface disposed on an exterior of the upper housing vertically above the nozzle, the user interface configured to receive an input from a user” (100 figure 3). Part of the interface is above the nozzle. Additionally moving the muzzle to be completely below the interface would be a mere aesthetic change and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
(Re claim 5) “a cooler disposed in the lower housing configured to cool fluid within a conduit
disposed in at least one of the upper housing and the lower housing and fluidly connected to
the nozzle” (118 figure 2). “a heater disposed in the lower housing, the heater configured to heat fluid within a second conduit disposed in at least one of the upper housing and the lower housing and fluidly connected to the nozzle, wherein the beverage dispenser is configured to use at least one of the cooler and the heater when forming the beverage” (111 figure 2, claim 16).
(Re claim 6) “a mineral source disposed in one of the upper housing and the lower housing, the beverage dispenser configured to use the mineral source when forming the beverage” (‘minerals’ para 0131).
(Re claim 7) “an additive source disposed in one of the upper housing and the lower housing, the beverage dispenser configured to use the additive source when forming the beverage” (‘supplements’ para 0131).
(Re claim 8) “a third conduit disposed in at least one of the upper housing and the lower housing and fluidly connected to the nozzle, the third conduit being exposed to ambient atmospheric conditions and not being configured to receive heating or cooling from the heater or the cooler, respectively” (claim 6, ‘plain filtered water’ para 0005 figure 19).
(Re claim 9) “comprising a user interface disposed on the upper housing, the user interface including a proximity sensor configured to detect a user in proximity to the beverage dispenser” (100 figure 3, ‘proximity sensor’ para 0006).
(Re claim 10) “the user interface further comprises perimeter lights configured to project light onto a portion of the beverage dispenser” (126 figure 2, para 0074).
(Re claim 19) “a user interface disposed on an exterior of the upper housing, the user interface configured to receive a first input; and a processor configured to: create a first electronic beverage recipe based at least in part on the first input received by the user interface” (100 figure 3 para 0006). “create a second electronic beverage recipe based at least in part on a second input received from a mobile electronic device” (para 0006). “cause the beverage to be dispensed, via the nozzle, according to one or more of the first electronic beverage recipe and the second electronic beverage recipe” (para 0006). The system can be used to customize any number of beverage recipes
(Re claim 20) “the processor is further configured to authenticate a user prior to dispensing the beverage” (‘identifies the user’ para 0006).
(Re claim 21) “the second input comprises a user identifier associated with the user, and
wherein the processor uses the user identifier to authenticate the user” (para 0073).
(Re claim 22) “the processor is further configured to receive information associated with an electronic user profile from a database, the database comprising a plurality of electronic user profiles” (‘user’s account and stored in the database for future vending’ para 0006).
(Re claim 25) “wherein the information comprises payment information” (‘pay’ para 0006).
(Re claim 26) “the processor is further configured to associate one or more of the first electronic beverage recipe and the second electronic beverage recipe with an electronic user profile stored in a database, the database comprising a plurality of electronic user profiles” (‘a list of that user’s favorite or recently vended beverages’ para 0006).
(Re claim 27) “the processor is further configured to create a third electronic beverage recipe based at least in part on a third input received from a network interface coupled to the processor” (100 figure 3, para 0006). The system is capable of creating any number of beverage recipes.
(Re claim 28) “the first electronic beverage recipe and the second electronic beverage recipe are the same beverage recipe” Nothing limits the user from customizing and ordering the same beverage any number of times.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethuy/Dejardins in view of Dhagumudi et al. US 2017/0344950.
Bethuy/Dejardins discloses the system as rejected above.
Bethuy/Dejardins does not disclose the gas is nitrogen gas.
Dhagumudi teaches that either nitrogen or carbon dioxide can be provide carbonation (para 0060).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Bethuy/Dejardins to include that the gas is nitrogen because it is an art recognized alternative and may be less reactive with some ingredients.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0144653 and 2011/0049180 both disclose smart custom beverage dispensers with housings matching those claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights