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 .
Claim Status
Claims 22, 31 and 40 are independent.
Claim 36 is 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.
Claims 22-39 and 48 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.
Claim(s) 40, 41, 44, 46 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20070272084 A1 to MANDRALIS et al. (“MANDRALIS”).
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANDRALIS in view of US 20080196593 A1 to Shrader et al. (“Shrader”).
Claim(s) 43, 45 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANDRALIS in view of US 20070157821 A1 to Panesar et al. (“Panesar”).
Claim(s) 22-24 and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060011664 A1 to Hammond (“Hammond”) in view of US 20160183715 A1 to Showalter (“Showalter”).
Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of Showalter and further in view of US 2102105 A to ZAHM (“ZAHM”).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of Showalter and further in view of US 20060006107 A1 to Olson et al. (“Olson”).
Claim(s) 31-34 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of US 5664702 A to Beauchamp (“Beauchamp”).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of Beauchamp and further in view of US 5870944 A to Vander Zalm et al. (“Vander Zalm”).
Claim(s) 36, 37 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of Beauchamp and further in view of US 20170240405 A1 to Gibson et al. (“Gibson”).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a carbonation flow control assembly for conveying carbonation gas in claim 22, which is interpreted as a regulator adapted to regulate the carbonation gas entering the base liquid container as disclosed in claim 34, a refill connection for receiving refill carbonation gas from a refill station supply to refill the onboard carbonation gas container as disclosed in paragraph 4, or a carbonation nozzle as disclosed in paragraph 18, and equivalents thereof;
a user-actuated flow control component for controlling a flow of carbonation gas in claim 22, which is interpreted as a button as disclosed in paragraph 4, and equivalents thereof;
an isolating component configured to selectively isolate the additive cartridge from the base liquid container in claim 28, which is interpreted as a closure insert that may be actuated with a mode selector lever on the closure to configure the portable carbonating dispenser to a carbonation mode or a dispensing mode as disclosed in paragraph 5 of the specification, and equivalents thereof;
a carbonation flow control assembly for conveying carbonation gas in claim 31, which is interpreted as a regulator adapted to regulate the carbonation gas entering the base liquid container as disclosed in claim 34, a refill connection for receiving refill carbonation gas from a refill station supply to refill the onboard carbonation gas container as disclosed in paragraph 4, or a carbonation nozzle as disclosed in paragraph 18, and equivalents thereof;
a user-actuated flow control component for controlling a flow of carbonation gas in claim 31, which is interpreted as a button as disclosed in paragraph 4, and equivalents thereof;
a biased sealing element adapted to move in response to the threshold pressure in claim 36; however, corresponding structure is not disclosed for the biased sealing element, as best understood.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 36 recites “biased sealing element” which includes a generic placeholder (“element”) and functional language (“biased sealing”). However, corresponding structure is not claimed or disclosed such that the recitation of “biased sealing element” is not enabled. It is noted that paragraph 31 discloses “a spring biased sealing element” which does disclose the structure of a spring. However, the spring alone is not sufficient structure for the functional language of sealing.
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 22-39 and 48 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.
Claim 22 has multiple recitations of “carbonation gas” wherein the later recitations do not refer back to the initial recitation of carbonation gas such that it is not definite whether the later recitations refer to the same carbonation gas that was initially recited.
In claim 24, the recitation of “an additive cartridge” does not refer back to the recitation of “an additive cartridge” in claim 22 such that it is not definite whether the additive cartridge in claim 24 refers to the same additive cartridge recited in claim 22 or another additive cartridge.
In claim 30, there is no antecedent basis for “the same enclosure”.
Claim 31 has multiple recitations of “carbonation gas” wherein the later recitations do not refer back to the initial recitation of carbonation gas such that it is not definite whether the later recitations refer to the same carbonation gas that was initially recited.
Claim 36 recites “biased sealing element” which includes a generic placeholder (“element”) and functional language (“biased sealing”). However, corresponding structure is not claimed or disclosed such that the recitation of “biased sealing element” is not definite.
The term “substantially” in claim 38 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In claim 38, it is not definite what is meant by “the relief valve is adapted to maintain a substantially constant pressure at or below the threshold pressure” or what is considered “a substantially constant pressure”.
The term “about” in claim 39 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In claim 39, it is not definite what is meant by “the threshold pressure is about 60 psi” or what is considered to be “about 60 psi”.
In claim 48, there is no antecedent basis for the recitation of “the actuator”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 40, 41, 44, 46 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20070272084 A1 to MANDRALIS et al. (“MANDRALIS”).
MANDRALIS discloses:
Regarding claim independent 40: a container closure comprising:
a closure base (e.g., a fluid supply unit 5) having a journal (e.g., shafts 82, 800), with a closure insert (e.g., capsule-holder 4) disposed therein (e.g., Fig. 2 and 8-10 and para 105 and 119-121),
the closure insert having a closure insert wall (e.g., support piece 71) defining a cartridge receiving space (e.g., internal surfaces or housing 41 of the cup 40), the closure insert wall having at least one insert port (e.g., injector 70) defined thereon (e.g., Fig. 3-6 and para 106 and 111),
the closure insert being adapted to move to a dispensing position (e.g., position in Fig. 5) in which the at least one insert port permits a flow of fluid into the cartridge receiving space (e.g., Fig. 8 and para 121-122);
Regarding claim 41: the container closure of claim 40, wherein the container closure is configured to receive an additive cartridge (e.g., capsule 6) (e.g., Fig. 3-6 and para 106 and 111);
Regarding claim 44: the container closure of claim 40, wherein the container closure is configured to be received by and serve as a lid for a container (e.g., fluid supply unit 5 serves as a lid for capsule 6 as seen in Fig. 8) (e.g., Fig. 8 and para 105-106, 111 and 119-120);
Regarding claim 46: the container closure of claim 40, wherein the closure insert includes an opening (e.g., liquid orifice 76) formed along a circular wall (e.g., circular wall adjacent orifice 76) of the closure insert adapted to fluidly couple an interior space of the closure insert with an exterior space (e.g., Fig. 5-8 and para 123); and
Regarding claim 47: the container closure of claim 40, wherein the closure insert is adapted to move to a closed position and further comprising a seal (e.g., sealed portion 781, seal 57) configured to seal an interior space of the closure insert from an exterior space while the closure insert is in the closed position (e.g., Fig. 5, 6 and 8 and para 117 and 123).
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.
NOTE: For clarity, it is noted that claim language of subject matter not found in the respective references of the combinations is indicated by double strikethrough (
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANDRALIS in view of US 20080196593 A1 to Shrader et al. (“Shrader”).
MANDRALIS discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
MANDRALIS does not explicitly disclose an indicator configured to indicate a pressure associated with the container closure (as recited in claim 42).
However, Shrader discloses:
Regarding claim 42: the container closure of claim 40, further comprising an indicator (e.g., pressure gauge 52) configured to indicate a pressure associated with the container closure (e.g., Fig. 2 and para 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify MANDRALIS as suggested and taught by Shrader in order for a user to monitor the pressure and to allow for a gradual release of pressure so that the espresso is released slowly rather than in a burst or as a strong stream.
Claim(s) 43, 45 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANDRALIS in view of US 20070157821 A1 to Panesar et al. (“Panesar”).
MANDRALIS discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
MANDRALIS does not explicitly disclose an actuator configured to move the closure insert to the dispensing position (as recited in claim 43).
However, Panesar discloses:
Regarding claim 43: the container closure of claim 40, further comprising an actuator (e.g., clamping mechanism 280) configured to move the closure insert to the dispensing position (e.g., Fig. 4-7 and para 105, 106, 116, 117 and 123);
Regarding claim 45: the container closure of claim 43, wherein the actuator is configured to be rotatable to move the closure insert to the dispensing position (e.g., Fig. 4-7 and para 105, 106, 116, 117 and 123); and
Regarding claim 48: the container closure of claim 40, wherein the actuator includes a projection (e.g., bosses 259) configured to engage with a recess (e.g., recesses of the hooks of hook members 287) on the closure insert (e.g., Fig. 4-7 and para 116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify MANDRALIS as suggested and taught by Panesar in order securely close the container during operation.
Claim(s) 22-24 and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060011664 A1 to Hammond (“Hammond”) in view of US 20160183715 A1 to Showalter (“Showalter”).
Hammond discloses:
Regarding independent claim 22: a portable carbonating dispenser (e.g., para 20 and 27 disclose a portable beer delivery system) comprising:
a base liquid container (e.g., beer keg 203) for containing a base liquid supply (e.g., “beer”) (e.g., Fig. 1-2 and para 23-28);
a carbonation gas container (e.g., CO2 cylinder 101) for containing a supply of carbonation gas (e.g., CO2, carbonation) (e.g., Fig. 1-2 and para 23-28); and
a carbonation flow control assembly (e.g., pressure regulator 111) for conveying carbonation gas from the carbonation gas container to pressurize the base liquid supply, the carbonation flow control assembly including a user-actuated flow control component (e.g., paragraph 24 of Hammond discloses: “Regulator 111 is also designed so that the pressure in the keg and the corresponding readout of the low pressure gauge 112 may be varied for each individual type of beer. This is accomplished by simply turning an adjustment device on the regulator 111 to the desired keg pressure.”; the adjustment device of Hammond is the equivalent of the button disclosed in the present application) for controlling a flow of carbonation gas to the base liquid supply (e.g., Fig. 1-2 and para 23-28);
Regarding claim 28: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, further comprising an isolating component (e.g., valve 103, which is insert into and closes inlet 107, and lever 133) configured to selectively isolate the additive cartridge from the base liquid container (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 23-28); and
Regarding claim 30: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, wherein the base liquid container and the carbonation gas container are housed within the same enclosure (e.g., Fig. 2 and para 27).
Hammond does not explicitly disclose an additive cartridge received by the base liquid container, wherein the additive cartridge at least partially extends into the base liquid container (as recited in claim 22).
However, Showalter discloses:
Regarding independent claim 22: a portable carbonating dispenser (e.g., Fig. 11 and para 27 show and disclose a countertop drink dispenser which is capable of being moved such that it is portable) comprising:
a base liquid container (e.g., dispenser 50 may have a housing 51, a front door 54, a top lid housing 53 and a power source 65, as disclosed in para 65) for containing a base liquid supply (e.g., liquid 75) (e.g., Fig. 1-2 and 11-12 and para 49 and 65);
an additive cartridge (e.g., beverage/flavor pod 58) received by the base liquid container, wherein the additive cartridge at least partially extends into the base liquid container (e.g., Fig. 11 and para 65 and 75-77, wherein pod 58 at least partially extends into top lid housing 53 of dispenser 50 as seen in Fig. 11);
Regarding claim 23: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, wherein the base liquid supply is held within an interior space of the base liquid container, and wherein at least a portion of the additive cartridge is configured to extend within the interior space (e.g., Fig. 11 and para 75-77);
Regarding claim 24: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, further comprising an additive cartridge (e.g., beverage/flavor pod 58) secured to the base liquid container for receiving a flow of base liquid from the base liquid container and adding a flow of additive to the received flow of base liquid to form a beverage (e.g., Fig. 11 and para 75-77); and
Regarding claim 29: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, wherein the additive cartridge is received by a lid (e.g., top lid housing 53) of the base liquid container (e.g., Fig. 11-12 and para 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Hammond as suggested and taught by Showalter in order to allow user the ability to customize any drink from the container with an aroma or flavor desired.
Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of Showalter and further in view of US 2102105 A to ZAHM (“ZAHM”).
Hammond in view of Showalter discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
Hammond in view of Showalter does not explicitly disclose comprising an indicator configured to indicate the level of carbonation of the base liquid (as recited in claim 25).
However, ZAHM discloses:
Regarding claim 25: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, further comprising an indicator (e.g., “CO2 testing apparatus” disclosed on page 1, col 2, ln 40-45, pressure gauge 41, thermometer 45) configured to indicate the level of carbonation of the base liquid (e.g., Fig. 1-2 and pages 1-2); and
Regarding claim 26: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 25, wherein the indicator is configured to indicate the level of carbonation of the base liquid in response to a pressure of the base liquid container (e.g., Fig. 1-2 and pages 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Hammond in view of Showalter as suggested and taught by ZAHM in order to test the CO2 content of beer in order to promote uniform CO2 content.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of Showalter and further in view of US 20060006107 A1 to Olson et al. (“Olson”).
Hammond in view of Showalter discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
Hammond in view of Showalter does not explicitly disclose the additive cartridge includes an adjustment actuator to adjust an amount of additive dispensed from the additive cartridge (as recited in claim 27).
However, Olson discloses:
Regarding claim 27: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, wherein the additive cartridge includes an adjustment actuator (e.g., controller 34) to adjust an amount of additive dispensed from the additive cartridge (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 5 and 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Hammond in view of Showalter as suggested and taught by Olson in order to enable a user to selectively dispense an amount of an additive to filtered water.
Claim(s) 31-34 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of US 5664702 A to Beauchamp (“Beauchamp”).
Hammond discloses:
Regarding independent claim 31: a portable carbonating dispenser (e.g., para 20 and 27 disclose a portable beer delivery system) comprising:
a base liquid container (e.g., beer keg 203) for containing a base liquid supply (e.g., “beer”) (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 23-28);
a carbonation gas container (e.g., CO2 cylinder 101) for containing a supply of carbonation gas (e.g., CO2, carbonation) (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 23-28);
a carbonation flow control assembly (e.g., pressure regulator 111) for conveying carbonation gas from the carbonation gas container to pressurize the base liquid supply, the carbonation flow control assembly including a user-actuated flow control component (e.g., paragraph 24 of Hammond discloses: “Regulator 111 is also designed so that the pressure in the keg and the corresponding readout of the low pressure gauge 112 may be varied for each individual type of beer. This is accomplished by simply turning an adjustment device on the regulator 111 to the desired keg pressure.”; the adjustment device of Hammond is the equivalent of the button disclosed in the present application) for controlling a flow of carbonation gas to the base liquid supply (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 23-28); and
Regarding claim 34: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, the carbonation flow control assembly including a regulator (e.g., pressure regulator 111) adapted to regulate the carbonation gas entering the base liquid container (e.g., Fig. 1 and para 23-28).
Hammond does not explicitly disclose a relief valve (as recited in claim 31).
However, Beauchamp discloses:
Regarding independent claim 31: a relief valve (e.g., pressure-relief valve 18, pressure relief valve 54) adapted to maintain the base liquid container at or below a threshold pressure (e.g., Fig. 1 and col 3, ln 27-34);
Regarding claim 32: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, wherein the relief valve is configured to open to release pressure from the base liquid container at the threshold pressure (e.g., Fig. 1 and col 3, ln 27-34);
Regarding claim 33: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, wherein the relief valve is in fluid communication with the base liquid container and an exterior space having atmospheric pressure (e.g., Fig. 1 and col 3, ln 27-34); and
Regarding claim 38: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, wherein the relief valve is adapted to maintain a substantially constant pressure at or below the threshold pressure (e.g., Fig. 1 and col 3, ln 27-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Hammond as suggested and taught by Beauchamp in order to regulate pressure within the keg.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of Beauchamp and further in view of US 5870944 A to Vander Zalm et al. (“Vander Zalm”).
Hammond in view of Beauchamp discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
Hammond in view of Beauchamp does not explicitly disclose the relief valve is adapted to provide an audible indication to a user that the carbonation gas container is full (as recited in claim 35).
However, Vander Zalm discloses:
Regarding claim 35: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, wherein the relief valve is adapted to provide an audible indication to a user that the carbonation gas container is full (e.g., col 12, ln 66-67 and col 13, ln 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Hammond in view of Beauchamp as suggested and taught by Vander Zalm in order to alert a user when the desired pressure level is reached.
Claim(s) 36, 37 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond in view of Beauchamp and further in view of US 20170240405 A1 to Gibson et al. (“Gibson”).
Hammond in view of Beauchamp discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
Hammond in view of Beauchamp does not explicitly disclose the relief valve including a biased sealing element adapted to move in response to the threshold pressure (as recited in claim 36).
However, Gibson discloses:
Regarding claim 36: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, the relief valve including a biased sealing element (e.g., disc 204 and o-ring 201, second o-ring 202 and disc 208) adapted to move in response to the threshold pressure (e.g., Fig. 9-12 and para 122, 126 and 133);
Regarding claim 37: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, further comprising a lid (e.g., cap 28) adapted to cover the base liquid container, wherein the relief valve (e.g., relieve valve 150) is positioned on the lid (e.g., Fig. 3 and para 90); and
Regarding claim 39: the portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, wherein the threshold pressure is about 60 psi (e.g., para 95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify Hammond in view of Beauchamp as suggested and taught by Gibson in order to provide a leak-proof seal which can be released to allow gas flow.
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 22-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,697. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter of the present application and that of the claims of the patent are substantially the same and the claimed subject matter of the present application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the claimed subject matter of the claims of the patent.
Claims 22-39 of the present application
Claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,697
22. A portable carbonating dispenser comprising: a base liquid container for containing a base liquid supply; an additive cartridge received by the base liquid container, wherein the additive cartridge at least partially extends into the base liquid container; a carbonation gas container for containing a supply of carbonation gas; and a carbonation flow control assembly for conveying carbonation gas from the carbonation gas container to pressurize the base liquid supply, the carbonation flow control assembly including a user-actuated flow control component for controlling a flow of carbonation gas to the base liquid supply.
23. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, wherein the base liquid supply is held within an interior space of the base liquid container, and wherein at least a portion of the additive cartridge is configured to extend within the interior space.
24. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, further comprising an additive cartridge secured to the base liquid container for receiving a flow of base liquid from the base liquid container and adding a flow of additive to the received flow of base liquid to form a beverage.
25. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, further comprising an indicator configured to indicate the level of carbonation of the base liquid.
26. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 25, wherein the indicator is configured to indicate the level of carbonation of the base liquid in response to a pressure of the base liquid container.
27. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, wherein the additive cartridge includes an adjustment actuator to adjust an amount of additive dispensed from the additive cartridge.
28. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, further comprising an isolating component configured to selectively isolate the additive cartridge from the base liquid container.
29. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, wherein the additive cartridge is received by a lid of the base liquid container.
30. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 22, wherein the base liquid container and the carbonation gas container are housed within the same enclosure.
31. A portable carbonating dispenser comprising: a base liquid container for containing a base liquid supply; a carbonation gas container for containing a supply of carbonation gas; a carbonation flow control assembly for conveying carbonation gas from the carbonation gas container to pressurize the base liquid supply, the carbonation flow control assembly including a user-actuated flow control component for controlling a flow of carbonation gas to the base liquid supply; and a relief valve adapted to maintain the base liquid container at or below a threshold pressure.
32. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, wherein the relief valve is configured to open to release pressure from the base liquid container at the threshold pressure.
33. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, wherein the relief valve is in fluid communication with the base liquid container and an exterior space having atmospheric pressure.
34. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, the carbonation flow control assembly including a regulator adapted to regulate the carbonation gas entering the base liquid container.
35. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, wherein the relief valve is adapted to provide an audible indication to a user that the carbonation gas container is full.
36. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, the relief valve including a biased sealing element adapted to move in response to the threshold pressure.
37. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, further comprising a lid adapted to cover the base liquid container, wherein the relief valve is positioned on the lid.
38. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, wherein the relief valve is adapted to maintain a substantially constant pressure at or below the threshold pressure.
39. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 31, wherein the threshold pressure is about 60 psi.
1. A portable carbonating dispenser comprising: a base liquid container for containing a base liquid supply; a container closure including a dispensing passage for dispensing base liquid from the base liquid container; a carbonation gas container for containing a supply of carbonation gas; a carbonation flow control assembly for conveying carbonation gas from the carbonation gas container to pressurize the base liquid supply, the carbonation flow control assembly including a user-actuated flow control component for controlling a flow of carbonation gas to the base liquid supply; and an isolating component for permitting a user to selectively isolate the dispensing passage and thereby prevent pressurization of the dispensing passage when the base liquid supply is pressurized by the carbonation gas, wherein the container closure includes a cartridge receiving space, and wherein the isolating component is adapted to isolate the cartridge receiving space from the base liquid container.
2. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, wherein the isolating component includes a mode selector lever on the container closure.
3. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, wherein the cartridge receiving space is disposed in the dispensing passage.
4. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, wherein the carbonation flow control assembly includes a gas container refilling connection for conveying a refill supply of gas to the gas container from an external refill station.
5. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, further comprising a carbonation level indicator for indicating a carbonation level of the base liquid supply.
6. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, further comprising a vent for venting pressure from the base liquid container.
7. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, further comprising a relief valve adapted to relieve carbonation pressure in the base liquid container when the carbonation pressure is above a predetermined threshold.
8. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 7, wherein the relief valve is set to relieve carbonation pressure above 60 psi.
9. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, wherein the base liquid container includes an extended portion for containing the base liquid at a first depth, the carbonation flow control assembly including a nozzle arranged to supply carbonation gas to the base liquid in the extended portion of the base liquid container.
10. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, wherein the base liquid container includes a carbonation viewing window arranged to permit viewing of the base liquid supply by a user.
11. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 10, wherein the carbonation viewing window is arranged to permit viewing of carbonation gas bubbling from a carbonation gas nozzle during a carbonation operation.
12. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, wherein the isolating component includes a closure insert disposed in a journal formed in the container closure.
13. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 12, wherein the closure insert is adapted to be actuated with a mode selector lever on the container closure to configure the portable carbonating dispenser to a carbonation mode or a dispensing mode.
14. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 10, wherein the carbonation viewing window is elongated in a direction in which carbonation bubbles travel when the base liquid container is upright.
15. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, wherein the isolating component is arranged to be actuated by a mode selector lever which permits a user to switch the portable carbonating dispenser to a dispensing mode or a carbonation mode.
16. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 15, wherein the mode selector lever is arranged to actuate a vent to release pressure in the base liquid container when the mode selector lever is switched to the dispensing mode.
17. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 15, further comprising a carbonation level indicator arranged to prevent movement of the mode selector lever to the dispensing mode when the base liquid container is pressurized.
18. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 15, further comprising an alignment projection on the container closure, the alignment projection being arranged to align with the mode selector lever when the mode selector lever is in a carbonation mode position.
19. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 12, wherein the closure insert comprises at least one insert port and at least one blocking surface adapted to cooperate with at least one journal port to selectively isolate the dispensing passage from an interior of the base liquid container during a carbonation mode.
20. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, further comprising a viewing window, wherein the viewing window is formed integrally on the base liquid container and is disposed in an aperture formed in the base liquid container.
21. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 20, wherein the user-actuated flow control component comprises a carbonation button for actuating the carbonation flow control assembly, wherein the viewing window is aligned with the carbonation button.
22. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, wherein the isolating component is actuated by a mode selector lever that permits a user to switch the portable carbonating dispenser to a dispensing mode or a carbonation mode, wherein movement of the mode selector lever is prevented when the base liquid container is pressurized.
23. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, further comprising a carbonation level indicator that is adapted to be actuated by pressure in the base liquid container, wherein the isolating component is actuated by a mode selector lever that permits a user to switch the portable carbonating dispenser to a dispensing mode or a carbonation mode, and wherein the mode selector lever comprises a stop that is arranged to engage the carbonation level indicator when the base liquid container is under pressure.
24. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, further comprising a carbonation level indicator adapted to move to an indicating position when the base liquid container is pressurized.
25. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, wherein the base liquid container comprises a recess for accommodating at least part of the carbonation flow control assembly.
26. The portable carbonating dispenser of claim 1, wherein the carbonation flow control assembly includes a refill connection.
27. A portable carbonating dispenser comprising: a base liquid container for containing a base liquid supply; a container closure comprising a dispensing passage for dispensing base liquid from the base liquid container, the container closure further comprising a cartridge receiving space adapted to receive an additive cartridge; a carbonation gas container for containing a supply of carbonation gas; a carbonation flow control assembly for conveying carbonation gas from the carbonation gas container to pressurize the base liquid supply, the carbonation flow control assembly including a user-actuated flow control component for controlling a flow of carbonation gas to the base liquid supply; and an isolating component for permitting a user to selectively isolate the dispensing passage and thereby prevent pressurization of the dispensing passage when the base liquid supply is pressurized by the carbonation gas.
28. A portable carbonating dispenser comprising: a base liquid container for containing a base liquid supply; a container closure comprising a dispensing passage for dispensing base liquid from the base liquid container, the container closure further comprising a cartridge receiving space adapted to receive an additive cartridge; a carbonation gas container for containing a supply of carbonation gas; and a carbonation flow control assembly for conveying carbonation gas from the carbonation gas container to pressurize the base liquid supply, the carbonation flow co