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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7 & 9-30 are pending on the application, of which claims 23-26 are withdrawn, claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 16-20, 22, & 27-30 are amended, and claim 8 is cancelled.
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous drawing objection is withdrawn as applicants amendments to claim 3 clearly indicate that the two way valve is not a valve that actively selects between ozone water and pressurized gas but rather acts as a shutoff valve.
In light of the amendments to the claims, all previous objections to the claims are withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to the claims, all previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn but for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claim 29.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The previous rejection to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, in favor of the new ground of rejection presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 in view of Yoshihara alone, have been considered but are moot as the rejection utilizing Yoshihara alone has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Firstly, it is noted, and of import, that the claim is directed towards a clean-in-place (CIP) unit and not a “bag-in-keg” system with such a CIP unit. Thus, limitations directed towards the actual container are not positively recited limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., bag-in-keg, and preventing gas from contacting the beverage) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
First, applicants remarks specifically contrast the references utilized with “bag-in-keg” containers, and as such rely on a “bag-in-keg” container. However, the claim does not require such a “bag-in-keg” container. Specifically, applicant states that amended claim 1 “requires a keg that acts as a pressure chamber and contains a compressible beverage container (bag) holding the beverage, and further requires that the beverage is dispensed by supplying pressurized gas or air into the space between the keg and the compressible beverage container while preventing the pressurized gas or air from contacting the beverage.” However, the language of amended claim 1 does not require such limitations.
Second applicant states that “amended claim 1 instead supplies either pressurizing gas/air in dispensing mode or ozonated water in cleaning mode through the coupler inlet path, thereby cleaning that path, while preventing ozonated water from entering the space between the keg and compressible beverage container (i.e., the gas space in a bag-in-keg configuration)”. Again, the language of amended claim 1 does not require such limitations.
Applicant states that key limitations of claim 1 include the following:
- a bag-in-keg beverage container - keg as pressure chamber containing a compressible beverage container;
- dispensing by supplying pressurized gas/air into the space between the keg and the compressible beverage container while preventing gas/air from contacting the beverage; and
- cleaning/disinfecting using ozonated water provided by an electrolytic ozone generator, with ozonated water being prevented from entering the space between the keg and the compressible beverage container.
However the language of claim 1 does not currently require such limitations as stated by applicant’s representative.
With respect to applicant’s remarks regarding the Walton reference, applicant argues the combination of Yoshihara and Walton is not straight forward. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. The structure of Yoshihara is so similar to the coupler of Walton, which is applied to a bag-in-keg system, that a skilled artisan would easily be able to apply the cleaning device and valve unit of Yoshihara to a bag-in-keg system with little difficulty in order to allow for use with bag-in-keg systems.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the benefit or motivation to perform a modification lies in the ability to utilize the cleaning device and valve unit for bag-in-keg systems.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Should applicant desire such limitations, they should be incorporated within the claim language. If applicant desires that the claim still be drawn to a CIP unit instead of a “bag-in-keg” system, then language indicating the manner in which such operation prevents contact while applying the gas and preventing ozonated water from entering the space should be included along with structure clearly identifying and distinguishing such operation from that of the recited art.
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: “actuator” in claim 15 and will be understood as recited in [0053] of the published application.
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 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.
Claim 29 is 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 29 recites “and a status of the method as defined in”. It is unclear as to what this limitation means as no method is defined. It appears the limitation is also incomplete. For examination purposes, the limitation will be ignored.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-12, 14, & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara (JP6567157B1) in view of Hsu (US 20220233019 A1).
As to claims 1 & 22 discloses a beer [0002 & 0018] dispensing system that allows for cleaning of the dispense head and beverage lines (abstract & [0002]) without removal of the head (see Figs.3-5), thereby defining a clean-in-place unit which is capable of cleaning and disinfecting a dispensing line of a beer [0018] system. The unit comprises a coupling unit (combination of refs 60 & 70) consisting of a keg coupler (ref 70 and including refs 75 & 76) and a cleaning coupler (ref 75). The coupling unit can be mounted to a keg (see Fig.1) and has a coupler inlet (ref 71) and a coupler outlet (ref 73). In a beverage dispensing mode the inlet and outlet are not in fluid communication (see Fig.5) and in a cleaning mode the inlet and outlet are in fluid communication (see Fig.4). The clean-in-place unit also comprises a valve (ref RV or CV) having an outlet port arranged in fluid communication with the coupler inlet and an inlet port in communication with a source of cleaning fluid (see Figs.1-2). Yoshihara indicates that the inlet port can be in communication with water as a cleaning fluid [0020]. Yoshihara does not disclose the cleaning liquid source being ozonated water produced via an electrolytic ozone generator, however the use of ozonated water for cleaning of beverage lines is known in the art, as seen by Hsu.
Hsu discloses an art related beverage cleaning and disinfection device (abstract), wherein ozone water is a known cleaning solution for cleaning and disinfecting the internal lines of a beverage maker (abstract). Hsu further indicates that the ozone water is produced via an electrolytic [0007] ozone generator (Fig.1 ref 9) using water from a water source (ref 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoshihara to provide an electrolytic ozone generator and utilize ozonated water for the cleaning/disinfecting of the beverage coupler and the beverage lines, as is known in the art (Hsu abstract), with a simple and low cost ozone generator. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known cleaning solution (i.e., ozonated water) in place of another, when the benefits of such a cleaning solution (cleaning/disinfecting/sterilizing) are known.
As to claim 4, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 1, wherein the control valve is separate from the coupler (see Yoshihara Fig.2).
As to claim 9, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 1, wherein coupling unit has a main body (Yoshihara Figs.3-5 ref 75) accommodating an outlet member (Yoshihara Figs.3-5 ref 76) arranged to reciprocate as a piston inside the main body (see Yoshihara Figs.3-5) between a lower position in which access to the beverage in the beverage container is open so that beverage in the beverage container can be dispensed via the coupler outlet (see Yoshihara Fig.5), and an upper position in which access to the beverage in the beverage container is closed (see Yoshihara Figs.3-4). In the upper position liquid cleaning solution (i.e. ozonated water) and/or gas can access the dispensing line via the coupling unit to allow the solution or gas to be dispensed via the outlet (see Yoshihara Fig.4).
As to claim 10, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 9, wherein the outlet member has a central conduit arranged to dispense the beverage from the beverage container (see Yoshihara Figs.3-5 interior of ref 76 starting from ref 76e).
As to claim 11, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 10, wherein the central conduit is in fluid communication with the ozonated water (see Yoshihara Fig.4).
As to claim 12, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 10, wherein the central conduit is in communication with a source of pressurized gas (see Yoshihara Fig.4 ref 72).
As to claim 14, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 9, wherein the unit comprises means for reciprocating the outlet member along its lengthwise axis (Yoshihara Fig.1 ref 74 and [0033]).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara (JP6567157B1) in view of Hsu (US 20220233019 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kashi (US 20220250892 A1) and Flick (US 20220257049 A1), , and Baelz North America, “2-Way vs 3-Way Valves: Which Type is Right for You?” (hereafter NPL1).
As to claims 2-3, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 1, but does not disclose the control valve being a three-way valve having a second inlet port to communicate with a source of pressurized gas or a two way valve. However, the use of three-way and two-way valves in dispensing devices is known in the art, as seen by Kashi and Flick.
Flick discloses an art related beverage sanitizing unit (abstract), wherein a valve for controlling the fluid supplied to a sanitization unit (Figs.6-8 ref 124) can be either of a two-way valve, or a three-way valve [0156].
Kashi discloses an art related dispensing device (abstract), wherein it is shown (see Fig.6) that a three-way valve may be utilized for both solvent (ref 601) and air flow (ref 603).
NPL1 discloses that 2 way and 3 way valves are both utilized in beverage industries (pages 3-4), and also indicates that 2 way valves can allow for on/off applications and have safety benefits (pages 2-3) and 3 ways valves can provide cost effectiveness (pages 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoshihara to add a two-way valve in order to allow on/off control for safety purposes (NPL1 pages 2-3), the added valve reading on the control valve. Alternatively, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to add a three-way valve in order provide a more cost effective setup (NPL2 pages 4-5), the added valve reading on the control valve. Both two-way and three-way valves are known in the art, including three-way valves in which air and liquid are utilized (Flick [0156] & Kashi Fig.6) and it is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known valve in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. In the modification utilizing a three-way valve, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to provide a simpler valve casing (Yoshihara ref 75) having one less inlet port by implementing a three-way valve. A skilled artisan also realizes that that the use of a three-way valve would allow for cost savings in reducing the amount of plumbing required for the individual air and liquid lines running from the source to the valve casing. The use of one three way valve or a two way valve merely represents a design choice by one of ordinary skill in the art regarding the fluid routing lines and valve costs.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara (JP6567157B1) in view of Hsu (US 20220233019 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (WO2009028845A1).
As to claim 5, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 1, wherein the source of water is not a positively claimed limitation, thus limitations drawn to the water source are not required by the claim. Further, Yoshihara indicates that the fluid source can be tap water [0020]. However, assuming arguendo that the water source is intended to be a positively recited limitation and it is not clearly indicated that the water source to the ozone generator utilizes tap water, the following alternative rejection is provided. Modified Yoshihara does not disclose the water source being tap water, however such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Kim.
Kim discloses an art related beverage line washing device (abstract), wherein it is indicated that an ozone generator may be fed tap water in order to produce ozonated water [66].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoshihara to feed the ozone generator tap water, as such water it is known in the art to do so (Kim [66]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known water source for an ozone generator when one is not explicitly disclosed.
As to claim 6, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 1, wherein the ozone generator is capable of generating ozonated water on demand (Hsu [0007 & 0012-0013]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara (JP6567157B1) in view of Hsu (US 20220233019 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SCHRÖTTNER (EP3020680 A1) and Crick (US 20240190691 A1).
As to claim 7, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 1, but does not disclose the control valve coupled directly to the keg via the keg coupler. However, a skilled artisan recognizes that such a feature merely is an obvious rearrangement of the valve location (see MPEP 2144.04). Further, such a configuration is known in the art, as seen by SCHRÖTTNER and Crick.
SCHRÖTTNER discloses an art related beverage cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is known that a valve (e.g., ref 11) for cleaning fluid can be located directly [0037] on a coupler (ref 6) which allows for connection to a container (ref 3).
Crick discloses an art related keg and method for dispensing fluid from said keg (abstract), wherein an inlet valve (Figs.1 & 5-6 ref 17) can be provided on a coupler (Figs.1 & 5-6 ref 54) which connects to a container (Figs.1 & 5-6 ref 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoshihara to implement the control valve directly on the keg coupler for fitment onto the keg, as such a configuration is known in the art, (Crick (Figs.1 & 5-6, and SCHRÖTTNER [0037]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known location for a valve in place of another, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a modification would merely amount to a rearrangement of part with no unexpected results associated therewith (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 13 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara (JP6567157B1) in view of Hsu (US 20220233019 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Vok (US 20080189078 A1).
As to claim 13, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 9, but does not disclose a transverse cleaning conduit alignable upon reciprocation of the said outlet member in relation to the main body to pass in and out of fluid communication with any of the cleaning fluid source via the first inlet port of pressurized gas via the second inlet port. However, a coupler having an outlet member with such a configuration is known in the art, as seen by Vok.
Vok discloses an art related dispensing system and cleaning of coupler attached to a keg (abstract), wherein a known configuration for a coupler (Fig.1 ref 14) is to be provided with a transverse conduit (Figs.7A-7D ref 105) which is aligned with a cleaning liquid source (Fig.7D) or a pressurized gas source (Fig.7C) during reciprocation of the outlet member [0332-0335]. The configuration of Vok allows for remaining beverage in the line to be flushed out prior to cleaning, and ensuring flushing out of cleaning solution after cleaning [0334].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoshihara to provide the outlet member configuration of Vok in place of Yoshihara in order to ensure that beverage in the line can be flushed out before cleaning (Vok [0334], thus resulting in less beverage losses as compared to when such beverage remains in the line when a cleaning is performed.
As to claim 15, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 14, but does not explicitly disclose the means including an actuator for reciprocating the outlet member along its lengthwise axis. However, a coupler having an outlet member with such a configuration is known in the art, as seen by Vok.
Vok discloses an art related dispensing system and cleaning of coupler attached to a keg (abstract), wherein a known configuration for a coupler (Fig.1 ref 14) allows for dispensing of beverage (Fig.7B), pressurized gas (Fig.7C), and cleaning solution (Fig.7D) via different positions of a reciprocating outlet member. The movement of the outlet member along its lengthwise axis is performed via an actuator (Figs7A-7D ref 170). The actuator is one of a known type of actuation mechanism, such as a gas controlled cylinder [0331]. The configuration of Vok allows for remaining beverage in the line to be flushed out prior to cleaning, and ensuring flushing out of cleaning solution after cleaning [0334].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoshihara to provide the outlet member configuration of Vok in place of Yoshihara in order to ensure that beverage in the line can be flushed out before cleaning (Vok [0334], thus resulting in less beverage losses as compared to when such beverage remains in the line when a cleaning is performed. Such a modification would include the usage of an actuator for movement of the outlet member, as is known in the art (Vok [0331]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known means for reciprocating an outlet member in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara (JP6567157B1) in view of Hsu (US 20220233019 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Sasaki (US 20100140296 A1) and Wu (US 20210403305 A1).
As to claims 16-17, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 14, wherein an electronic control means, such as a CPU (equivalent to a computer system) allows for a user to make an input to shift between a dispensing mode to a cleaning mode (Yoshihara [0013, 0049, & 0051]) without dismantling any components of the beverage system. The only difference between Modified Yoshihara and the invention of claims 16-17 is that the electronic control means does not control the opening/closing of the control valve or coupler inlet/outlet, the travel of the outlet member, or the means for reciprocating the outlet member. However, it is well-known in the art, to utilize a controller in order to control a valve which handles the supply of cleaning fluid, as seen by Sasaki and Wu.
Sasaki discloses an art related dispenser and cleaning of component of said dispenser (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize a wash water supply valve (Fig.4 ref 60a) for controlling the flow of wash water to a component (see [0045, 0053, & 0055] i.e., a valve controlling the flow of a cleaning fluid) based on control from a computer system [0046].
Wu discloses an art related self-cleaning dispenser system for supplying a beverage (abstract), wherein an on-off valve (Fig.8 ref 23) is supplied in a line from a cleaning liquid source (Fig.8 ref 4) which can be controlled via an electronic control system (see Figs.8 & 12 ref 25 also [0061]) in order to control the flow of cleaning liquid for cleaning of the dispenser system [0061, 0065, & 0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoshihara to include a controller operated valve which allows for controlling the flow of cleaning fluid to a dispenser for the cleaning of the dispenser system (Sasaki [0045-0046, 0053, & 0055] & Wu [0061, 0065, & 0076]). In such a modification, the provision of the computer controlled cleaning fluid valve reads on the control valve and since Yoshihara desires the control of the cleaning fluid via the opening/closing of the cleaning fluid supply (see Yoshihara [0051-0053]), a skilled artisan would find it obvious to allow the button operation to also allow for controlling of the computer controlled cleaning fluid valve to allow for automating of the amount of cleaning fluid supplied without the need for the user to turn on/off the a cleaning fluid supply plug manually.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara (JP6567157B1) in view of Hsu (US 20220233019 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maser (US 20070095859 A1) and Christiansen (US 20200247657 A1).
As to claim 18, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 1, wherein a display unit is provided to indicate information to a user (Yoshihara [0052 & 0054]). Yoshihara does not disclose the presence of a GUI which interacts with a controller, however such a feature is well known in the art, as seen by Master and Christiansen.
Maser discloses an art related beverage dispensing system capable of providing a cleaning process (abstract), wherein it is known that a GUI may be utilized for controlling and monitoring a system, including in order to initiate a cleaning process based on a user input [0038]. The controller allows for cleaning of a plurality of zones [0039] for systems with multiple dispensing elements (see Fig.1 & 4-5). Maser also indicates that, in addition to the presence of local control via the GUI, a remote monitoring system via a server computer [0058].
Christiansen discloses an art related cleaning unit for a beverage dispensing system (abstract), wherein it is known that a GUI may be utilized to allow for user interaction with a control unit to control the cleaning device [0083-0084 & 0121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoshihara to utilize a GUI in order to monitor and control the dispensing/cleaning operation, as is known in the art (Maser [0038] & Christiansen [0083-0084 & 0121]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known user interface (e.g., a GUI) in place of another (e.g., buttons) with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 19, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 18, wherein it is noted that claim 18 merely requires a graphical user interface for allowing user interaction with a central control unit. Claim 18 does not actually require the central control unit. Thus, limitations drawn to the central control unit are not positively recited. Accordingly, the limitation of the central control unit controlling and monitoring a plurality of CIP units is not required by the claim. It is also noted that Maser discloses the monitoring of the cleaning process [0026].
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara (JP6567157B1) in view of Hsu (US 20220233019 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walton (US 20210371267 A1).
As to claims 20-21, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 9, wherein the outlet member has a lower end (Yoshihara Figs.3-5 ref 76d) which is configured to compress and relieve a spring means (Yoshihara Figs.3-5 ref SP2) in response to the outlet member being reciprocated along the lengthwise axis of the outlet member. The lower end allows for mating in a sealing manner with a seat of the keg (see Yoshihara Fig.5). The limitation of the lower end fitting into a seat of a compressible beverage container within the keg appears to be, at best, a recitation of intended use, and at worst a limitation directed towards a valve seat of a compressible beverage container. In the latter interpretation, such a limitation is not required as it is directed towards a compressible beverage container, which is not a positively recited element. In the former case, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the outlet member can mate with a compressible beverage container in a keg. However, assuming arguendo that Modified Yoshihara does not explicitly disclose ability to mate with a compressible beverage container in a keg, it is known in the art that dispensing operating members can be made to mate with such containers, as seen by Walton.
Walton discloses an art related beverage dispensing device (abstract), wherein it is shown that a dispensing valve operating member (see Fig.2 ref M) can be mounted onto a keg (Fig.2 ref C and [0017]) having a compressible bag therein (Figs.1-3 ref B and [0018]). Walton also showcases that the valve seat (ref V) of the bag-in-keg construction is similar to that of Yoshihara in allowing for gas to pass into the container in order to draw liquid out therefrom (see [0017-0023] & Yoshihara [0049]).
A skilled artisan would reasonably expect that the fitting of Yoshihara can be utilized with a compressible beverage container within a keg (see Yoshihara ref 60). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoshihara to allow the lower end of the outlet member to mate with a fitting of a compressible beverage container within a keg, as such bag-in-keg configurations are known an there is a desire to be able to withdrawn fluid from said bag utilizing a valve operating head (see Walton Figs.1-3).
Claim(s) 27 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara (JP6567157B1) in view of Hsu (US 20220233019 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Strothoff (US 20070193610 A1).
As to claims 27 & 30, Modified Yoshihara teaches the unit of claim 1 capable of cleaning a draught beer system, wherein the presence of a second clean-in-place unit is merely a duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04), and a skilled artisan would find it obvious to includes multiple clean-in-place units depending on the number of kegs/containers which are connected and require cleaning. Modified Yoshihara does not disclose the presence of a manifold. However, the presence of multiple beverage containers having coupler and a manifold for feeding fluid to said couplers is known in the art, as seen by Strothoff.
Strothoff discloses an art related cleaning system for beverage dispensing systems (abstract), wherein it is shown that multiple fluid couplers (Fig.1 refs 4) are provided when for multiple containers are present (see Fig.1 refs 5). Strothoff also indicates that a manifold (Fig.1 ref 10) is utilized in order to supply cleaning solution to a desired location [0021], including for the cleaning of the couplers and beverage lines.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoshihara to utilize a manifold in order provide the cleaning fluid to a desired fluid coupler for cleaning (Strothoff [0021]). A skilled artisan is also keenly aware that by utilizing a manifold reduced costs are obtained in plumbing as opposed to having individual fluid lines from the fluid source to each coupler. Accordingly, the combination of the at least two beverage containers and their respective clean-in-place units read on a system. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the manifold is capable of holding ozonated water.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara (JP6567157B1) in view of Hsu (US 20220233019 A1), Strothoff (US 20070193610 A1) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Maser (US 20070095859 A1), Carson (US 20140166053 A1), Wing (US 20170088410 A1).
As to claim 28, Modified Yoshihara teaches the system of claim 27, wherein an electronic control means is associated with the clean-in-place unit (Yoshihara [0013]). As the control means allows for controlling of cleaning/dispensing from the individual beverage container, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide an electronic control means for each beverage container, such that dispensing or cleaning from each beverage container can be controlled. Modified Yoshihara does not disclose the presence of a central control unit with software that can operate the electronic control means, however, such a feature would be obvious in view of Maser.
Maser discloses an art related beverage dispensing system capable of providing a cleaning process (abstract), wherein a local controller (ref 152, i.e., electronic control means) can interface with a remote computer (Fig.3 refs 310 or 314, Fig.10 ref 1006, i.e., a central controller) in order to allow a user to remotely control the dispensing system via the remote computer [0039 & 0092]. The remote computer allows for control of multiple beverage systems [0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoshihara to implement a central control unit with software, so that a user/technician can control multiple beverage dispensing systems which are geographically dispersed remotely (Maser [0061]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara (JP6567157B1) in view of Hsu (US 20220233019 A1), Strothoff (US 20070193610 A1), Master (US 20070095859 A1), Carson (US 20140166053 A1), Wing (US 20170088410 A1) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Vok (US 20080189078 A1).
As to claim 29, Modified Yoshihara teaches the system of claim 28, wherein the remote computer has software which allows for monitoring and analyzing beverage system data, such as the cleaning process, pressure and flow readings (Master [0058-0060 & 0062]). However, there is no indication by Modified Yoshihara that the status of the beverage containers and the clean-in-place units are monitored. However, it is known in the art to monitor such parameters, as seen by Vok.
Vok discloses an art related dispensing system related to the cleaning of the coupler and the beverage line (abstract), wherein it is known a controller can determine the status (i.e. presence) of a container and the status (e.g., shuttle position equivalent to a cleaning coupler position) of a cleaning unit [0087-0099 & 0122-0144].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yoshihara to allow for the central controller to monitor parameters pertaining to the beverage container and the cleaning unit, as disclosed by Vok so that a user or technician can be made aware of relevant parameters of the system (Vok [0087-0099 & 0122-0144] and Master [0060 & 0062]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho (KR20170060794A) showcases a beverage distribution head with a transverse conduit in a reciprocating piston (see all figures).
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 OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711