DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
The following Claims recite limitations which have insufficient antecedent basis. The Claims and respective limitations include the following: Claim 1, "the lid" in line 5; Claim 2, "the regulator" in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected (as indefinitely understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincaid (US 2019/0173277) in view of Brent (US 6783034);
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincaid in view of Brent, as applied to claim 1 (as indefinitely understood above) and further in view of Vanderberg (US 2013/0214501.)
Kincaid discloses in claim 1: (see at least annotated figure 25 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
646
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A beverage transport/dispenser (100 figure 1), comprising: a main body (115) comprising a round wall (115 is cylindrically round) including an outer shell (115 has an outer shell) and thermal insulation (insulated sidewalls 360 figure 13 ph 0052), the round wall defining an opening (rim opening of 295) on top and an inner compartment sized for one or more beverage keg types (ph 0051, Sixth Barrel or Cornelius keg); a multifunctional lid (500/550(107)/600 figures 24-27 as applied to figure 7 as the case may be) formed to cover the opening (500 is the base of the cover/lid, 550/107 covers 500 to seal the top, and 600 can seat into 550), the lid comprising an outer surface (the top of 500 or 550/107) and an inner surface (the inside or bottom of 500 or 550/107) and portions defining a first opening (for 520’s/540 of 500 figure 22) and a second opening (id), the first and the second openings allowing tubes (figure 23, with the tubes for 520 and 280 and ph 0051, 0055) to extend through the lid from the outer surface to the inner surface and into the inner compartment when the lid is mounted on the main body (as shown), the lid and the main body comprising a mechanism (protrusions of 501 engage 105, and the hinge of 550 and 600) to attach the lid to the main body at the opening on top of the main body, thereby covering the inner compartment and allowing opening and closing the lid on the main body; a beverage tube fitting (connecting tube of 190 to 300) comprising a first beverage tube fitting component (at 1002) and a second beverage tube fitting component (at 1004 (not shown)); and a gas tube fitting (and regulator 280 to 300) comprising a first gas tube fitting component (at 1006) and a second gas tube fitting component (at 1008); wherein: the lid comprises a dispensing tower (600) and a tower mount (hinge abutment connection of 600 at 1010), the tower mount attaching the dispensing tower to the outer surface above the first opening and allowing the dispensing tower to be lowered to lie flat on the lid in a first position (as seated and closed into 210 as applied to figure 24) and to be raised to stand erect on the lid in a second position (the up position); the dispensing tower comprises an upper end and a lower end (top and bottom), the lower end being nearer to the tower mount than the upper end, a faucet (190) at the upper end, and an upper beverage conduit (the tube 1012 that runs to the faucet 190) comprising a first end coupled to the faucet (at 1004 end) and a second end extending through the first opening and attached to the first beverage tube fitting component (at 1002); and the lid further comprises a gas canister retainer (at 1014) to hold a canister (of 280) of compressed carbon dioxide (per ph 0051) on the outer surface, a pressure regulator (per ph 0051) with a gas input and a gas output (as necessarily the case), a regulator mount (also at 1014 per ph 0051) supporting the pressure regulator (of 280) on the outer surface of the lid (in 515), and an upper gas conduit (tube at 1016 not shown but see ph 0055) comprising a first end (at the end 1008) coupled to the gas output (of 280) and a second end extending through the second opening and attached to the first gas tube fitting component (at 1006.) Kinkaid does not explicitly disclose: quick disconnect fittings for the beverage tube and gas tubes for the respective connections; but Brent teaches: using quick disconnect fittings (Col 3 ln 55-Col 4 ln 4) for the beverage tube and gas tubes for the respective connections (providing ease of conduit hookup to the keg.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Kinkaid as taught in Brent with quick disconnect fittings for the beverage tube and gas tube respective connections of Kinkaid as taught in Brent, and all provided for the ease of conduit hookup to the keg.
Kincaid discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 2: The beverage transport/dispenser of claim 1, further comprising the canister (280), the canister being coupled to the gas input of the regulator (per ph 0051); but Kinkaid does not disclose: the main body is rotomolded; but Vanderberg teaches: rotational molding the container (ph 306, provided as a method of manufacturing the insulated container.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Kinkaid as taught in Vanderberg, with rotational molding of the container, all provided as a method of manufacturing the insulated container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 4-20 depend from what would be an allowable parent claim including all the limitations therein.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious in Claim 3 the following: “…a lower beverage conduit comprising a first end coupled to the beverage flow port and a second end attached to the second beverage tube fitting component; and a lower gas conduit comprising a first end coupled to the gas input port and a second end attached to the second gas tube fitting component; wherein the keg, the keg coupler, the lower beverage conduit, and the lower gas conduit are placed in the inner compartment, the first beverage tube fitting component and the second beverage tube fitting component are coupled together, and the first gas tube fitting component and the second gas tube fitting component are coupled together, so that when the CO2 is allowed to flow from the canister, the beverage may be poured by opening the faucet” in combination with the other limitations set forth above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571)-272-4881, or Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753