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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/21/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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:
Quick connector in Claim 2 line 4.
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.
Claims 1-6 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 1 line 2-3 recite “a refrigeration chamber is provided in the rack”. It is unclear what is meant by “provided in”. Is the rack in the refrigeration chamber or are the refrigeration coils provided in the rack?
Claim 2 line 3 recites “the bottom of the canister body” while Claim 3 line 1 recites “the lower end of the canister body”. It is unclear if “the bottom of the canister body” and “the lower end” are the same element. Also, “the bottom of the canister body” should state “a bottom of the canister body” to avoid lack or antecedent basis rejection under 112 second paragraph or 112b. If “the bottom of the canister body” and “the lower end of the canister body” are two different element, then “the lower end of the canister body” should state “a lower end of the canister body”.
Claim 2 line 4 recites “a quick connector which is installed on the silicone sleeve, and through which the pipeline system is communicated with the silicone sleeve”. It is unclear where the quick connector is located. Is it located between the sleeve and the cover or between the sleeve and the pipeline. For the purpose of this examination, it is assumed the quick connector is located between the silicone sleeve and the cover.
Claims 2-6 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 3-6 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 2.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Showalter US 10259699 (“Showalter”).
Regarding Claim 1, Showalter discloses a canister system (50, fig, 14), comprising a rack (guides 70a-c in chambers 52 for supporting the canisters 10), at least one canister (10), an ingredient storage box (83, canister with carbonated fluid), and a pipeline system (21, 85 with inlet and outlets 22, 22b, and 22c), wherein a refrigeration chamber (52) is provided in the rack (guides 70a-c in chambers 52 for supporting the canisters 10), the canister (10) is stored in the refrigeration chamber (52), and the canister (10) is communicated with the ingredient storage box (carbonated fluid 83) through the pipeline system (21, 85), and wherein the canister comprises a canister body (23), a canister cover (upper surface of canister 10) which is installed on the canister body (23), and a feeding pipeline (21) which is installed on the canister cover (upper surface of canister 10, see fig. 26) and is communicated with the pipeline system.
The bubble tea machine is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Showalter US 10259699 (“Showalter”) in view of Dobbins et al. US PG PUB 20210363985 (“Dobbins”).
Regarding Claim 2, Showalter discloses the feeding pipeline (21) comprises a sleeve (15b) which is installed on (fig. 26) the canister cover (upper surface of canister 10, see fig. 26), a feeding pipe (21) which is installed at the lower end of the sleeve (15b) and extends to the bottom of the canister body (23), and a quick connector (col. 9 lines 20-26, “What is important is the V-shape (e.g., funnel shape) female coupling 15, which is configured to receive a corresponding V-shape male coupling 15b (see FIG. 11 for example) to quickly create a friction air tight seal under the influence of a weight load applied to the V-shape male coupling”) which is installed on the silicone sleeve, and through which the pipeline system is communicated with the silicone sleeve.
Showalter discloses the claimed invention, except a sleeve that is silicone.
Dobbins teaches a silicone tubing (para 0056).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plastic bio-degradable tubing, as disclosed by Showalter, with a silicone tubing, as taught by Dobbins for the purpose of maintaining a high level of sanitation. Even though Showalter discloses using biodegradable bags and canister bodies, Showalter is silent with regard to using a biodegradable tubing. Thus, using a silicone tubing is a durable and common tubing used in the food industry. The silicone tubing is also a small percentage of the waste in producing a canister.
Regarding Claim 3, Showalter embodiment of fig. 12, illustrates a flat bottom and fails to illustrate a funnel shaped lower end.
Showalter embodiment of fig. 35C has a sloped floor, 125.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flat bottom of the lower end of the canister body, as disclosed by Showalter fig. 14, with a sloped bottom, as taught by Showalter fig. 35C, for the purpose of assisting in guiding beverages into the auger or lifting silo.
Regarding Claim 4 Showalter discloses the lower end of the canister body (23) is provided with a discharge port (57), and the canister further includes an end cover (see fig. 40C), which is screwed at the discharge port (57). Showalter discloses embodiments with an upper discharge port and a lower discharge port. Showalter fig. 40C illustrates a lower discharge port cap 57 and a discharge port safety valve 113a. Fig. 40C does not illustrate the connections of the valve, discharge port, or cover cap nor are they discussed in the specification. However, the discharge port, valve (113a) and “screw on connection of the cap are illustrated in figs. 36A and 36B and discussed in col. 21 lines 59-64, “FIGS. 36A-36B illustrate side views of a drink container or keg with a screw-on cap, two couplings, two safety valves, and well tube 22, according to an aspect.”
Regarding Claim 5, Showalter discloses the canister body further comprises a handle (132, fig. 36E), which is installed on the side of the canister body (see fig. 36E).
Regarding Claim 6, Showalter discloses the canister cover is provided with a canister door (top lid 53) which is hinged (hinges 60, col. 11 lines 22-25) with the canister cover (upper surface of canister 10, see fig. 12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Russell et al. US 10494247, Showalter US 11027961, Yoshida et al. US PG PUB 20120152976 disclose dispensers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daphne Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-9966 and fax number is (571) 273-9966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9 AM-6 PM (eastern).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor either Kenneth 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/DAPHNE M BARRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753