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 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 3 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.
In claim 3 the phrase “wherein the beverage filler system may include one or more bases” make the claim ambiguous. The permissive phrase “may include” renders the scope uncertain because it does not positively recite whether the beverage filler system includes one or more bases.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 16, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (2004/129342) in view of Hines (6,817,716).
As to claim 1 and 16, Anderson discloses a beverage filler system (figure 5 and 112). The “a base configured to support a vessel” is met by rotating table 114 and the “a beverage controller configured to control a flow of a beverage into the vessel” is met by control unit 116. In addition, control unit 116 receives a signal if a glass is present and control the flow of the beverage and lighting effects. Anderson does not specify the use of a special effects system in the manner now claimed.
Hines disclose a special effect system using a semi-reflective mirror (figure 3 and 4) to provide entertainment and amusement to the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the special effect system to the beverage system of Anderson because it would provide amusement and encourage sales.
As to claim 2 and 16, Anderson discloses that valve 22 is used to control the flow of the beverage.
Regarding claim 3, Anderson shows in figure 5 that the beverage filler system may include one or more bases.
As to claim 4 and 16, Hines teaches that the first side of the semi-reflective mirror comprises an antireflective coating (Col 4, line 55).
In consideration of claim 5 and 18, Anderson teaches that the second side of the semi-reflective mirror is substantially brighter than an environment of the first side of the semi-reflective mirror (Col 4. Lines 54-57).
As to claim 6, Anderson teaches that that the rotating table is to be activated by the control.
As to claim 7, Hines that the second side of the semi-reflective mirror is at least partially transmissive to visible light (Figure 3).
In consideration of 8, Hines disclose the use of a video tape player with his system (figure 3) to enable prerecord content.
As to claim 9, 19 and 20, Anderson discloses the use pressure sensor ([0037]) to determine the presence or absence of a glass.
Regarding claim 10, the system of Anderson determined the presence of an observer by use of the pressure senor when the observer place a glass on the platform.
Claim 11 is rejected on similar basis as claim 1.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (2004/129342) and Hines (6,817,716) as applied to claim 11 above Stembridge et al. (4,798,232).
As to claim 12, Anderson and Hines do not specify monitoring, via the beverage filler system, the flow of the beverage into the vessel; and determining, via the control system, a fill level of the vessel based on sensor data. Stembridge et al. teach a system to monitor and automatically control the filling of drinks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the drink control system of Stembridge et al. to the system of Anderson and Hines because it would prevent the over filling of cups and reduce the mess.
As to claim 13, both Anderson and Hines teach that the displaying of the special effect is time limited and thus is stopped by the system.
In regards to claim 14, Hines shows in figure 4 show that the prop will rotate allowing the user to see it from all angles.
As to claims 15, Hines teaches the use of a semi-reflective mirror (figure 4, 51).
Claim(s) 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (2004/129342) and Hines (6,817,716) as applied to claim 16 above Springer (2021/0039942)).
As to claim 17, Anderson and Hines do not specify that their system is configured to flow the beverage into the vessel from a bottom of the vessel through a valve of the vessel. Springer disclose a system for filling beer glasses from the bottom improve the quality of the beer served. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the bottom filling system of Springer to the system of Anderson and Hines because it would improve the quality of the beer served and increase yield per keg.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN J FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-1915. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-4 M-F.
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.
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.
/NATHAN J FLYNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights