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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Phrases that can be implied, such a “is provided” (see line 1) should not be present therein.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 11, line 15, “Latching hooks 28” should be “Latching hooks 29”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The terms/limitations “memory” (see claim 12, line 2); “non-return valve element” (see claim 16, line 2); and “plug connection” (as used in claim 26) do not have an antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 17, the limitation “the pressure sensor is inserted into the keg coupler” is inaccurate in that the disclosed pressure sensor 21 in inserted into the gas adapter 28 (as opposed to the keg coupler 3) and it is the gas adapter 28 that is inserted into the keg coupler 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by Perkins et al. (US 2012/0059513, as cited by the Applicant, hereinafter Perkins).
In regard to claims 11, 13, 15-18 and 22-25, the Perkins reference discloses a keg coupler arrangement for connection to a beverage keg 10, the keg coupler arrangement comprising:
a keg coupler 56 (wherein the keg coupler includes sensor box 24 embedded therein, see paragraph 0028, lines 1-2); and
an antenna for reading out data (see paragraph 0036, lines 1-5).
In regard to claims 12 and 21, the antenna may be an NFC/RFID antenna configured to read out data from a memory of a fitting of the beverage keg (see paragraphs 0036, 0037).
In regard to claim 14, an electronic unit is arranged directly on the keg coupler, i.e., see paragraph 0031 wherein electronic units such as LED displays, wireless receivers, communication modules, etc. are disclosed as being included in the sensor box (wherein, as discussed above, the sensor box is embedded in the keg coupler and thereby considered part of the keg coupler).
In regard to claim 19, a gas adapter 60 is connected directly to the keg coupler.
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.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of EP 2730537 (as cited by the Applicant, hereinafter ‘537).
In regard to claim 20, although the Perkins reference does not disclose the keg coupler is at least partially made from plastic, attention is directed to the ‘537 reference, which discloses another keg coupler 2 which is at least partially made from plastic in order to lower manufacturing costs (see paragraph 0007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the keg coupler in the Perkins device can be at least partially made from plastic in order to lower the manufacturing costs.
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of EP 0269152 (as cited by the Applicant, hereinafter ‘152).
In regard to claim 26, although the Perkins reference does not disclose the gas adapter is directly coupled to the keg coupler by a plug connection, attention is directed to the ‘152 reference, which discloses another keg coupler 14 having a gas adapter 23 wherein the gas adapter is coupled to the keg coupler by a plug connection (the plug defined by portion 22 of the gas adapter) in order to enable a non-return valve to be employed with the gas adapter. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the gas adapter in the Perkins device can be coupled to the keg coupler via a plug connection in order to enable a non-return valve to be employed with the gas adapter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Lorkowski and Dalton et al. references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of other keg coupler systems employing pressure and flow sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
9/11/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
