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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPub 2022/0127041 (Hazen).
In Re claim 1 Hazen discloses a method for packaging a beverage in a beverage container, the method comprising: filling and sealing a beverage container (1500) having a valve (1520) with a beverage to form a base beverage at a first facility (step 110 in Figure 1); transporting the beverage container to a second location remote from the first facility (step 120 in Figure 1); and dosing the base composition in the beverage container with an additive through the valve to form an infused beverage at the second facility (step 130 in Figure 1, shown in detail in Figure 16).
In Re claim 2 Hazen discloses a regulated ingredient comprising a liquid emulsion of botanical extract (THC in the abstract).
In Re claim 3 Hazen discloses a method of dosing a beverage in a beverage container, the method comprising: providing a sealed beverage container containing a base composition (step 110 in Figure 1), the sealed beverage container (1500) having a valve (1520); orienting the beverage container to align the valve with a dosing nozzle (1610); interfacing the dosing nozzle with the valve (shown in Figure 16A); and injecting an additive (1564) into the beverage container through the valve with the dosing nozzle (shown in Figure 16B).
In Re claim 6 Hazen discloses an apparatus for dosing a previously sealed beverage container having a valve comprising: a conveyance (conveyor 910) arranged and disposed to position an orientable fixture (trays 1410 and 1420 are positioned by guide rails 1440 and 1450) for positioning the beverage containers (1500) and the valve(1520); at least one dosing head having at least one dosing nozzle (amendment container 1620); and at least one vessel (3212) in selective liquid communication with the dosing nozzle to inject additive into the sealed beverage container; wherein the dosing nozzle is actuatable to interface the dosing nozzle with the valve and inject the additive into the beverage container from the at least one vessel through the valve (shown in Figure 16).
In Re claim 9 Hazen discloses a plurality of vessels, each including an independent additive (3211-3215).
In Re claim 10 Hazen discloses independent pumps which can vary the additive dosed to each vessel (multiple pumps in Paragraph 0328).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazen in view of CN 211813380 (Shi) (a translation of Shi was included with this document; Page numbers below refer to this translation).
In Re claim 4 Hazen discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose the use of a blower.
Shi discloses a filling operation which uses a blower to remove debris from a filling area (Page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Hazen method by adding directing an air blower toward the valve to remove dust and debris, in order to prevent debris from contaminating a filling operation.
In Re claim 7 Hazen discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose a blower.
Shi discloses a filling operation which uses a blower to remove debris from a filling area (Page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Hazen apparatus by adding a blower, in order to prevent debris from contaminating a filling operation.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazen in view of US PGPub 2020/0087131 (Melrose).
In Re claim 5 Hazen discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose directing an ultraviolet light array to sterilize the valve.
Melrose discloses a filling operation which uses an ultraviolet light array to sterilize a filling operation (Paragraph 85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Hazen apparatus by directing an ultraviolet light array toward the valve, in order to prevent microorganisms from contaminating a filling operation.
In Re claim 8 Hazen discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose an ultraviolet light array.
Melrose discloses a filling operation which uses an ultraviolet light array to sterilize a filling operation (Paragraph 85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Hazen apparatus by adding an ultraviolet light array, in order to prevent microorganisms from contaminating a filling operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KAROL NIESZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, 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.
/JASON K NIESZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights