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 .
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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-3, 9, and 13-17 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-8, 10-12, and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant’s election of 1d, 4c, 5j, 6a, 7c, 8g, and 12b in the reply filed on 09/04/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). In the response filed 09/04/26 Applicant failed to specifically indicate an election of species from each of groups 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11. However, group 3a and group 9a appears elected because the elected claims are drawn to associated structures. The elected claims appear generic to groups 2, 10, and 11 and therefore the requirement to elect between species within those groups is withdrawn at this time.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “(see Fig. 3f)” is unclear because there is no Fig. 3f depicted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 382. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
IN REGARDS TO US 12466720
Claims 1-3, 9, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 9, and 13 of US 12466720. Although the claims at issue are not identical to that of US 12466720 they are not patentably distinct from each other because the aforementioned claims of US 12466720 contain all the limitations of claims 1-3, 9, and 13 of the instant application as set forth in the table below.
Claim Nos. of Instant Application
Claim Nos. of US 12466720
1
1
2
2
3
3
9
9
13
13
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 12466720. Although the claims at issue are not identical to that of US 12466720, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations claim 1 of US 12466720 contain all the scope of claim 14 of the instant application except for the particular structure of the CF valve specifically including “one or more of the first CF valve and the second CF valve includes a diaphragm and a spring”. US 10696531 to Newton et al teaches a dispensing system comprising a constant flow valve including: a) a valve housing (22a) having an inlet port (30a) and an outlet port (54a) adapted to be connected to the variable pressure fluid supply and the fluid outlet; b) a diaphragm chamber interposed between the inlet port and the outlet port (Fig. 5g); c) a cup (38a) contained within the diaphragm chamber; d) a diaphragm (40a) closing the cup; e) a piston assembly (34a, 42a, 46a, 48a) secured to a center of the diaphragm (Fig. 5g), the piston assembly having a cap (46a) and a base (34a); f) a stem (42a) projecting from the cap through a first passageway (44a) in a barrier wall to terminate in a valve head (48a); and g) a spring (52a) in the cup coacting with the base of the piston assembly for urging the diaphragm into a closed position (Col. 5, Ln. 15-21), and the spring being responsive to fluid pressure above a predetermined level to adjust a size of a control orifice (Col. 7, Ln. 64-67). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the aforementioned silence of claim 1 of US 12466720 regarding the particular structure of the constant flow valve to provide that CF valve according to the aforementioned teachings from Newton.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 12466720. Although the claims at issue are not identical to that of US 12466720, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations claim 1 of US 12466720 contain all the scope of claim 15 of the instant application except for “a cleaning source and cleaning valve”. Doelman teaches a dispensing system (Fig. 2) comprising a beverage ingredient contained in a flexible bag held in a pressure reservoir (32, 49) and that beverage ingredient feed to an outlet nozzle (30) and water fed to that outlet nozzle by a valve (46), wherein the water can be used to clean the nozzle (Col. 12, Ln. 36)—such that the water is a “cleaning source” and the valve is a “cleaning valve”, as claimed. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide the structure according to Doelman for reasons including to provide a means for cleaning an outlet nozzle.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 12466720. Although the claims at issue are not identical to that of US 12466720, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations claim 1 of US 12466720 contain all the scope of claim 16 of the instant application except for “a plurality of pressure vessels including an inlet and an outlet and each pressure vessel including a first CF valve coupled to the inlet and a second CF valve coupled to the outlet”. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have arranged a plurality of pressure vessels of claim 1 since it has been generally held that where the structural limitations of a claim have been disclosed, the mere duplication of parts is considered to be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 12466720. Although the claims at issue are not identical to that of US 12466720, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations claim 1 of US 12466720 contain the scope of claim 16 as set forth above except for “each pressure vessel is engaged via one or more buttons”. US 5251790 to Cohn et al teaches a plurality of pressure vessels (12, 13, 14) and a plurality of buttons (B1, B2, B3; Fig. 1), wherein the buttons engage the pressure vessels for allowing a user to choose for dispensing between a variety of beverage types. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify claim 1 of US 12466720 according to the aforementioned teachings from Cohn for reasons including to allow a user to choose for dispensing between a variety of beverage types.
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 13-14 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.
As per claims 13 and 14, the limitations “the first CFValve” and “the second CFValve” have unclear antecedent basis in the claims. Corrections may include “the first CF Valve” and “the second CF Valve”.
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 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”).
As per claim 1, Newton1 discloses a dispensing system (530) comprising:
a pressure vessel (126) with an inlet (valve 532 feeding gas into an inlet of the pressure vessel; Fig. 5c) and an outlet (valve 514 feeding concentrate from an outlet of the vessel; Fig. 5c);
a first CF valve (532; Col. 3, Ln. 51-53) coupled to the inlet;
a second CF valve (514; Col. 3, Ln. 51-53) coupled to the outlet;
a bag (128) with elements (128) in the bag coupled to the outlet and located inside the pressure vessel (Fig. 5c);
a pressure source (carbon dioxide coupled to input area 122; Fig. 5c; Col. 3, Ln. 46-48) coupled to the first valve (Fig. 5c); and
wherein the second CF valve dispenses the elements to a dispensing area (120; Col. 3, Ln. 44-55).
Newton1 does not explicitly disclose how the valve control transporting the elements in the bag. Newton2 teaches a dispensing system comprising a pressure vessel (10) and a bag (18) containing elements (20), the system comprising a first valve (52) coupled to an inlet of the pressure vessel and pressurizes the pressure vessel via the pressure source to transport elements in the bag (abstract). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Newton1 according to the aforementioned teachings from Newton2 to use the valves of Newton1 to transport elements from inside the bag to outside of the pressure vessel.
As per claim 16, those limitations identical in scope to that of claim 1 are identically rejected as set forth above in regards to claim 1. The Newton1-Newton2 does not disclose “a plurality of pressure vessels including an inlet and an outlet and each pressure vessel including a first CF valve coupled to the inlet and a second CF valve coupled to the outlet”. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the Newton1-Newton2 to have arranged a plurality of pressure vessels since it has been generally held that where the structural limitations of a claim have been disclosed, the mere duplication of parts is considered to be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”) in view of US 8181822 to Doelman et al.
As per claims 2-3, the Newton1-Newton2 combination discloses the claimed invention except for a temperature sensor. Doelman teaches a dispensing system comprising: a pressure vessel having an interior environment and a compressible container containing liquid beverage disposed inside the pressure vessel (Col. 4, ln. 1-6) and a gas source providing gaseous pressure in the pressure vessel to exert force on an external surface of the compressible container (i.e. for expelling the beverage from the compressible container) (Col. 4, Ln. 13-16) and a temperature sensor disposed within the pressure vessel and a controller controlling the gas source (i.e. pressure material flow) based on input from the temperature sensor (Col. 4, Ln. 16-20) to dispense liquid from the compressible container at a desired flow rate (Col. 5, Ln. 3-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Newton1-Newton2 combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Doelman for reasons including to provide a precise amount of elements from the at a desired flow rate.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”) in view of US 2751127 to Mitton.
As per claim 9, the Newton1-Newton2 combination discloses the claimed invention except for the particular structure of the pressure vessel. Mitton teaches a dispensing system comprising a pressure vessel (10) and a bag (32) contained within the pressure vessel, wherein the pressure vessel comprising a body (11) and a lid (21) with teeth attachments (20) for connecting to the body. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Newton1-Newton2 combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Mitton for reasons including to provide a means for opening the pressure vessel to service the bag contained within it.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”) in view of a second embodiment in US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1b”
As per claim 13, Newton1 further discloses the first valve is configured to maintain a relative constant flow of fluid from a variable pressure fluid supply to a fluid outlet (Col. Ln. 26 “CF valve”). The Newton1-Newton2 combination does not disclose the particular structure of the CF valve.
Newton1b teaches a dispensing system comprising a constant flow valve (Fig. 5g) including: a base (see Figure A, below) having a wall segment terminating in an upper rim, and a projecting first flange; a cap having a projecting ledge and a projecting second flange, the wall segment of the base being located inside the cap with a space between the upper rim of the base and the projecting ledge of the cap; a barrier wall subdividing an interior of a housing into a head section and a base section; a modulating assembly subdividing the base section into a fluid chamber and a spring chamber; an inlet in the cap for connecting the head section to a fluid source; a port in the barrier wall connecting the head section to the fluid chamber, the port being aligned with a central first axis of the CF Valve; an outlet in the cap communicating with the fluid chamber, the outlet being aligned on a second axis transverse to the first axis; a stem projecting from the modulating assembly along the first axis through the port into the head section; a diaphragm supporting the modulating assembly within the housing for movement in opposite directions along the first axis, a spring in the spring chamber (see Figure A, below), the spring being arranged to urge the modulating assembly into a closed position at which the diaphragm is in sealing contact with the barrier wall (Col. 7, ln. 55-67), and the spring being responsive to fluid pressure above a predetermined level to adjust a size of a control orifice (Col. 7, ln. 55-67). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the aforementioned silence of the Newton1-Newton2 combination regarding the particular structure of the constant flow valve to provide that CF valve according to the aforementioned teachings from Newton1b.
PNG
media_image1.png
716
898
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: US 10696531, Fig. 5G - annotated
As per claim 14, the Newton1-Newton2 combination discloses the claimed structure except for the particular structure of the CF valve. Newton1 further teaches a CF valve (Fig. 5g) comprising one or more of the first CFValve and the second CFValve includes a diaphragm (40a) and a spring a spring (52a). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the aforementioned silence of the Newton1-Newton2 combination regarding the particular structure of the constant flow valve to provide that CF valve according to the aforementioned teachings from Newton1b.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”) in view of US 8678234 to Doelman et al.
As per claim 15, the Newton1-Newton2 combination discloses the claimed invention except for a cleaning source and cleaning valve. Doelman teaches a dispensing system (Fig. 2) comprising a beverage ingredient contained in a flexible bag held in a pressure reservoir (32, 49) and that beverage ingredient feed to an outlet nozzle (30) and water fed to that outlet nozzle by a valve (46), wherein the water can be used to clean the nozzle (Col. 12, Ln. 36)—such that the water is a “cleaning source” and the valve is a “cleaning valve”, as claimed. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Newton1-Newton2 combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Doelman for reasons including to provide a means for cleaning an outlet nozzle.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10696531 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton1”) in view of US 10654701 to Newton et al (referred to herein as “Newton2”) in view of US 5251790 to Cohn.
As per claim 17, the Newton1-Newton2 combination discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in regards to claim 16 except for “each pressure vessel is engaged via one or more buttons”. US 5251790 to Cohn et al teaches a plurality of pressure vessels (12, 13, 14) and a plurality of buttons (B1, B2, B3; Fig. 1), wherein the buttons engage the pressure vessels for allowing a user to choose for dispensing between a variety of beverage types. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Newton1-Newton2 combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Cohn for reasons including to allow a user to choose to dispense from among a variety of beverage types.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 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 Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 30, 2026
