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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 26 May 2026 is acknowledged. New claims 39-48 read upon the elected Group.
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.
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(s) 1-14, 39, 42-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pinedjian (6,695,168).
In re claim 1, Pinedjian discloses a beverage dispenser comprising:
a nozzle (40) comprising a beverage inlet (inlet of 40, fig.3) in fluid communication with a beverage outlet (outlet of 40, bottom of nozzle shown in fig.3) to define a beverage flow path, an open configuration operable to dispense a beverage from the nozzle, and a closed configuration operable to store a volume of beverage within the nozzle; and
a means for selectively purging gas from the nozzle in the closed configuration (valve 64 and controller 150).
In re claim 2, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 1, where the means for selectively purging comprises a conduit (shown in fig.3) having a conduit inlet in pneumatic communication with a conduit outlet to form a pneumatic flow path, and where the conduit inlet is in pneumatic communication with the beverage flow path, and the conduit outlet is in pneumatic communication with ambient (col.11 ln.42 – col.12 ln.18).
In re claim 3, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 2, where the conduit comprises a channel disposed in the nozzle and positioned at a beverage inlet end portion of the nozzle, the conduit providing pneumatic communication between the beverage flow path and ambient (fig.3).
In re claim 4, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 2, where the means for selectively purging comprises a valve (64) operable to selectively open and close the pneumatic flow path.
In re claim 5, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 1, where the means for selectively purging comprises a purge port (port at T between 38 and 62) providing pneumatic communication between the beverage flow path and ambient.
In re claim 6, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 5, where the means for selectively purging comprises a valve (64) operable to selectively open and close the purge port.
In re claim 7, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 6, where the valve is manually operable to selectively open and close the purge port (abstract).
In re claim 8, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 6, comprising a control system (150) for selectively opening and closing the purge port.
In re claim 9, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 8, where the control system is configured to selectively open and close the purge port based on a predetermined parameter setting selected from: nozzle purge time, nozzle idle purge time, beverage carbonation level, ambient temperature, beverage temperature, and beverage static pressure (col.11 ln.42 – col.12 ln.18).
In re claim 10, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 1, comprising a cooling mechanism (34, 48) in thermal communication with at least one of the nozzle and the beverage flow path.
In re claim 11, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 1, comprising a nozzle cooling line having an inlet in fluid communication with an outlet to define a coolant flow path (fig.3), where the nozzle cooling line is configured to receive refrigerated coolant in the coolant flow path, and where the coolant flow path is in thermal communication with the beverage flow path (fig.3).
In re claim 12, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 11, where the coolant line is at least one of:
In re claim 13, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 1, comprising an antimicrobial element (fig.9, 148) operable to sanitize a beverage-contacting surface of the nozzle.
In re claim 14, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 1, where the nozzle comprises an elongate actuator rod portion (rod shown in figs.3-4) slidingly disposed within a bore of an elongate body portion, where the actuator rod portion and the body portion cooperate to form the beverage flow path (figs.3-4).
In re claim 39, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 13, where the antimicrobial element is coupled to the nozzle and positioned to expose a surface of the nozzle to antimicrobial light radiation at an intensity sufficient to initiate inactivity of microorganisms and disinfect the surface of the nozzle (fig.9, col.28 ln.27 – col.30 ln.4).
In re claim 42, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 13, where the nozzle is a bottom filling nozzle (fig.3).
In re claim 43, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 13, where the nozzle is one of a commercial beverage dispensing nozzle, a consumer beverage dispensing nozzle, and an industrial beverage dispensing nozzle (purely functional intended end use, each is anticipated by the nozzle shown in fig.3).
In re claim 44, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 1, where the means for selectively purging gas comprises a control system configured to selectively purge gas from the nozzle in the closed configuration based on a predetermined parameter setting selected from: nozzle purge time, nozzle idle purge time, beverage carbonation level, ambient temperature, beverage temperature, and beverage static pressure (col.11 ln.42 – col.12 ln.18).
In re claim 45, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 44, where the control system is configured to selectively purge gas from the nozzle in the closed configuration with the nozzle storing a volume of beverage (col.11 ln.42 – col.12 ln.18).
In re claim 46, Pinedjian discloses the dispenser of claim 1, where the means for selectively purging gas is configured to purge gas from the nozzle in the closed configuration with the nozzle storing a volume of beverage (col.11 ln.42 – col.12 ln.18).
In re claim 47, see the rejection of claims 1 and 5-9 as similar reasoning applies.
In re claim 48, see the rejections of claims 1-9 as similar reasoning applies.
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) 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinedjian in view of Barron (11,541,135).
In re claim 40-41, Pinedjian discloses the use of an ultraviolet light source in order to maintain sterility of the nozzle. However, Pinedjain fails to disclose the explicitly claims light sources of claims 40-41.
Barron teaches another light source for disinfection wherein the antimicrobial element comprises an antimicrobial/UV-free antimicrobial LED (col.6 ln.17-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to utilize the specific anti-microbial LED as taught by Barron, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, Barron teaches the motivation for selection such a light source over a UV light, e.g. antimicrobial LED are generally safe for human exposure while UV lights are not. Selection of a specific disinfecting light source is akin to find the last piece in a puzzle—it requires no skill.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the rejection for the discussion of one of the cited but not relied upon references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy P. Kelly whose telephone number is (571)270-7615. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (ET) on Monday, Thursday, and Friday.
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 M 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.
/Timothy P. Kelly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights