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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 5, line 6, “filled at more one dispensing point” is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 - 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe et al. (5950691).
Regarding claim 1, the Abe et al. reference discloses a method of dispensing finished beverages, comprising: dispensing a first volume of a first finished beverage (66; see 21 in Fig. 1) into a first vessel (C) at a first dispensing point (S1), the first volume being less than a final finished beverage volume; automatically moving (via conveyor 11) the first vessel from the first dispensing point (S1) to a second dispensing point (S2); and topping-off the first vessel to the final finished beverage volume by dispensing more of the first finished beverage into the first vessel at the second dispensing point (S2).
Regarding claim 3, wherein automatically moving the first vessel comprises advancing a conveyor on which the first vessel rides. See column 2, lines 60-65.
Regarding claim 4, further comprising positioning a plurality of additional vessels (C) on the conveyor (11), wherein advancing the conveyor moves the additional vessels. See the plurality of containers (C) in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 5, wherein advancing the conveyor (11) moves one of the additional vessels (C) to the first dispensing point. This is inherent to the device.
Regarding claim 6, further comprising dispensing a finished second beverage into a second vessel (C) at the first dispensing point (S1), wherein the second finished beverage is not available at the second dispensing point. This would be inherent, since the second dispensing point is capable of dispensing a first finished beverage. The “beverage” can be the same but labeled as “first” and “second”.
Regarding claim 7, further comprising dispensing a second finished beverage into a second vessel (C) at the second dispensing point (S2), wherein the second finished beverage is not available at the first dispensing point. This would be inherent, since the second finished beverage is defined at the second dispensing point.
Regarding claim 8, further comprising: automatically moving a second vessel (i.e., any vessel C can be defined as a second vessel) to the first dispensing point (S1); and dispensing a second finished beverage into the second vessel at the first dispensing point at least partially while topping-off the first vessel (C). This would be inherent, since “second finished beverage” and “first finished beverage” are only distinguished by “first” and “second”. The “beverage” can be the same but labeled as “first” and “second”.
Regarding claim 9, further comprising: automatically moving (conveyor 11) the second vessel (C) from the first dispensing point to the second dispensing point (S2); and topping-off the second vessel by dispensing more of the second finished beverage into the second vessel at the second dispensing point (inherent). See column 5, lines 25 – 40.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al.
Regarding claim 2, the Abe et al. reference discloses wherein dispensing the first volume takes an initial pour time, automatically moving takes a movement time, and topping-off takes a topping-off time (col. 4, line 39 – col. 5, line 30), but doesn’t disclose wherein the movement time and the topping-off time together are less than or equal to the initial pour time. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust movement time and the topping-off time together to be less than or equal to the initial pour time, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617F 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Welch et al. reference (12595164) is the related patent disclosing relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
