Dispensing – With casing or support
Reexamination Certificate
2001-08-15
2002-06-04
Doerrler, William C. (Department: 3754)
Dispensing
With casing or support
C222S185100
Reexamination Certificate
active
06398078
ABSTRACT:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
Not applicable.
1. Background—Field of Invention
This invention relates to beverage bottle packaging and beverage dispensing, specifically, to an improved point-of-sale package for multiple, large bottles of beverage.
2. Background—Description of Prior Art
The development of PET bottles, that are suitable for carbonated beverages, has had an enormous impact on the packaging and marketing of soft drinks. Much of current production is bottled in two liter, or larger, plastic bottles. The bottles themselves are strong and light weight, and are very popular with the buying public. However, there are some well-recognized problems, associated with large bottles of beverage.
Due to the volume of beverage in one bottle, it sometimes takes several days for a bottle to be emptied. Unless a consumer is careful to keep the bottle tightly capped between pourings, much of the carbonation can be lost and the beverage will “go flat”.
The walls of PET bottles are relatively impermeable to carbon dioxide, and when tightly capped will maintain carbonation for a long time. However, the bottle must be able to maintain sufficient pressure to keep the carbon dioxide dissolved in the beverage; when the bottle is not tightly sealed, the pressure is reduced to near atmospheric, and carbon dioxide will come out of solution, and be subsequently lost to the atmosphere.
Loss of carbonation is often evident when young children use such bottles. Children are relatively weak and sometimes careless; they often fail to sufficiently tighten the bottle cap when replacing it. Another reason for loose caps is that there is no visual distinction between a tightly capped bottle, and one that is loosely capped and losing carbonation.
Additionally, full bottles are heavy and awkward; children and enfeebled adults often have difficulty using the bottles. The weight and shape of the bottles make them unwieldy for pouring. Single handed pouring is impractical; using two hands to pour usually means that the cup or glass is unsupported, often resulting in spilled beverage. To make matters worse, chilled bottles, placed in warmer air for serving, become wet and slippery as condensate forms on the bottles.
Not only are the full bottles awkward to pour from, they are inconvenient to carry. The previously popular thin-walled, paperboard, six-pack cartons were suitable for carrying smaller bottles, but are not practical for two-liter and larger bottles, because of increased weight and size. Also, because of their high height-to-diameter ratio, it is not practical to stand the bottles upright, while they are being transported in an automobile; it takes very little lateral force to tip over such a bottle, especially when full. For the same reason, it is often risky to set such bottles upright on uneven or unlevel surfaces such as are often associated with outdoor picnic tables.
Prior art has addressed each of these problems, but has treated them separately. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,059,099 to Galbierz (2000) addresses packaging bottles for selling and carrying, but does not address the other problems listed above. The invention taught therein is a paperboard, multi-bottle carrier for carrying up to six bottles. As revealed in the specification, six bottles of two-liter capacity will weigh in the neighborhood of 24 pounds. The means, of holding and carrying the pack, is two holes in the top surface, which are spaced and sized for inserting a thumb and a finger. It is obvious that a significant portion of the population that buys soft drinks cannot carry 24 pounds with a thumb and a finger. Although the invention is effective for bundling multiple bottles together and for making such bundles stable in the upright position, it is not practical for carrying heavy loads. It will also be appreciated that the invention does not address the other, above mentioned, problems dealing with carbonation and dispensing.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,814,293 to Daves (1974) addresses the problems, of maintaining carbonation and of beverage dispensing, which are associated with large bottles, but does not address the packaging and carrying problems. The patent teaches a valve, that replaces the normal screw-on bottle cap prior to dispensing, and that provides for ease of valve opening for beverage dispensing, and for pressure maintenance while not dispensing. The patent further teaches the use of a bottle caddy to hold the bottle in an inclined position suitable for pouring. Once a large bottle is placed in the caddy, with the specified valve properly attached, beverage dispensing is accomplished without further lifting and tilting of the bottle. Further, the caddy provides a stable platform for the bottle, reducing the tendency for tipping over.
The valve described is simple in construction, but impractical for use with thin walled PET bottles. Because the valve does not permit vented flow, a negative pressure obtains in the bottle during beverage dispensing, causing a disagreeable and slow flow pattern, due to the back flow of air in the flow channel, with a resulting partial collapse of the bottle.
Other examples of this approach are found in U.S. Pat. No. 4,664,297 to Giovinazzi, (1987) and U.S. Pat. No. 4,722,463 to Anderson, (1988). These inventions seek to improve the art taught by Daves by adding a venting feature to the valve, whereby there is a separate path for reverse airflow and a vent tube connecting the valve to the ullage space of the bottle during dispensing. Like Daves, both Giovinazzi and Anderson each describe a type of inclined-bottle-holding caddy to use jointly with their respective venting valves. The respective valves, providing, as they do, for the back flow of air to equalize the pressure in the bottle, solve the flow problems associated with Daves' valve. However, the cost of the improved flow is significant increase in the cost and complexity of the respective valves.
None of the cited patents addresses all of the large-bottle problems described above, nor, in any combination, can they fully solve the aggregate problems. In addition to any benefits they offer, they have the following significant limitations and faults:
(a) The art taught by Galbierz addresses only the bundling and carrying problems, and is inadequate when the weight becomes excessive, as it does for multiple two-liter bottles. Also, it requires some effort and knowledge to remove bottles from the carrier, since its intended function is to securely hold bottles by their necks.
(b) The art taught by Daves addresses only the carbonation maintenance and the dispensing problems. It fails to provide good liquid dispensing for thin walled bottles, because negative internal pressure causes partial bottle collapse and noisy, irregular flow.
(c) The bottle caddies taught by Daves, Giovinazzi, and Anderson are not of a type that can be conveniently obtained with the soft drinks at time of purchase, as they cannot be a part of the bottles' package. They are intended to be strong and stylish and to have a long use life. As such, their materials and construction are too expensive to be disposable, and they are too bulky to be convenient when not being used.
(d) The bottle caddies taught by Daves, Giovinazzi, and Anderson are awkward to transport while filling their function of holding bottles. There are no grasping features provided and no convenient handholds shown or described for any of them. It is not practical to carry the caddies with one hand; this reduces their practicality outside of a refrigerator, and is a serious inconvenience if they are used for outings, such as picnics or sporting events, etc.
(e) The added value of the valves taught by Giovinazzi and Anderson over the valve of Daves, is that they provide vented flow. However, they provide venting by means of complicated arrangements of numerous parts and seals; the results are relatively expensive and fragile assemblies, when compared with Daves' valve.
(f) The valves taught by Daves, Giovinazzi, and Anderson all have hidden interior parts and workings. A
Bott Randy L.
Bott Ryan L.
Moran Michael J.
Bui Thach H.
Doerrler William C.
LandOfFree
Package and caddy for beverage bottles does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Package and caddy for beverage bottles, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Package and caddy for beverage bottles will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2908203