Dispensing – With container handle or handgrips – Handle and actuator for flow controller or closure...
Reexamination Certificate
2001-07-02
2002-09-24
Bomberg, Kenneth (Department: 3754)
Dispensing
With container handle or handgrips
Handle and actuator for flow controller or closure...
C222S509000, C222S518000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06454142
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to an apparatus for dispensing a pressurized fluid from a container. More specifically, it relates to an apparatus for dispensing carbonated beverages, where the apparatus includes a plug utilizing a double sealing configuration, a siphon tube containing flow obstructing devices that reduce the pressure of the fluid in discrete stages as it is dispensed, a sealing mechanism that assures proper alignment between the apparatus and the container, and a connecting shaft configuration which allows the connection between the handle and the head to move in a linear direction as the handle pivots.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
A universal problem in dispensing carbonated fluids from commercial containers, large containers in particular, is that the sealing cap must be removed from the container each time the fluid is dispensed, thereby permitting carbon dioxide to escape. Frequently, by the time the container is half empty, the remaining fluid has lost enough carbonization to render it “flat.” When this occurs, the fluid becomes undesirable to consume and is discarded along with the container. This essentially nullifies the savings of buying a large container. Further, when these containers are discarded prematurely, they contribute to waste disposal problems. It has been estimated that if all the bottled carbonated beverages were sold in 2 liter sized bottles, bottling, packaging and distribution costs could be reduced by an estimated 30% or more.
With these problems in mind, there have been many different types of fluid dispensers created, of many and varying designs. While such devices have achieved commercial acceptance, at least to some limited extent, many suffer from a number of known disadvantages. One such deficiency lies in the fact that most known fluid dispensers are structurally complex and are thus difficult and expensive to manufacture.
A further and very significant disadvantage of many known fluid dispensers lies in the fact that to dispense the fluid, a propelling force must be employed. In general, such means include a piston-type fluid actuating mechanism and/or a pressurized gas (e.g., carbon dioxide) cartridge. Specific examples of devices involving the use of piston-type fluid actuating mechanisms for dispensing the fluid are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,547,109; 3,458,090 and 2,837,247. Further examples of known prior art devices, including those which employ the aforementioned carbon dioxide cartridges, are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 565,922; 1,648,575; 2,049,851; 2,189,643; 2,199,655; 2,915,251; 3,154,224 and 3,221,953. Notwithstanding the fact that a large number of such designs are known, it has been found that the piston-type actuating mechanism, as well as the carbon dioxide cartridges, are very often difficult to operate and by their inherent nature involve additional expense, both in the original purchase price of the device as well as in the overall expense of their operation and maintenance.
A solution to such problems that avoids the need for external propelling force utilizes the pressurized fluid itself as the motive force for removing the fluid from the bottle. Such devices typically employ a flow control valve mechanism and a mechanism for sealing the fluid in the bottle. In the prior art, however, typical dispensers place the flow control valve mechanism in the upward flow section of the dispenser device. A stagnation problem and the increased likelihood of attracting insects occurs when fluid collects in crevices of the valve assembly. When the next discharge of fluid occurs, this residual amount of fluid, after having stagnated and collected bacteria, is discharged along with the clean fluid in the bottle into the drinking container and consumed by the unsuspecting user.
Some devices of the prior art have attempted to overcome these drawbacks by placing the spring-type valve mechanism in the downward spout of the container. U.S. Pat. No. 5,292,038 by Seney is one such device. Although superior to other devices, the Seney device does not solve the additional problem of the discharge spout retaining a few drops of the liquid after the dispensing step is complete. In Seney, the pressurized fluid flows from the bottle up through a siphon tube, through a passage and down a downward spout, past a valve assembly, further down a discharge spout and finally out a discharge port and into a glass or other receptacle. The drawback of such devices as the Seney patent is that the valve assembly is located midway down the discharge spout, as opposed to being located at the distal end of the discharge spout. This configuration results in a few drops of the liquid adhering to the discharge spout after the user has released the valve. These drops will subsequently fall onto the counter top or other surface which is supporting the bottle, causing a mess and creating unsanitary conditions.
The prior art also contains devices which have the additional disadvantage of emitting a high pressure stream of liquid at the very outset of the dispensing step. For example, a soda dispenser sold by Jokari, 1205 Venture Court, Carrollton, Tex., has a configuration which allows fluid to be held under pressure just behind the dispensing nozzle when the apparatus is in the closed position. As a result of this design, it is possible for fluid to spray out of the nozzle in a small, fast stream when the nozzle is first opened. A device is needed which would prevent fluid from being retained under pressure just behind the discharge port, so as to not cause spraying at the start of the dispensing step.
Another drawback of the prior art is that many of the liquid dispensing devices contain valve actuating mechanisms which are not easy to use. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,194,653 discloses a device containing a valve mechanism which requires the user to press down on a cap which is mounted atop the apparatus. Such devices are difficult and uncomfortable to use. A device is needed which uses an actuating mechanism that is easy to use.
Yet another disadvantage of the devices presently known for use in dispensing liquids under pressure is that many such devices contain inadequate sealing mechanisms between the bottle and the device. For example, many do not have any sort of system to assure that the top of the bottle is lined up directly with the underside of the device to assure that the device is properly seated on the bottle. The result of such systems is that the top of the bottle neck may be bent slightly, thus possibly destroying the air-tight seal.
Another drawback in the prior art is that many of the dispensers use little more than a tube for transferring the liquid from the bottle to the dispenser. As a result, large quantities of carbon dioxide gas may escape from the liquid as it is dispensed, which causes the liquid to have a “flat” taste. An apparatus is needed which is capable of allowing increased retention of gaseous carbon dioxide in the liquid after it has been dispensed, as well as decreased foaming. Such a device would allow the fluid that has been dispensed to appear and taste better.
Yet another disadvantage of the prior art is that many devices which contain valve systems use configurations that cause the valve stem to move in a non-linear direction. In other words, as the valve is being actuated, the member which connects the valve to the handle moves slightly downward rather than in a straight line. Such members are often located within linear chambers. Such linear chambers typically include seals or other methods to prevent fluid from flowing into the member chamber. Because the member does not move in a linear direction, there is the increased possibility of wear and tear, and eventually leakage into the member chamber. Once fluid has leaked into the member chamber, it is possible for the fluid to leak out of the apparatus and onto the counter top, thus causing a mess. A device is needed which allows the member connecting the valve to the handle to move in a linear direction, such that the likelihood of leakage will
LandOfFree
Pressurized beverage dispenser does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Pressurized beverage dispenser, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Pressurized beverage dispenser will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2910789