Beverage taps in certain types of public establishments (commercial or non-commercial) necessarily are designed for a large volume of beverage output. Sports venues, hotels, bars, restaurants, dance venues, pizza parlors and a host of other types of establishments typically require a plurality of taps (usually one or more tap per brand of beverage) either when a varied customer preferences make a large number of beer types commercially preferable, or in order to meet peak demands when a number of orders arrive simultaneously.
Regardless of the number of taps present, the problem of after hours losses can be a serious one, especially in locations which cannot be physically secured so as to prevent unauthorized access. For example, a restaurant located in a hotel may be open for business (and thus guarded) only a portion of the day, but may be open in the sense of accessible to hotel guests, employees and others round the clock.
For both legal and economic reasons, it behooves such establishments to secure the beverage taps. Yet technology for securing such taps is not entirely suited to the purpose.
One solution is the individual tap lock. This device has a lock and key and is either integral to the tap or is fitted onto the lock at the time of locking. Four types are known to be marketed at the present time. Two types of individual locks are similar to each other and feature a lock suited for a key. The lock screws up and down to force to the tap handle into its fully closed position. Another type of individual lock is similar but includes a fitting over the nozzle to prevent liquid from being dispensed therefrom. A rather more sophisticated alternative is a mechanism built into a single tap shaft which prevents the shaft from being moved when force is applied to the handle. It is still individual, however, and requires an expensive investment or retrofit. All four are individual tap locks, and all four require the use of special locking mechanisms.
Unfortunately, in high volume dispensation establishments, there are typically a number of taps on each beverage tower. Applying and locking one lock to one tap and then repeating the process repeatedly is cumbersome and many establishments either forego doing so (leaving their taps unlocked when unattended) or else resort to measures such as disconnecting the kegs or other containers or pumps from the taps so as to stop the flow of beverage. This results in product wastage, lost profits, and is itself a non-optimal solution to the problem. That such measures are taken indicates the poor match between the devices actually on the market and needs of multiple tap beverage tower owners.
Searches of the US Patent Office's database have revealed the following art.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,286,724 issued Sep. 11, 2001 to Midden for LOCK STRUCTURE FOR A COLD DRINK SYSTEM teaches the only purely multiple tap system found in this search. The device actually consists of a cable which passes through several faucets of a soda fountain or slushed ice drink type dispenser. The cable is then locked. The structure is different enough from the present invention to be of modest relevance.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,941,103 issued Aug. 24, 1999 to Stearns FAUCET LOCKING DEVICE teaches one of several “enclosure” type devices which wholly or partially enclose a single tap. As with commercially known prior art, this device envisions forcing the user to employ a plural number of devices in order to cover a plural number of taps, see column 4, lines 10-23. The box and lid of the device conform to the shape of the single tap covered. However, in addition to not teaching a multiple tap lock, it further teaches enclosure of the tap faucet as the locking mechanism, and argues (column 3, lines 19-28) against attempting to prevent motion of the dispensing knob. Finally, it suggests minimum play between the faucet assembly and device, see column 5, lines 54-65.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,607,084 issued Mar. 4, 1997 to George for LOCKING SYSTEM FOR BEVERAGE TAPS teaches a locking system of the tap interior type, having little structural similarity to the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,394,715 issued Mar. 7, 1995 to Guerette for RETAINING MECHANISM FOR A LIQUID DISPENSING APPARATUS VALVE teaches a hook mechanism to fit around the tap handle from the back, again having limited structural similarity to the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,211,313 issued May 18, 1993 to Lucking et al for DISPENSING TAPS teaches a locking mechanism which is used for cask or bottle taps, not beverage towers. It appears to have little structural similarity to the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,890,769 issued Jan. 2, 1990 to Armstrong for BEVERAGE DISPENSING LOCK teaches a locking device actually designed for handheld taps. The device has front and back parts which enclose the handheld tap. Since the structure of a handheld tap and a beverage tower tap is radically different this device does not teach significant matter of the present invention. For example, the device covers the buttons on the back of the handheld tap, whereas the present invention blocks motion of a handle. In short, the device could not in any way be used to lock a beverage tower tap.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,111,243 issued Sep. 5, 1978 to Fetterman for BEVERAGE DISPENSING DEVICE teaches a digital/electronic control box for a single tap.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,462,951 issued Mar. 1, 1949 to P. T. Doubble for LOCKING MEANS FOR OIL BARRELS is actually from an entirely different technical area not pertaining to beverages. However, it does disclose a cylindrical box locked down atop an oil barrel spigot. Since the device is a single lock, not a plural design, and is from a distant technology, it does not features of the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,377,036 issued May 29, 1945 to H. B. Quarfoot for ANTI-TAMPERING ATTACHMENT FOR VALVES teaches a valve enclosure box for industrial valves. The box is suitable only for use with valves radically different from the taps of a beverage tower, and is a single valve device in any case.
Finally, not found in the patentability search but found by the applicant, “Stuever and Sons” offers to the market a device similar to that of the '103 patent discussed previously, which attempts to block access to the faucet/outlet of the tap, not prevent handle motion. That device does at least fit over the outlet/nozzle of several sequential taps on a beverage tower: a cylinder or square tube fits under the bottom of the outlet/nozzles/faucets of a line of taps (no handle involvement is known to applicant, nor does the device fit over and conform to the shape of the taps). This device may be more for visual effect than actual prevention of beverage dispensing: since the handles can be pulled, it would appear that beverages may be dispensed into the tube to cause bacteria buildup. The device will not work with taps having faucet/outlets of differing lengths.
Establishments as discussed previously have complained that there is an unmet need for a simple device which can lock all of the taps on a beverage tower without undue labor.
Therefore, it would be advantageous to provide a simple system for locking multiple taps on a beverage tower. It would furthermore be advantageous to provide a system which does not require drilling or other retrofitting to the tap/tower assembly. It would furthermore be advantageous if the tap lock could work with ordinary padlocks.