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 II (Claims 10-15) in the reply filed on July 22th 2025 is acknowledged.
The restriction is proper, therefore made FINAL.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-9 and 16-17 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1, 5-14 and 16 are amended.
Claims 10-15 are examined as follow:
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fig.2 of Koch (EP 3360844 A1 previously cited from the IDS) herein set forth as Kochfig2, in view of VAN DE SLUIS et al (US2019/0344225A1 newly cited) herein set forth as VAN.
Regarding claim 10, Koch discloses a beverage dispensing device (#101, fig.2) for dispensing a beverage (refer to “beverage” cited in abstract) enriched with a gas (refer to “…a gas, namely CO2, N2 or compressed air…” in abstract) at a beverage outlet (#7, fig.2), the device (#101, fig.2) comprising: a high-pressure connection (refer to “pressure connection” annotated in fig.2) for connecting a gas pressure vessel (#104, fig.2) in which the gas (refer to “…a gas, namely CO2, N2 or compressed air…” in abstract) under pressure is stored, a pump (#2, fig.2) for delivering the beverage (refer to “beverage” cited in abstract) to the beverage outlet (#7, fig.2) via a suction line (#13, fig.2) from a storage vessel (#103, fig.2), and a pressure regulator (refer to “pressure relief device” annotated in fig.2) arranged in a delivery direction (refer to the direction of the supply of #22 and #19 in fig.2) downstream of the high- pressure connection (refer to “pressure connection” annotated in fig.2) the pressure regulator (refer to “pressure connection” annotated in fig.2) is configured to reduce the pressure of the gas (refer to “…a gas, namely CO2, N2 or compressed air…” in abstract) to a reduced pressure refer to attached translated EP3360844A1’s Page 4, Paragraph 2 cited: “…pressurized gas cylinders or containers can also supply compressed air, N .sub.2 or CO .sub.2 with higher pressures, but can also be adjusted to corresponding actuator devices to a preferred pressure of 2.5 bar.…”), and deliver the gas (refer to “…a gas, namely CO2, N2 or compressed air…” in abstract) at the reduced pressure (refer to attached translated EP3360844A1’s Page 4, Paragraph 2 cited: “…pressurized gas cylinders or containers can also supply compressed air, N .sub.2 or CO .sub.2 with higher pressures, but can also be adjusted to corresponding actuator devices to a preferred pressure of 2.5 bar.…”) to the suction line (#13, fig.2) via a gas feed line (#22, fig.2) (refer to attached translated EP3360844A1’s abstract cited: “…The invention relates to a dispensing nozzle spout (7) for a dispensing tap (6) of a dispensing system (1; 101), which serves for dispensing a volumetric flow consisting of a beverage precursor and a gas, namely CO 2, N 2, or compressed air, with a passage pipe section (Fig. 8) and an outlet side adjoining, tapered outlet pipe section (10). The nozzle spout (7) is characterized in that between the inlet side of the flow pipe section (8) and the outlet pipe section (10) a mixing arrangement is received, which is adapted to be flowed through by the mixture of the beverage precursor and gas bubbles contained therein and the Crush gas bubbles. The invention further relates to a dispensing system (1, 101) equipped with the dispensing spout (7) and to a process for producing nitrogenized coffee or beer with such a dispensing system…”).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Koch does not explicitly disclose a reduced pressure less than 0.5 bar above ambient pressure from the gas pressure vessel.
In the similar field of drink dispensers with gas enriched beverage, VAN discloses a reduced pressure less than 0.25-4 bar above ambient pressure from the gas pressure vessel (refer to Paragraph 0018 cited: “…a gas outlet for in a closed condition preventing unresolved CO2 from escaping the conditioning chamber and thus enabling a pressure increase, preferably a pressure increase of up to 0.25-4 bar or more, in the conditioning chamber during the inflow of the mixture of the single serve volume of carbonized water and the unresolved CO2, and for in an open condition allowing the pressure in the conditioning chamber to lower to atmospheric pressure or near atmospheric pressure, e.g. 0.1 bar (relative to the environmental pressure), prior to the single serve carbonized water volume flowing out of the conditioning chamber …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Koch’s invention with a reduced pressure less than 0.25-4 bar above ambient pressure from the gas pressure vessel, as taught by Van, in order to provide the minimum required pressure to push the beverage out, such that beverage would not stuck anywhere within the invention.
VAN does not specifically discloses the range of less than 0.5 bar above ambient pressure.
However, since VAN disclosed range is partial overlap the range disclosed by the present application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Koch’s invention with a reduced pressure less than 0.5 bar above ambient pressure from the gas pressure vessel, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness/anticipation exists. Refer to MPEP 2131.03, such that would maintain lower pressure and save on amount of pressured gas being use.
Claims 11-12 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over fig.2 of Koch (EP 3360844 A1 previously cited from the IDS) herein set forth as Kochfig2, in view of VAN DE SLUIS et al (US2019/0344225A1 newly cited) herein set forth as VAN, and further in view of fig.6 of Koch (EP 3360844 A1 previously cited from the IDS) herein set forth as Kochfig6.
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Kochfig2 and VAN discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, Kochfig2 does not specifically disclose comprising a flow restrictor arranged downstream from the pump in the delivery direction that is adapted to apply a counterpressure on the pump, by which the beverage and the gas are adapted to be delivered to the beverage outlet.
However, in another embodiment fig.6, Kochfig6 discloses comprising a flow restrictor (#22, fig. 6) downstream from the pump (refer to fig.6 #21is connected to the pump in fig.2) in delivery direction (refer to the arrow in the fig. 6 parallel to line #21 and #15 that are point toward a flow direction to #7) that is adapted to apply a counterpressure (Examiner note: #22 is a needle valve, inherently it will generate a counterpressure, which mean there is a pressure drop across the needle valve) on the pump (refer to fig.6 #21is connected to the pump in fig.2), by which the beverage (refer to “beverage” cited in abstract) enriched with gas (refer to “…a gas, namely CO2, N2 or compressed air…” in abstract) adapted to be delivered to the beverage outlet (#7, fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kochfig2’s invention with a flow restrictor arranged downstream from the pump in the delivery direction that is adapted to apply a counterpressure on the pump, by which the beverage and the gas are adapted to be delivered to the beverage outlet, just as Kochfig6 taught, in order to provide overpressure protection to the beverage outlet, such that would reduce leakage and overpressure damage to the delivery line (refer to attached translated EP3360844A1’s Page 6, Paragraph 10, cited: “…a direct supply of the gas in the dispensing line with overpressure and needle valve would be conceivable …”).
PNG
media_image2.png
469
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the modification of Kochfig2, VAN and Kochfig6 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 11, Kochfig2 does not specifically disclose wherein the flow restrictor is a static mixer.
However, in another embodiment fig.6, Kochfig6 discloses wherein the flow restrictor (#22, fig.6) is a static mixer (Examiner note: #22 is a needle valve, and needle valve is a restrictor, and by definition of a restrictor is also a “static mixer”, since #22 needle valve is not moving and inherently generate mixing and turbulent effect, therefore the claim still read on #22 in the prior art of record).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kochfig2’s invention with wherein the flow restrictor is a static mixer, just as Koch fig.6 taught, in order to provide overpressure protection to the beverage outlet, such that would reduce leakage and overpressure damage to the delivery line (refer to attached translated EP3360844A1’s Page 6, Paragraph 10, cited: “…a direct supply of the gas in the dispensing line with overpressure and needle valve would be conceivable …”).
Regarding claim 14, the modification of Kochfig2 and Kochfig6 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 11, Kochfig2 further discloses comprising a pressure regulator (refer to “pressure relief device” annotated in fig.2 …”) arranged in the gas feed line (#22, fig.2) that is configured for metering a volume of the gas (refer to “…a gas, namely CO2, N2 or compressed air…” in abstract) fed to the beverage (refer to “beverage” cited in abstract).
Kochfig2 does not specifically disclose the pressure relief device is a gas metering valve.
However, in the different embodiment, Kochfig6 discloses that the use of a needle valve to control overpressure (refer to attached translated EP3360844A1’s Page 6, Paragraph 10, cited: “…a direct supply of the gas in the dispensing line with overpressure and needle valve would be conceivable …”, furthermore, Examiner note: according to applicant’ specification, a needle valve is a gas metering valve too, refer to Paragraph 0018 cited: “…A simple needle valve, by which the amount of air can be metered by adjusting the suction opening, can be used…” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the Koch pressure relief device with a needle valve, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of pressure controlling, in order to provide overpressure protection to the beverage outlet, such that would reduce leakage and overpressure damage to the delivery line (refer to attached translated EP3360844A1’s Page 6, Paragraph 10, cited: “…a direct supply of the gas in the dispensing line with overpressure and needle valve would be conceivable …”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fig.2 of Koch (EP 3360844 A1 previously cited from the IDS) herein set forth as Kochfig2, in view of VAN DE SLUIS et al (US2019/0344225A1 newly cited) herein set forth as VAN, and further in view of Risheq (US2012/0152380A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Risheq.
Regarding claim 13, the modification of Kochfig2 and VAN discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, Kochfig2 does not specifically disclose the pump is a geared pump.
In the field of beverage dispensing, Risheq discloses the use of geared pump (refer to Paragraph 0025 cited: “…Pump system 140 can be any system or device suitable for providing a pressure large enough to move a fluid through filtration system 130. Various pump configurations are known, for example: (i) positive displacement pumps (either with a rotary or reciprocating actuator) including gear pumps, progressing cavity pumps, roots-type pumps, peristaltic pumps, and compressed-air-powered double-diaphragm pumps; (ii) impulse pumps, including hydraulic ram pumps; (iii) velocity pumps, including centrifugal pumps, radial flow pumps, axial flow pumps, mixed flow pumps, educator-jet pumps; (iv) gravity pumps; (v) steam pumps; and (vi) valve-less pumps. The above examples are not an exclusive list of all possible pump configurations and are provided merely as non-limiting examples. In preferred embodiments pump system 140 comprises a hand-operated reciprocating positive displacement pump. A simple and lightweight manual pump facilitates transportability of system 100 …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the Kochfig2’s pump with the Risheq gear pump, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of transferring beverage and gas under pressure.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch (EP 3360844 A1 previously cited from the IDS) herein set forth as Koch, in view of VAN DE SLUIS et al (US2019/0344225A1 newly cited) herein set forth as VAN, and further in view of HUIBERTS (US2017/0013995A1 previously cited) herein set forth as HUIBERTS.
Regarding claim 15, Koch discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 14, Koch does not discloses the use of a timed shut off valve.
In the field of gas enriched beverage dispensing, HUIBERTS discloses the use of a timed shut off valve (refer to Paragraph 0034 cited: “…the control unit 7 opens the valve 21 at time Tds. This time Tds can be located after the starting point Tbs1 of the first preparation cycle B1, and is preferably during the second preparation cycle B2…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Koch’s invention with a timed shut off valve, as taught by HUIBERTS, in order to provide a better and accurate control of the flow of gas and can easily control the timing for opening and closing.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Claim Objection: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on July 22th 2025 that overcame the Claim Objection in the previous office action.
With respect to the Notification of 112f: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on July 22th 2025 that overcame the Notification of 112f in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22th 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argue: “…None of the cited references, including Koch, Risheq, and Huiberts, recite a system for beverage dispensing that introduces a reduced pressure gas into the intake line of the beverage pump as required by claim 10…”, Remark Page 3.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is expressed that the prior art Koch actually does discloses “… a system for beverage dispensing that introduces a reduced pressure gas into the intake line of the beverage pump…”, refer to Page 4 of Koch Paragraph 2 cited: “…pressurized gas cylinders or containers can also supply compressed air, N .sub.2 or CO .sub.2 with higher pressures, but can also be adjusted to corresponding actuator devices to a preferred pressure of 2.5 bar …”.
The applicants argue: “…Koch operated on an entirely different principle from invention. The present invention foams the cold coffee inside the pump by feeding air into the suction line from which the pump draws the coffee from a storage vessel. In contrast, Koch foams the coffee at the outlet by using a special assembly inside the tap outlet nozzle of the tap. Air or nitrogen is infused into the coffee downstream of the pump, not at the suction side thereof…”, Remark Page 3.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitation from the specification are not read into the claims (refer to MPEP 2145. VI). In this case, there is no citing of the argued limitation, and the prior art of records discloses all the limitation cited in the rejected claims. Furthermore, refer to Page 2 of Koch last paragraph cited: “…the present invention seeks to improve the mixing in a suitable for inline mixing of a gas in a beverage precursor dispensing system and to enable a maintenance-friendly and easy to clean structure…”.
The applicants argue: “…Moreover, regarding claim 11, the Action cites to FIG. 6 of Koch ref. no. 22 as disclosing the claimed flow resistor. However, Koch explains in Paragraph [0052] (translation below) that line 21 is a gas line that feeds gas into the beverage before it enters the tap, but the beverage does not flow though line 21 and element 22…”, Remark Page 5.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is expressed that the prior art Koch actually “…Paragraph [0052] (translation below) that line 21 is a gas line that feeds gas into the beverage before it enters the tap, but the beverage does not flow though line 21 and element 22…”, refer to Page 9-10 of Koch Paragraph last paragraph in page 9 and first paragraph in page 10 cited: “…Dispensing system (1; 101) for gas bubble containing beverages, in particular for nitrogenized coffee, or nitrogenized beer with a dispensing line (13, 14, 15) coming from a beverage pre-product source (3; 103) such as a KEG drum (103) or a bag In-box container (3) leads to a tap (6), and one to the dispensing line (13,14,15) connected for example via a mixing valve compressed gas source (4; 104)…”.
The applicants argue: “…Rejoinder With respect to method claim 1, this claim requires a beverage dispensing system having the same structure as claim 10 being used with a high-pressure connection for a gas pressure vessel, a pressure relief device for reducing the high- pressure gas to a reduced pressure, and a pump which draws the beverage and the reduced pressure gas together in the same suction line…”, Remark Page 6.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the restriction is under 35 U.S.C. 371, lack of unity. The amended claim 1 is still restricted under the same reason that claim 1 is lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “claim 10”, this technical feature was known by Koch (EP 3360844 A1 previously cited from the IDS), in view of VAN DE SLUIS et al (US2019/0344225A1 newly cited).
Regarding to the amendment in claim 10, the amendment have changed the claim scope of claim 10, narrowing the claim scope and new distinct limitation from claim 10 previously presented. Therefore a new ground of rejection is being make with a new secondary prior art VAN DE SLUIS et al (US2019/0344225A1 newly cited).
It is suggested that to further amend in the structural limitation that would distinct from the prior art of records.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 December 31th 2025
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761