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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 31th 2026 has been entered.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-9 and 16-17 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1 and 10 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 Renken et al (US6698229B2 newly cited) herein set forth as Renken, in view of VAN DE SLUIS et al (US2019/0344225A1 previously cited) herein set forth as VAN.
Regarding claim 10, Renken discloses a beverage dispensing device (#900, fig.9) for dispensing a beverage (refer to “beverage” cited in abstract) enriched with a gas (refer to “CO2” annotated in fig.9 as “CO2 inlet”) at a beverage outlet (refer to “outlet” annotated in fig.9), the device (#900, fig.9) comprising: a high-pressure connection (refer to “high pressure connection” annotated in fig.9) for connecting a gas pressure vessel (#902, fig.9) in which the gas (refer to “CO2” annotated in fig.9 as “CO2 inlet”) under pressure is stored, a pump (#805, fig.9) for delivering the beverage (refer to “beverage” cited in abstract) to the beverage outlet (refer to “outlet” annotated in fig.9) via a suction line (refer to “suction line” annotated in fig.9) from a storage vessel (#203, fig.9), and a pressure regulator (refer to “gage/valve” annotated in fig.2) arranged in a delivery direction (refer to the direction of the supply of #302 in fig.9) downstream of the high- pressure connection (refer to “high pressure connection” annotated in fig.2) the pressure regulator (refer to “gage/valve” annotated in fig.2) is configured to reduce the pressure of the gas (refer to “CO2” annotated in fig.9 as “CO2 inlet”) to a reduced pressure refer to “CO2” annotated in fig.9 as “CO2 inlet”) at the reduced pressure to the suction line (refer to “suction line” annotated in fig.9) via a gas feed line (#302, fig.9) such that the gas (refer to “CO2” annotated in fig.9 as “CO2 inlet”) is mixed with beverage (refer to “beverage” cited in abstract) in the suction line (refer to “suction line” annotated in fig.9) and the pump (#805, fig.9).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reken 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 Renken’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 Renken’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 Renken et al (US6698229B2 newly cited) herein set forth as Renken, in view of VAN DE SLUIS et al (US2019/0344225A1 previously cited) herein set forth as VAN, and further in view of Koch (EP 3360844 A1 previously cited from the IDS) herein set forth as Koch.
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Renken and VAN discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, Renken or VAN 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.
In the similar field of gas enriched beverage dispensing, Koch 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).
PNG
media_image2.png
469
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Renken’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 Koch 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 12, the modification of Renken, VAN and Koch discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 11, Renken or VAN does not specifically disclose wherein the flow restrictor is a static mixer.
In the similar field of gas enriched beverage dispensing, Koch further 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 Renken’s invention with wherein the flow restrictor is a static mixer, just as Koch 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 Renken, VAN and Koch discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 11, Renken further discloses comprising a pressure regulator (refer to “gage/valve” annotated in fig.2) arranged in the gas feed line (refer to #302 to connecting #902 in fig.9).
Renken or VAN does not specifically disclose comprising a pressure regulator arranged in the gas feed line that is configured for metering a volume of the gas.
In the similar field of gas enriched beverage dispensing, Koch further discloses that the use of a needle valve to control overpressure and gas metering (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 Reken 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 Renken et al (US6698229B2 newly cited) herein set forth as Renken, in view of VAN DE SLUIS et al (US2019/0344225A1 previously 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 Renken and VAN discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 10, Renken or VAN 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 Renken’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 Renken et al (US6698229B2 newly cited) herein set forth as Renken, in view of VAN DE SLUIS et al (US2019/0344225A1 previously cited) herein set forth as VAN, further in view of Koch (EP 3360844 A1 previously cited from the IDS) herein set forth as Koch, and further in view of HUIBERTS (US2017/0013995A1 previously cited) herein set forth as HUIBERTS.
Regarding claim 15, the modification of Renken, VAN and Koch discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 14, Renken, VAN or 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 Renken’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 Argument
Applicant's arguments filed March 31th 2026 have been fully considered but moot in view of the newly cited primary prior art Renken et al (US6698229B2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feijen et al (US2015/0182061A1) discloses a frothing device that may read on some of the dependent claim.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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 July 11th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights