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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 18-21 are newly added. Claims 1-17 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 18-21 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 12, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 4-8, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12-17 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant’s rotating support and newly found prior art regarding this feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (4481986 A1) in view of Schacht et al. (WO 2018144394 A1, hereinafter Schacht) and Behan (US 20120108889 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Meyers discloses an apparatus for infusing gas from a source to a beverage (Abstract, “method of making carbonated beverages utilizing a pressurized source of gas, as carbon dioxide, to carbonate a container of liquid by causing the liquid to agitate and to flow within the container while the gas is being supplied to it”), comprising:
a container (Section 2, lines 53-54, “soda bottle 18”), said container comprising a chamber for the beverage (Section 7, lines 29-31, “liquid container 18, resting on its bottom supporting rim 84a, is filled with a liquid”), said container being formed by a base and a side portion extending therefrom (Modified Fig. 2, where the container base and side portions are shown), said base of said container further comprising a portion with an opening to said chamber (Section 5, lines 33-34, “The valve seal 76 is adapted to be fixedly mounted within the closure cap 72 with the enlarged flange 7”, where the valve seal 76 includes an opening to receive the support part or passageway 50);
a housing, said housing including a support for said container (Section 4, lines 12-15, “The liquid or soda bottle receiving socket 46 projects upwardly from the base 12 and more particularly from the part 13b thereof as may be seen more clearly in FIG. 3.”), said support including a port located adjacent said opening to said chamber (Section 8, lines 63-64, “closure cap 72 with the gas supply pin 48 and the opening 50 therein.”, where the pin 48 is the port that is adjacent to the opening of the container that goes into the chamber);
said support further comprising a channel within said support (Section 4, lines 6-8, “opening or passageway 50 that is in constant fluid communication with the connecting gas supply line 24”, where the support includes parts within the socket, where there is a channel/opening/passageway 50 within the pin 48/port that connects to the gas supply line 24);
said channel extending within and through said support and into communication with said port, said channel being configured to allow the travel of gas from the source to said port (Section 4, lines 1-6, “The gas supply line 24 connects the socket 26 of the gas supply container or bottle 22 with a socket 46 that is adapted to receive a liquid container or beverage pouring bottle to be described. Facing upward into the socket 46 is a gas dispensing supply nozzle 48 that has a through opening or passageway 50”, where modified Fig. 1 shows that the pin 48 includes the opening 50 along the entire way of the pin);
said support being rotatable about a hinge and being configured to allow gaseous fluid to pass into said container chamber through said port and said container opening upon said support rotation (Section 9, lines 11-26, “Continued downward movement of the soda bottle into the socket 46, causes the operating lever arm 54 to be pressed downwardly against the normal upward urging of the spring 64 and the closing force of the pressurized gas in the line 24a of the upstream side of the valve end 63. This causes the valve 56 to pivot into its open position as is shown in FIG. 2. When the soda bottle reaches this point of support it is now securely mounted and retained within the socket 46 in its inverted position. Once the control valve 56 is operated open by the inserted bottle 18, it holds the valve open, the pressurized gas that has already been supplied to the connecting line 24 and that is present therewithin, seeks an escape therefrom by way of the gas supply pin 48, which directs its flow into the interior of the soda bottle 18.”, where the support area of the housing includes a socket, pin 48, and valve 54; where the valve 54 is rotatable about a hinge created by the spring 66 and when the container housing is pressed downwards, the valve rotates downwards to allow for gas to flow from the channel 24 into the pin 48).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
967
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Meyers
Meyers does not disclose:
where the gaseous infusion is nitrogen and there is a nitrogen source;
said port comprising an element of resilient material having an orifice, said orifice being capable of enlarging under pressure of the gaseous nitrogen from said source and collapsing in the absence of gaseous nitrogen from source,
said enlarging and collapsing of said orifice determining the amount of nitrogen gas passing into said chamber of said container through said container opening.
However, Schacht discloses, in the similar field of infusions for beverages (Para. 0029, “progress of gas infusion.”), where the infusion comes from a similar injector and is nitrogen (Para. 0034, “outlet portion 91 of the delivery device 105 can comprise an infuser, a nozzle, a sparger, an injector, a static mixer, an aerator block, a frit, carbonation stone or any other suitable delivery device capable of dispersing nitrogen into a solution”), where there is a source of nitrogen (Para. 0036, “delivery device 305 can be in fluid communication with the storage device 101 through a source line 107.”, and Para. 0037, “the nitrogen within the storage where device 101”), where a controller can control the rate of entry for the nitrogen into the beverage (Para. 0023, “a control device for controlling the rate of nitrogen delivery is disposed between the storage device and the delivery device. The control device may be used to initiate, meter and/or halt the flow of nitrogen from the storage device to the delivery device.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the port and infusion component connection of Meyers to infuse nitrogen as taught by Schacht.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of using nitrogen as an alternative to carbonation for beverages, where nitrogen can prevent an acidic taste from being introduced and still achieve an effervescent effect in beverages, as stated by Schacht, Para. 0002, “Carbonation of beverages is practiced to produce an effervescent effect in beverages. However, as the carbon dioxide gas dissolves in beverages, carbonic acid is formed, giving carbonated beverages a characteristic acidic taste. Nitrogenation is an alternative to carbonation. Nitrogenation can produce a unique effervescent effect in the beverage, creating a creamy head of foam.”.
Further, Behan discloses, in the similar field of valves with fluid flow (Abstract, “fluid flow through the valve.”), where an element of resilient material has an orifice that enlarges and horizontally expands under pressure from liquid (Para. 0018-0019, “valve leaflets evert on movement between the closed and the open configuration in response to applied urological pressure… The valve may be adapted to open in response to a preset pressure applied over a preset time. The valve may be adapted to open in response a pressure of at least 750 mmH2O applied for at least 5 seconds.”) and collapses in the absence of liquid pressure (Para. 0194, “When the flow is stopped the valve main body will return to the original configuration by everting in response to the biasing of the polymeric material to return to the normally closed configuration with the valve leaflets extending as illustrated in FIG. 21.”), where the enlarging and collapsing of the orifice would determine the amount of material passing through (Para. 0018-0019, “The valve may be adapted to open in response to a preset pressure applied over a preset time. The valve may be adapted to open in response a pressure of at least 750 mmH2O applied for at least 5 seconds.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the static pin that introduces gaseous material in modified Meyers to use the valve system as taught by Behan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage another valve configuration that allows for intermittent drainage or infusion of liquid instead of continuous drainage, where then a preset amount of liquid can be released, as stated by Behan, Para. 0236, “valve aids patients who are unable to use a conventional catheter valve but who would still benefit greatly in maintaining 'normal' bladder function by intermittent drainage as opposed to continuous drainage.”.
Regarding claim 19, modified Meyers teaches the apparatus according to claim 18, as set forth above, discloses in which said orifice enlarging under pressure includes longitudinal expansion of said orifice (Teaching from Behan, Para. 0018-0019, “valve leaflets evert on movement between the closed and the open configuration in response to applied urological pressure”, where the leaflets opening includes a longitudinal expansion of the orifice as shown in Behan Fig. 15-17, where the leaflets opening causes an opening to be expanded outwards).
Claims 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (4481986 A1) in view of Schacht et al. (WO 2018144394 A1, hereinafter Schacht) and Behan (US 20120108889 A1) in further view of Robinson (US 4976894 A).
Regarding claim 20, modified Meyers teaches the apparatus according to claim 18, as set forth above.
Modified Meyers does not disclose:
in which said portion of said container comprises a conical protrusion with said opening.
However, Robinson discloses, in the similar field of infusing beverages with gases (Abstract, “CO2 injection nozzle penetrates into an inverted sealed vessel”), where the opening of the container can include a conical protrusion (Section 4, lines 5-9, “A central slit, or normally closed hole, 15 in a central reinforced portion 16 of the gasket 14 permits entry of the nozzle means 40 and seals itself when the nozzle means 40 is removed. The cap 12 is thus self-sealing.”, where the reinforced portion 16 is shaped conically). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the opening in modified Meyers to include the conical protrusion as taught by Robinson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to have the bottle used for infusion be self-sealing, where the conical gasket allows for the opening to be normally closed without the need for assistance, as stated by Robinson, Section 4, lines 5-9, “A central slit, or normally closed hole, 15 in a central reinforced portion 16 of the gasket 14 permits entry of the nozzle means 40 and seals itself when the nozzle means 40 is removed. The cap 12 is thus self-sealing.”.
Claims 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (4481986 A1) in view of Schacht et al. (WO 2018144394 A1, hereinafter Schacht) and Behan (US 20120108889 A1) in further view of Swartz et al. (US 20070056447 A1, hereinafter Swartz).
Regarding claim 21, modified Meyers teaches the apparatus according to claim 18, as set forth above.
Modified Meyers does not disclose:
which further comprises an agitator, said agitator creating a shear force on the beverage in said chamber of said container, said agitator being located adjacent said container opening.
However, Swartz discloses, in the similar field of infusions for beverages (Para. 0018, “an infusion or steeping compartment”), where a baffle located in a beverage chamber and positioned along a side of the container (Modified Fig. 1, the baffle feature is shown to be within the beverage chamber and connected to a side of the container; where this baffle is the lid’s lower side wall 307), where an agitator can be included within a beverage receptacle that creates a shear force to stir the beverage (Para. 0029, “The stirring mechanism provides for movement of the shaft/arm 118 to stir the beverage”, where shear forces would be created through the stirring motion), where the agitator is adjacent to the baffle and the bottom wall of the container (Para. 0029, “In this example, the actuator handle 112 comprises a knob that is rotatable about its longitudinal axis which is fixed”, where the entire agitator is construed to include the knob and rod that stir the beverage, where modified Fig. 1 shows that the knob and rod are adjacent to a baffle created by the lid’s lower side wall 307; Para. 0021, “The fit is preferably a loose fit that allows the shaft to rotate about its longitudinal axis relatively freely, despite the bottom blunt point 113 being in contact with the hollow surface.”, where the agitator rod extends to be adjacent with the bottom wall of the container 113), and where a controller regulates the agitator (Para. 0054, “the manually actuated arm movement described above for the stirring action can be electronically powered by a motor based in the lid, or it can be mechanically powered by a wind-up mechanism that stores mechanical energy and then releases it (to cause the stirring element to move) upon the user pushing a button or lever atop the lid.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the infusion system in modified Meyers to include the agitator and baffle structure as taught by Swartz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of the agitator system allowing for the steeping or infusion process to accelerate, which can save a user time, as stated by Swartz, Para. 0030, “allow the user to better grip the knob and to rotate it in a back and forth motion or around in a continuous direction, to mix the beverage or accelerate the steeping or infusion process, or both.”.
PNG
media_image2.png
392
819
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Swartz
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
03/09/2026