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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/17/25 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 16-17, 19, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van de Sluis et al [US 2019/0344225A1], as evidenced by Fantappie [US 2011/0268845A1], and further in view of Hepperle et al [US 2013/0215710A1] and Fischer [US 2010/0133708A1].
Van de Sluis et al teach method for dispensing carbonized water (title) by providing a static mixer which mixes water and CO2 (Figure 1-2, #7, 61), the static mixer including multiple stages (Figure 2, #61), the water and CO2 being at a pressure of 5-9 bar (paragraph 0012, 0014), a downstream compensator (Figure 1, #8), mixing a beverage concentrate/syrup with the carbonated water (Figure 1, #13; paragraph 0125), the CO2 provided from a regulated source in single serve portions (paragraph 0131), the water amount is regulated by a pump to provide a single serving volume (paragraph 0131), a consumer activating the system via a user interface to start a beverage order (paragraph 0152), subsequently providing water and CO2 to the static mixer (paragraph 0152), and the static mixer inherently being at an ambient or reduced pressure when the water pump and CO2 source are not actively being used.
Van de Sluis et al (paragraph 0045) also disclose using the inline carbonator of US 2011/0268845 (Fantappie), wherein the inline carbonator used a flow rate of 5.15-382.97 in/s or 0.13-9.73 m/s (paragraph 0080 of ‘845).
Van de Sluis et al do not explicitly recite the static mixer having a decreasing flow cross section after each stage (claim 1), and the compensator having an offset or eccentric outlet (claim 1, 24).
Hepperle et al teach a method for gas dispersion (title) comprising a static mixing element having multiple stages of decreasing cross section (Figure 2A, #L1-L3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed decreasing flow cross section into the invention of Van de Sluis et al, in view of Hepperle et al, since both are directed to methods of mixing fluid and gas, since Van de Sluis et al already included a static mixer with multiple stages (Figure 1-2, #7, 61) as well as a passive accelerator with reduced cross section immediately after the static mixer stages (Figure 2, #62), since systems for mixing gas and fluids commonly included a static mixing element having multiple stages of decreasing cross section (Figure 2A, #L1-L3) as shown by Hepperle et al, since Hepperle et al also taught the static mixer configuration providing beneficial smaller bubble sizes and more effective gas dispersion without lengthening the static mixer (paragraph 0013-0014), since the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, and since the decreasing cross section static mixer of Hepperle et al would have eliminated the need for separate static mixer elements and passive accelerator elements in the system of Van de Sluis et al, and thus removed complexity and capital costs for the system of Van de Sluis et al.
Fischer teaches a system for mixing liquids and gases, eg beer (abstract) by use of a compensator with an offset or eccentric outlet (Figure 2a, #130, A).
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed decreasing flow cross section into the invention of Van de Sluis et al, in view of Fischer, since both are directed to methods of mixing fluid and gas, since Van de Sluis et al already included a compensator with an outlet but simply did not mention its internal structure, since beverage mixing systems commonly included a compensator with an eccentric or offset outlet (Figure 2a, #130, A) as shown by Fischer, since the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results, and since the offset/eccentric outlet permitted the use of an axial adjusting screw (Figure 2a, #9a) for adjusting the pressure of the system of Fischer.
In conclusion, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions , and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van de Sluis et, in view of Hepperle et al and Fischer, as applied above and further in view of Long [US 2020/0060314A1].
Van de Sluis et al, Fischer, and Hepperle et al teach the above mentioned concepts. Van de Sluis et al also taught chilling the water (paragraph 0128). Van de Sluis et al do not explicitly recite a water temperature of 0-10C (claim 2) or 0-4C (claim 18). Long teaches a method for making carbonated water (title) by providing water at a temperature under 3C (paragraph 0108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed water temperatures into the invention of Van de Sluis et al, in view of Long, since both are directed to methods of carbonating water, since Van de Sluis et al already disclosed chilling the water (paragraph 0128) but simply did not mention a specific temperature, since water carbonating systems commonly used water at 3C (paragraph 0108) as shown by Long, since many consumers desired beverages a cold temperatures, and since the claimed water temperatures would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the type of beverage, the degree of carbonation, and/or the preferences of the consumer in the method of Van de Sluis et al, in view of Long.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 16-18, 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that Van De Sluis et al did not disclose a static mixer with stages having a decreased cross section. However, Hepperle et al teach a method for gas dispersion (title) comprising a static mixing element having multiple stages of decreasing cross section (Figure 2A, #L1-L3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed decreasing flow cross section into the invention of Van de Sluis et al, in view of Hepperle et al, since both are directed to methods of mixing fluid and gas, since Van de Sluis et al already included a static mixer with multiple stages (Figure 1-2, #7, 61) as well as a passive accelerator with reduced cross section immediately after the static mixer stages (Figure 2, #62), since systems for mixing gas and fluids commonly included a static mixing element having multiple stages of decreasing flow cross section (Figure 2A-C, #L1-L3) as shown by Hepperle et al, since Hepperle et al also taught the static mixer configuration providing beneficial smaller bubble sizes and more effective gas dispersion without lengthening the static mixer (paragraph 0013-0014), and since the decreasing cross section static mixer of Hepperle et al would have eliminated the need for separate static mixer elements and passive accelerator elements in the system of Van de Sluis et al, and thus removed complexity and capital costs for the system of Van de Sluis et al.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that Hepperle et al is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Hepperle et al and Van Der Sluis et al are directed to the common problem of mixing fluids and gases by use of static mixer elements.
Applicant argues that Hepperle et al was limited to viscous fluids, rather than water. However, Hepperle er al disclosed wastewater as well as fluids used in the food industry (paragraph 0002). It is noted that the viscosity range of Hepperle et al (ie 2 mPas to 10,000,000 mPas in paragraph 0017) was simply a preferred range. It is further noted that water commonly possessed a viscosity of about 1 mPas.
Applicant argues that the references do not disclose a compensator with an offset/eccentric outlet. However, Fischer teaches a system for mixing liquids and gases, eg beer (abstract) by use of a compensator with an offset or eccentric outlet (Figure 2a, #130, A).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lombardo teaches a throttling valve with an offset outlet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792