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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on May 14th, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Election was made without traverse by Andrew K. Gonsalves Esq., Attorney of Record (Reg. No. 39,564).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1; the limitations, “acceleration zone” is confusing as the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “acceleration duct”.
Furthermore, the limitations of “a freezing zone interconnected to the freezing zone” is confusing and lacks clarity. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “a freezing zone interconnected to the mixing zone”.
Claims 2-8 are rejected based upon their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brisson et al. (U.S. PG Pub No.:2006/0159821 A1), hereinafter referred to as Brisson et al. ‘821.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Brisson et al ‘821 disclose a system (20) for freezing a liquid, comprising: a liquid container (19) in fluidic communication with an eductor assembly (70, 75, 83), the eductor assembly comprising: an acceleration duct (52/70) having at least one liquid inlet (52), a mixing zone (75) interconnected to the acceleration duct, a freezing zone interconnected to the freezing zone (83), and a nozzle (70) associated with the acceleration duct at an end opposite the mixing zone, wherein a nozzle outlet (80) is located in the acceleration duct and positioned above the mixing zone {as shown in Fig. 4: ¶¶ [0085-0090]}; a pressurized gas supply system (89/93/94/56/57), comprising: a gas supply (94), a compressor pump (89) associated with the gas supply, the pump configured to pressurize gas drawn from the gas supply and deliver pressurized gas to a high pressure vessel that is in fluidic communication with the nozzle of the eductor assembly {as shown in Fig. 4: ¶¶ [0085-0090]}; a collection container (90) adjacent to an outlet of the freezing zone {as shown in Fig. 4: ¶ [0088]}; and wherein the liquid is draw into the eductor assembly when the pressurized gas is directed through the nozzle, wherein a portion of the pressurized gas is mixed with the liquid, and wherein the freezing zone is configured to create a localized low pressure area that freezes the liquid and gas mixture to produce an at least frozen material {see ¶¶ [0034], [0043] and [0087-0088]}.
Regarding claim 3, Brisson et al ‘821 disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the mixing zone has an inner surface with an outer extent less that an outer extent of an inner surface of the freezing zone, which defines a contraction that produces a low-pressure area {see Fig. 4: ¶ [0088], wherein inner surface of chamber 75 has an outer extent less than the inner surface extent of chamber 82 comprising an inner surface of the freezing zone with a lower pressure area}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisson et al. ‘821, in view of DI FONZO et al (WO Publication No.: 2012160532 A1), hereinafter referred to as DI FONZO et al ‘532.
Regarding claim 2, Brisson et al ‘821 disclose the system of claim 1, EXCEPT for the limitation of wherein the at least one liquid inlet comprises a first liquid inlet and a second liquid inlet, the fluid inlets configured to deliver fluid into the acceleration duct tangentially with respect to an inner surface of the acceleration duct such that potion of the accelerated fluid rotates about the nozzle.
DI FONZO et al ‘532 teach: the concept of the at least one liquid inlet (11) comprises a first liquid inlet (9) and a second liquid inlet (10), the fluid inlets configured to deliver fluid into the acceleration duct (7) tangentially with respect to an inner surface of the acceleration duct such that potion of the accelerated fluid rotates about the nozzle {as shown in Fig. 2: Page 14, ¶7 through Page 15, ¶1}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Brisson et al ‘821 in view of DI FONZO et al ‘532 to include the at least one liquid inlet comprises a first liquid inlet and a second liquid inlet, the fluid inlets configured to deliver fluid into the acceleration duct tangentially with respect to an inner surface of the acceleration duct such that potion of the accelerated fluid rotates about the nozzle, in order to facilitate turbulence inside acceleration duct, with result that the frozen material deposits on the bottom of the container {DI FONZO et al ‘532 – Pahe 14, ¶7}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Brisson et al ‘821 in view of DI FONZO et al ‘532 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, Brisson et al ‘821 disclose the system of claim 1, EXCEPT for the limitations for further comprising a second gas supply in fluidic communication with the liquid container configured to pre-pressurize the liquid, wherein the pre-pressurized liquid is drawn into the eductor assembly, mixed with high pressure gas, and expanded in the freezing zone.
DI FONZO et al ‘532 teach: the concept of a second gas supply (4) in fluidic (3) communication with the liquid container (2) configured to pre-pressurize the liquid, wherein the pre-pressurized liquid is drawn (5) into the eductor assembly (8), mixed with high pressure gas (14/15), and expanded in the freezing zone (7) {as shown in Fig. 2: Page 12, ¶7 through Page 13, ¶5; and Page 14, ¶¶4-6; Page 15, ¶1}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Brisson et al ‘821 in view of DI FONZO et al ‘532 to include the use of a second gas supply in fluidic communication with the liquid container configured to pre-pressurize the liquid, wherein the pre-pressurized liquid is drawn into the eductor assembly, mixed with high pressure gas, and expanded in the freezing zone, in order to speed up the processing time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Brisson et al ‘821 in view of DI FONZO et al ‘532 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Brisson et al ‘821 and DI FONZO et al ‘532 disclose and teach the system of claim 7, Brisson et al ‘821 as modified by DI FONZO et al ‘532 further teach the limitations of wherein the first gas supply is C02 and the second gas supply is N2 {see Page 12, ¶7; and Page 14, ¶ 4}.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisson et al. ‘821, in view of MAREGA (EP Publication No.: 2042823 A1), hereinafter referred to as MAREGA ‘823.
Regarding claim 4, Brisson et al ‘821 disclose the system of claim 1, a ventilated space (145) associated with a ventilation system (139/149} configured to remove excess gas from the system {as shown in Fig. 5: ¶ [0094]}.
However, Brisson et al ‘821 fail disclose to limitations of wherein the collection container rests on a perforated shelf, wherein the collection container is positioned in the ventilated space associated with the ventilation system.
MAREGA ‘823 teaches: the concept of the collection container (9) rests on a perforated shelf (9a) and capable of being positioned in the ventilated space associated with the ventilation system {see ¶ [0033]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Brisson et al ‘821 in view of MAREGA ‘823 to include the use of the collection container rests on a perforated shelf, wherein the collection container is positioned in the ventilated space associated with the ventilation system, in order to facilitate evenly refrigeration of the entire surface area of the product with replenish circulating coolant, therein.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Brisson et al ‘821 in view of MAREGA ‘823 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Brisson et al ‘821 and MAREGA ‘823 disclose and teach the system of claim 4, Brisson et al ‘821 disclose wherein the excess gas is vented to atmosphere or directed to the gas supply {see Fig. 5: ¶ [0094]}.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisson et al. ‘821, in view of Holzwanger et al (U.S. PG Pub No.:2018/0202692 A1), hereinafter referred to as Holzwanger et al ‘692.
Regarding claim 6, Brisson et al ‘821 disclose the system of claim 1, EXCEPT for explicit disclosure wherein the liquid container is a manifold configured to receive the liquid and at least one additional liquid and/or additive.
Holzwanger et al ‘692 teach: the concept of the liquid container is a manifold (830) configured to receive the liquid (820a) and at least one additional liquid (820B or 820C) {as shown in Fig. 8: ¶¶ [0146-0148]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Brisson et al ‘821 liquid container by the liquid container of Holzwanger et al ‘692 to include the use of a manifold capable of being configured to receive the liquid and at least one additional liquid, in order to facilitate production of different flavored frozen materials .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Brisson et al ‘821 in view of Holzwanger et al ‘692 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20170172174-A1 to RIZVI; Syed S.H.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL DUKE, whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 6:00am - 2:30pm EST .
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
06/16/2026.
Prosecution Insights