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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “signalling” this should be –signaling--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recites “the liquid” which lacks antecedent basis. It should be changed to –the beverage--.
Claim 1 recites “the pump is configured to operate…in response to detecting cavitation.” This is indefinite because it is unclear how the pump has the structure to detect cavitation.
Claim 1 recites “the pump is configured to operate in a first mode and a second mode, in response to detecting cavitation.” This is confusing because this states that both modes are operated in response to detecting cavitation when it is clear from the specification and later limitations that the second mode is operated in response to cavitation.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected due to dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose a controller increasing the pump pressure in response to detecting cavitation through measuring that a first flow rate drops below a first threshold.
Duvall discloses a brewing system wherein the control system controls the flow rate and that cavitation may be mitigated by constant positive pressure (par. 62). Duvall does not disclose increasing the pressure and does not disclose that it measures the flow rate such that if it drops below a threshold, it increases the pressure.
Discenzo discloses a pump system for mitigating cavitation wherein the flow rate is monitored to detect cavitation, and when cavitation is detected the motor may stop or be restarted (col 12 lines 4-5). Discenzo further teaches away from increasing the pump speed (increase pressure) when low flow rate is detected since excessive motor speed can damage the pump (col 2, lines 20-25).
Ait discloses a pump system for a beverage wherein to suppress cavitation the pressure is increased. However, Ait does not disclose increasing the pressure when cavitation is detected or that flow rate is used to detect cavitation.
Mouton discloses a process for monitoring cavitation in a positive displacement pump wherein when cavitation is detected the pressure of the supply fluid is increased (abstract). However, Mouton uses the cavitation venturi to induce cavitation as an early detector of potential cavitation in the positive displacement pump (col 2, lines 1-10) so that the pump will increase pressure to prevent cavitation from occurring. This method is different from detecting that a flow rate has dropped below a threshold and then increasing pressure to prevent/reduce cavitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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 Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761