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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 11-17, 19, 21-22,24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by British patent 206199 cited on IDS filed 5-10-2023 hereinafter Haseltine Lake .
Haseltine Lake teaches as in claims 11 and 26 bottle(figure 1)for beverages which are carbonated and stored in the bottle, the bottle comprising a closable liquid container(1); and an adapter (4) which is attached to a base of the liquid container,
The adapter and container are detachable engaged as in claim 12elemnts 2,3,13 figures 2 and 3, flanged at 9,10 page 2 lines 70-75)
The adapter and liquid container form a unit (figure 1) as in claim 13.
Another adapter is attached to the liquid container as in claim 14 ( page lines 25-30) .
A gas regulation valve and push button as in claim 15( 48, 49 in figure 13)
A second non return valve as in claim 16 (22, page 3 lines 55-70)
A pressure reducer in front of the gas regulation valve (20) as in claim 17.
The C02 tank 5 within the adapter(8) as in claim 19.
A second non return valve(22) and pressure reducer (20) between the gas regulating valve(49) and non rerun valve (22)
The adapter configured to be removable ( page 3 lines 25-30) and is refillable via the non return valve (39, page 3 lines 35-40) as in claim 22
The liquid container having closure ( C ) suitable for pressure relief as in claim 23)
The non return valve is at the base of adapter as in claim 24( see 39 in figure 1)
The C02 tank(5) is refillable via the non return valve while adapter installed as in claim 25( page 3 lines 35-40 lines 10-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18,20, and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the prior art of record tech nor disclose the limitations of claim 18,20 , and 23 in combination with the features of the independent claim and any intervening dependent claims. .
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Duane Smith whose telephone number is (571)272-1166. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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.
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.
DUANE SMITH
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/DUANE SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights