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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/16/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “trigger mechanism” in claim 17, “mechanism configured to open said valve” in claim 18 and “said mechanism” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites, “trigger mechanism, “claims 18 recites, “mechanism configured to open said valve,” and claim 19 recites, “said mechanism.” The limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 17-20 is 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.
Claim 17 limitation “trigger mechanism,” claim 18 limitation “mechanism configured to open said valve,” and claim 19 limitation “said mechanism” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 20 recites, “said safety shutdown function … causes said valve to open and said normally closed.” The intended meaning of this language is unclear.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le Fort (CH 715102).
Regarding claim 1, Le Fort discloses an apparatus for carbonating a liquid in a bottle (“Apparatus for gasifying a liquid” [Title]; “module 2 is formed by a means of supplying carbon dioxide” [page 3 of attached translation]), said apparatus comprising
a main body (Fig. 4, “frame 55” [page 3]) and a head (Figs. 3 and 4, “head 13” comprising “assembly 7, 45” [page 3]),
wherein said head is configured to hold a bottle filled with a liquid (Fig. 4, assembly 7, 45 holds bottle / “container 20” [page 3]) and
wherein said head is movably attached to said main body such that said head with said bottle can be moved between a first position at said main body and a second position away from said main body through a threshold position between said first and said second position or at said second position (described below),
characterized in that said apparatus further comprises
a switch (“lever 41” [page 4]) and
a valve (“valve 39” [page 3]) operatively connected to said switch (“A lever 41, advantageously L-shaped, arranged inside and against the internal face of the right wall 56 of the frame 55, is connected to said shaft 44 and makes it possible to actuate the latter in rotation in one direction or in the other on an amplitude defined by construction. A device with elastic return member (not shown), cooperating simultaneously with the shaft 44 and the lever 41, tends to maintain and replace the latter automatically, after maneuver, in its initial position shown in FIG. 7 (position 0). On the shaft 44 are mounted, linked in translation and in rotation, two cams 42, 43, opposite, respectively, the actuation push button of the vent valve 39 and that of the valve d introduction of CO .sub.2 36. These cams are arranged in such a way that their actions by successive presses on, or by successive releases of the aforementioned pushbuttons, controlled by means of lever 41, are carried out in a coordinated manner according to the process of gasification” [page 4]),
wherein arranging said head with said bottle at said first position or between said first position and said threshold position causes said switch to close said valve or to keep said valve closed (described below) and
wherein arranging said head with said bottle at said second position or between said second position and said threshold position causes said switch to open said valve or to keep said valve open (“This process takes place according to the following steps (see also fig. 1): (a) Opening the tap 31 of the carbon dioxide bottle, which causes a pressurization of the portion of flexible tube 35 connecting the regulator 33 to the CO .sub.2 introduction valve 36, the lever 41 being in position 0, which means: open air valve 39 and closed CO .sub.2 introduction valve 36; (b) Closure of the valve 39 resulting from the support exerted by the cam 42 on its push button, controlled by tilting the lever 41, the latter passing from its position 0 to a defined position, this action causing a rotation corresponding, either at an angle a, to the shaft 44 and to the cam 42 linked thereto; (c) Opening of the valve 36 resulting from the support exerted by the cam 43, obtained by continuing to tilt the lever 41 by an angle ß defined by construction (position (3), up to a stop (not shown) , the cam 42 being shaped so that the valve 39 is kept closed. As long as the lever 41 is held in this position ß, the carbon dioxide dissolves in the liquid 25 thanks to the injector38 and spreads in particular in the surrounding space 23, 14E and 15 (see infra); (d) After a period of dissolution of CO .sub.2 in the liquid 25, assessed by the operator as a function of the desired gasification, closing of the CO .sub.2 introduction valve 36 while letting the lever 41 return to position a below the action of the aforementioned recall device (not shown); (e) Opening the vent valve 39, by releasing the lever 41 towards its position 0, which causes depressurization of the enclosure 4. Steps (b), (c), (d) and (e) can be repeated until the desired gasification of the liquid 25 is obtained” [pages 4-5]).
Regarding claim 2, Le Fort discloses wherein said liquid in said bottle can be carbonated if the valve is closed (in step (c), “valve 39 is kept closed. As long as the lever 41 is held in this position ß, the carbon dioxide dissolves in the liquid 25” [page 5]) and wherein gas can be released from said bottle through the valve, if said valve is open (“Opening the vent valve 39, by releasing the lever 41 towards its position 0, which causes depressurization of the enclosure 4” [page 5]).
Regarding claim 3, Le Fort discloses wherein said head is pivotably attached to said main body, such that said head with said bottle can be pivoted between said first and said second position (“This process takes place according to the following steps (see also fig. 1): (a) Opening the tap 31 of the carbon dioxide bottle, which causes a pressurization of the portion of flexible tube 35 connecting the regulator 33 to the CO .sub.2 introduction valve 36, the lever 41 being in position 0, which means: open air valve 39 and closed CO .sub.2 introduction valve 36; (b) Closure of the valve 39 resulting from the support exerted by the cam 42 on its push button, controlled by tilting the lever 41, the latter passing from its position 0 to a defined position, this action causing a rotation corresponding, either at an angle a, to the shaft 44 and to the cam 42 linked thereto; (c) Opening of the valve 36 resulting from the support exerted by the cam 43, obtained by continuing to tilt the lever 41 by an angle ß defined by construction (position (3), up to a stop (not shown) , the cam 42 being shaped so that the valve 39 is kept closed. As long as the lever 41 is held in this position ß, the carbon dioxide dissolves in the liquid 25 thanks to the injector38 and spreads in particular in the surrounding space 23, 14E and 15 (see infra); (d) After a period of dissolution of CO .sub.2 in the liquid 25, assessed by the operator as a function of the desired gasification, closing of the CO .sub.2 introduction valve 36 while letting the lever 41 return to position a below the action of the aforementioned recall device (not shown); (e) Opening the vent valve 39, by releasing the lever 41 towards its position 0, which causes depressurization of the enclosure 4. Steps (b), (c), (d) and (e) can be repeated until the desired gasification of the liquid 25 is obtained” [pages 4-5]).
Regarding claim 4, Le Fort discloses wherein said switch is a lever switch arranged between said main body and said head (“lever 41” [page 4, described in the rejection of claim 1),
wherein arranging said head with said bottle between said first position and said threshold position actuates a lever of said lever switch, causing said lever switch to close said valve or to keep said valve closed (lever 41 is connected to cams 41, 42: “two cams 42, 43, opposite, respectively, the actuation push button of the vent valve 39 and that of the valve d introduction of CO .sub.2 36. These cams are arranged in such a way that their actions by successive presses on, or by successive releases of the aforementioned pushbuttons, controlled by means of lever 41” [page 4]; “Opening of the valve 36 resulting from the support exerted by the cam 43, obtained by continuing to tilt the lever 41 by an angle ß defined by construction (position (3), up to a stop (not shown) , the cam 42 being shaped so that the valve 39 is kept closed” [page 5]), and
wherein arranging said head with said bottle between said second position and said threshold position releases said lever, causing said lever switch to open said valve or to keep said valve open (“the lever 41 being in position 0, which means: open air valve 39” [page 4]).
Regarding claim 5, Le Fort discloses wherein the valve is a normally open valve (“vent valve 39 is open (that is to say, in the usual expressions of a person skilled in the art, respectively "normally closed" / "Normally open")” [page 4])
Regarding claim 15, Le Fort discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising said bottle (“container 20” [page 3]).
Regarding claim 17, Le Fort discloses a pressurizing line (“flexible tube 35” [page 4]) for carbonating said liquid in said bottle (described below),
a normally closed valve (“CO .sub.2 introduction valve 36”; “CO .sub.2 introduction valve 36 being closed, while the vent valve 39 is open (that is to say, in the usual expressions of a person skilled in the art, respectively "normally closed" / "Normally open"” [page 4]) arranged along said pressurizing line,
a trigger mechanism (“tap 31” [page 4]) operatively connected to said normally closed valve, as well as
a gas source (“carbon dioxide bottle” [page 4]) fluidly connected to said pressurizing line,
wherein actuating said trigger mechanism causes said normally closed valve to open, creating a fluid connection between said gas source and said bottle, wherein a predetermined amount of gas is injected from said gas source to said bottle (“Opening the tap 31 of the carbon dioxide bottle, which causes a pressurization of the portion of flexible tube 35 connecting the regulator 33 to the CO .sub.2 introduction valve 36” [page 4]).
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Fort (CH 715102) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2015/0151258).
Regarding claim 6, Le Fort does not expressly disclose wherein said valve is a normally open solenoid valve, wherein actuating said lever enables said normally open solenoid valve to energize, whereby said normally open solenoid valve is closed or kept closed and wherein releasing said lever causes said normally open solenoid valve to deenergize, which causes said normally open solenoid valve to open or to keep said normally open solenoid valve open.
However, Le Fort discloses a valve and lever switch as described in the rejection of claim 1. Cohen discloses utilizing a solenoid valve for carbonation of a bottle: “FIG. 5 shows the elements of FIG. 1 along with a CO.sub.2 canister 140 and two solenoid actuated valves 142 and 144 controlled by controller 50. Controller 50 may activate valves 142 and 144 alternatively such that, at any one time, only one of them is open. Thus, when valve 142 controlling the output of CO.sub.2 canister is open, gas can move into a tube 146 between valves 142 and 144 but cannot move any further since valve 144 is closed. Once controller 50 may close valve 142, controller 50 may open valve 144, thereby enabling the gas in tube 146 to move towards carbonation head 10. Since tube 146 is of a fixed size, the amount of CO.sub.2 provided to carbonation head 10 at any one time may be a fixed amount” [0048]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein said valve is a normally open solenoid valve, wherein actuating said lever enables said normally open solenoid valve to energize, whereby said normally open solenoid valve is closed or kept closed and wherein releasing said lever causes said normally open solenoid valve to deenergize, which causes said normally open solenoid valve to open or to keep said normally open solenoid valve open. This is the use of a known, alternative type of valve, applied to a known device, to predictably control the valve to open and close as desired.
Regarding claim 7, Le Fort does not expressly disclose wherein said normally open solenoid valve is configured to be energized by actuating the lever only upon a user input.
However, Le Fort discloses wherein the lever is actuated upon a user input (as described in the rejection of claim 1, the lever is actuated when a user rotates the bottle), and Cohen discloses a solenoid valve as described in the rejection of claim 6.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein said normally open solenoid valve is configured to be energized by actuating the lever only upon a user input. This allows for using a solenoid valve, which is the use of a known, alternative type of valve, applied to a known device, to predictably control the valve to open and close as desired.
Regarding claim 8, Le Fort does not expressly disclose wherein said valve is a normally open solenoid valve, wherein actuating said lever causes said normally open solenoid valve to energize, which causes said normally open solenoid valve to close or to keep said normally open solenoid valve closed and wherein releasing said lever causes said normally open solenoid valve to deenergize, which causes said normally open solenoid valve to open or to keep said normally open solenoid valve open.
However, Le Fort discloses wherein the valve is a normally open valve, as described in the rejection of claim 5, and wherein the lever controls the valve as described in the rejection of claim 1. Additionally, Cohen discloses a solenoid valve as described in the rejection of claim 6.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein said valve is a normally open solenoid valve, wherein actuating said lever causes said normally open solenoid valve to energize, which causes said normally open solenoid valve to close or to keep said normally open solenoid valve closed and wherein releasing said lever causes said normally open solenoid valve to deenergize, which causes said normally open solenoid valve to open or to keep said normally open solenoid valve open. This allows for using a solenoid valve, which is the use of a known, alternative type of valve, applied to a known device, to predictably control the valve to open and close as desired.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Fort (CH 715102).
Regarding claim 9, Le Fort does not expressly disclose wherein said first position and said threshold position are separated by a pivot angle R of 2° to 15°.
However, Le Fort describes that the numerical values of the angles are “defined by construction”: “angle γ defined by construction” [page 4]; “angle ß defined by construction” [page 5].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein said first position and said threshold position are separated by a pivot angle R of 2° to 15°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05-II-A.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Fort (CH 715102) in view of Waisman et al. (US 2023/0285912).
Regarding claim 11, Le Fort does not expressly disclose a water tank configured to be filled with water, wherein said water tank is in fluidic connection with said bottle via a liquid line.
Waisman is directed to a carbonation machine [Title]. Waisman discloses a water tank (“water reservoir” [claim 1]) configured to be filled with water, wherein said water tank is in fluidic connection with said bottle via a liquid line (liquid line / “piping”; claim 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a water tank configured to be filled with water, wherein said water tank is in fluidic connection with said bottle via a liquid line. This allows water to be stored for future carbonation, preventing a user from having to individually fill each bottle that will be carbonated.
Regarding claim 12, Le Fort does not expressly disclose a pump for pumping water from said water tank into said bottle.
Waisman discloses a pump for pumping water from said water tank into said bottle (“a pump for pumping water out of the water reservoir and transfer the pumped water via the piping” [claim 1]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pump for pumping water from said water tank into said bottle. This allows water to be stored and pumped for future carbonation, preventing a user from having to individually fill each bottle that will be carbonated.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Fort (CH 715102) in view of Zalm et al. (US 5,870,944).
Regarding claim 13, Le Fort does not expressly disclose wherein said valve is further configured to open if a gas pressure inside said bottle exceeds a predetermined value.
Zalm is directed to a carbonated beverage making apparatus [Title]. Zalm discloses a valve configured to open if a gas pressure inside said bottle exceeds a predetermined value (the vent orifice 14d and the volume of the chamber 170 is such that with the vent relief valve 166d closed, the pressure in the chamber 170d rises to 75 psi gauge pressure at such time as the pressure in the container 16b rises to, for example, 80 or 85 psi. At this time, the pressure relief valve 166d would open, and provide a flow discharge passage having an effective cross sectional flow area many times greater than that of the orifice 164d” [Col. 13, line 63 – Col. 14, line 3]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein said valve is further configured to open if a gas pressure inside said bottle exceeds a predetermined value. This provides a safe way of releasing the gas.
Regarding claim 14, Le Fort does not expressly disclose a pressure relief valve in fluidic connection with said bottle via a pressure relief line, wherein said pressure relief valve is configured to open if a gas pressure inside said bottle exceeds a predetermined value, wherein gas is released from said bottle.
Zalm discloses a pressure relief valve in fluidic connection with said bottle via a pressure relief line, wherein said pressure relief valve is configured to open if a gas pressure inside said bottle exceeds a predetermined value, wherein gas is released from said bottle (the vent orifice 14d and the volume of the chamber 170 is such that with the vent relief valve 166d closed, the pressure in the chamber 170d rises to 75 psi gauge pressure at such time as the pressure in the container 16b rises to, for example, 80 or 85 psi. At this time, the pressure relief valve 166d would open, and provide a flow discharge passage having an effective cross sectional flow area many times greater than that of the orifice 164d” [Col. 13, line 63 – Col. 14, line 3]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pressure relief valve in fluidic connection with said bottle via a pressure relief line, wherein said pressure relief valve is configured to open if a gas pressure inside said bottle exceeds a predetermined value, wherein gas is released from said bottle. This provides a safe way of releasing the gas.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Fort (CH 715102) in view of Hoare et al. (US 2014/0097549).
Regarding claim 16, Le Fort does not expressly disclose wherein an opening portion of said bottle forms a male counterpart complementary to a female receptor portion of said head, such that said bottle and said head are configured and arranged to be connected to each other via a bayonet mount formed by said female receptor portion of said head and said opening portion of said bottle.
Hoare is directed to a carbonation device [Title]. Hoare discloses utilizing a male counterpart complementary to a female receptor portion for connecting components, as well as a bayonet mount (“Where male and female components such as fittings and couplings are disclosed, it will be appreciated that the orientation of the male and female components such as couplings, threads and bayonet fittings can generally be reversed without adverse consequence as would be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in this art” [0083]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein an opening portion of said bottle forms a male counterpart complementary to a female receptor portion of said head, such that said bottle and said head are configured and arranged to be connected to each other via a bayonet mount formed by said female receptor portion of said head and said opening portion of said bottle. This is a known means for connecting components in a carbonation device, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Fort (CH 715102) in view of Gustavsson (EP 2226539).
Regarding claim 18, Le Fort does not expressly disclose a mechanism configured to open said valve upon carbonation of said liquid in said bottle after a predetermined lull time, such that gas can be released from said bottle through said valve.
Gustavsson is directed to an overpressure- and ventilating-valve for an aeration device [Title]. Gustavsson discloses a mechanism configured to open a valve upon carbonation of a liquid in a bottle after a predetermined lull time, such that gas can be released from said bottle through said valve (“When the overpressure valve opens, the user releases the button, whereby the valve is closed and the bottle is ventilated by way of its interior being put into communication with the environment. This procedure is repeated a number of times until the user deems the water to be enough aerated” [0003]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mechanism configured to open said valve upon carbonation of said liquid in said bottle after a predetermined lull time, such that gas can be released from said bottle through said valve. This allows for releasing gas from the bottle so that a desired amount of CO2 remains.
Regarding claim 19, Le Fort does not expressly disclose wherein said mechanism is configured to release said gas in a sequence of subsequent opening and closing events of said valve.
Gustavsson discloses wherein said mechanism is configured to release said gas in a sequence of subsequent opening and closing events of said valve (“When the overpressure valve opens, the user releases the button, whereby the valve is closed and the bottle is ventilated by way of its interior being put into communication with the environment. This procedure is repeated a number of times until the user deems the water to be enough aerated” [0003]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein said mechanism is configured to release said gas in a sequence of subsequent opening and closing events of said valve. This allows for releasing gas from the bottle so that a desired amount of CO2 remains.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Fort (CH 715102) in view of Waisman (US 2018/0200682), hereinafter Waisman ‘682.
Regarding claim 20, Le Fort does not expressly disclose a control unit with a safety shutdown function configured such that upon a failure event, said safety shutdown function stops fluid transfer into the bottle and causes said valve to open and said normally closed (please see also the 112(b) rejection of claim 20).
Waisman ‘682 is directed to a carbonation machine [Abstract]. Waisman ‘682 discloses a control unit with a safety shutdown function configured such that upon a failure event, said safety shutdown function stops fluid transfer into the bottle and causes a valve to close (“In some cases (e.g., upon failure of canister valve closer 26 to operate properly), an overpressure device may close canister gas release valve 25” [0093]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a control unit with a safety shutdown function configured such that upon a failure event, said safety shutdown function stops fluid transfer into the bottle and causes said valve to close. This prevents CO2 from being transferred into the bottle in the event of a failure, providing safety for the device and the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights