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
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on August 19, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, machine, and system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1-20
Withdrawn claims:
8-20
Claims currently under consideration:
1-7
Currently rejected claims:
1-7
Allowed claims:
None
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1, 2, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinnott (US 4,585,135 A) in view of Farr (US 2006/0201331 A1)(IDS Reference filed 11/29/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Sinnott teaches a screw closure for a bottle (i.e., a container where the opening is sealable with a twist cap) to provide a seal for carbonated beverages giving an internal pressure in excess of external pressure (i.e., pressurized effervescent liquid beverage; col. 1, lines 9-15; Fig. 1, external threading 6).
Sinnott does not teach the base liquid being effervesced with at least one sparingly soluble gas.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Farr teaches an effervescent beverage with a sparingly soluble gas (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product of Sinnott with the use of a sparingly soluble gas as taught by Farr. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Farr teaches that the effervescent liquid has a smooth and silky texture when a sparingly soluble gas is used (Abstract).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Sinnott teaches that the pressure in the bottle is increased to 689 kPa (col. 6, lines 65-66), which falls within the claimed ranges of “less than approximately 690 kPa” (claim 2) and “between approximately 552 to 690 kPa” (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, Sinnott teaches that the screw closure has an internally threaded skirt (col. 2, lines 20-4).
Regarding claim 6, Sinnott teaches that the beverage is carbonated (i.e., effervesced with carbon dioxide; col. 1, lines 14-15)
Sinnott does not teach wherein the base liquid is effervesced with a mixture of carbon dioxide and the at least one sparingly soluble gas.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Farr teaches using carbon dioxide and oxygen (i.e., a sparingly soluble gas; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product of Sinnott with the use of a sparingly soluble gas as taught by Farr. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Farr teaches that the effervescent liquid has a smooth and silky texture when a sparingly soluble gas is used (Abstract).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinnott (US 4,585,135 A) in view of Farr (US 2006/0201331 A1)(IDS Reference filed 11/29/2022) and applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Valve (“Handbook of Valves and Actuators”, Valve Manual International, p. 1-8, published 2007 [accessed online October 20, 2025]).
Regarding claim 3, Sinnott teaches that the internal pressure is in excess of external atmospheric pressure (col. 1, lines 15-16) and that the venting pressure of the cap was in excess of 1379 kPa (col. 8, lines 30-31). Therefore, it logically follows that the pressure within the bottle falls between 101.325 kPa (atmospheric pressure) and 1379 kPa, which encompasses the claimed ranges of “between approximately 344 to 552 kPa”. Evidence to support that atmospheric pressure is 101.325 kPa is provided by Valves. Valves teaches that atmospheric pressure is nominally 101.325 kPa (p. 7, ¶ Atmospheric Pressure).
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinnott (US 4,585,135 A) in view of Farr (US 2006/0201331 A1) (IDS Reference filed 11/29/2022) and applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Agro (Agro, Charlsie and Cowley, Jenny, “Marketplace tested Perrier, LaCroix, Bubly sparkling waters to see which is most acidic”, CBC, published November 14, 2021 [accessed online October 20, 2025]).
Regarding claim 7, Sinnott teaches that the beverage is carbonated (i.e., effervesced with carbon dioxide; col. 1, lines 14-15)
Sinnott does not teach wherein the base liquid is effervesced with a mixture of carbon dioxide and the at least one sparingly soluble gas and has a pH of approximately 4.0 or great.
Regarding the base liquid being effervesced with a mixture of carbon dioxide and at least one sparingly soluble gas, Farr teaches using carbon dioxide and oxygen (i.e., a sparingly soluble gas; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product of Sinnott with the use of a sparingly soluble gas as taught by Farr. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Farr teaches that the effervescent liquid has a smooth and silky texture when a sparingly soluble gas is used (Abstract).
Regarding the pH of the beverage, Agro teaches the acidity of sparkling waters (i.e., effervescent beverages) where some of the beverages has a pH of 4.06 or greater (p. 3, Table, lines 5-14), which falls in the claimed range of “approximately 4.0 of greater”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product of Sinnott to have a pH greater than 4 as taught by Agro. One would be motivated to make this modification because Agro teaches that pH levels below 4 can start to wear down the enamel on teeth (p. 3, ¶ 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p, F 8:00a-12:00p.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793