DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 01/12/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 21 have been amended; claims 10—20 have been cancelled; and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-9 and 21-27 are presently pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-9, 21, 23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stumphauzer (US 5,124,088) in view of Gorden et al. (US 20160106136).
With regard to claims 1 and 21, Stumphauzer teaches a system comprising: a chamber (11; FIG. 1: see hereafter)
PNG
media_image1.png
412
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
configured to receive a liquid and a pressurized gas (carbon dioxide via pressurized tank 22: “Since the inlet pressure of the carbon dioxide sprayed into the water by the nozzle 26 is greater than the restricted vent pressure of the valve 47 the pressure differential causes some of the carbon dioxide entering the tank 11 to pass through the water”) therein that are mixed together in the chamber to form a treated fluid (carbonated water: “When sufficient time has elapsed to complete carbonation of the water in the tank 11”); one or more vents (a first vent (46a) which includes flow restrictor, and a second vent (46b) which is not in communication with the flow restrictor), operatively coupled to the chamber (11) and configured to move from a closed position to an open position (by way of a valve 47) SO as to allow pressure in the chamber to be released through the one or more vents (“operatively connected into the vent pipe 46 is a pressure relief valve 48 which opens when the internal pressure within the tank reaches a certain specified pressure, preferably in the range of 100 to 150 psi (7.03 to 10.55 kg/cm2) thereby preventing an unsafe pressure from building up with the tank”); and a processor ((control circuit) 19) configured to control movement of the one or more vents (46a/46b) between the closed position and the open position such that the release of the pressure occurs in a first venting period (“restricted vent position”), in which flow is restricted through the one or more vents (46a/46b), and then in a second venting period (“full vent position”), in which flow is not restricted through the one or more vents (col. 5, Ins. 18-57: “In operation the carbonation apparatus 10 shown in FIG. 1 is automatically activated by the control circuit 19 when the water level in the tank 11 falls below a certain desired level. In the present apparatus the level of the water is monitored by a counter (not shown) which counts the number of drinks dispensed from the system and when sufficient water has been withdrawn from the tank 11 to produce a predetermined number of drinks, the control circuit 19 sends a signal through the line 20 to open the valve 13 and permit water from a water supply source (not shown) to flow through the supply tube 12 into the interior of the carbonation tank 11. Simultaneously during this time the control circuit 19 sends a signal through the line 61 to cause the threeway valve 47 to move to the "full vent" position opening into the full vent line 46a to permit the water to rapidly enter the tank 11 and the normally open carbon dioxide supply valve 23 is turned off. While water is flowing into the tank 11 it is directed in streams 16 which are tangential to the sidewall 41 of the tank causing the water to move in a swirling motion around the sidewall where it is chilled by a layer of ice 40 built up on the sidewall of the tank 11 due to the action of the cooling coils 35. When the water reaches a desired level near the top of the tank 11 the high water sensor 17 sends a signal through line 18 to the control circuit which turns off the valve 13 thereby stopping the flow of water into the tank 11 and simultaneously moving the valve 47 to the "restricted vent" position in which it permits a flow of carbon dioxide out of the tank 11 through the restricted vent pipe 46b at a restricted vent pressure of 40 to 80 psi (2.812 to 5.625 kg/cm2). During this time the control circuit 19 also sends a signal through the line 60 to the valve 23 which opens the valve and permits carbon dioxide to flow from the supply tank 22 through the pressure regulator 24, the carbon dioxide inlet tube 21 and the nozzle 26 at a pressure in the range of 60 to 100 psi (4.22 to 7.03 kg/cm2)…..”)(emphasis added).
Stumphauzer does not teach an air pump in fluid communication with the chamber and the processor configured to control the air pump to pump air into the chamber to facilitate dispensing of the treated fluid from the chamber; however, Gorden from the same field of endeavor directed toward a flow circuit for carbonated beverage machines teaches the aforementioned limitation: (air pump 43: “beverage medium in the cartridge may be moved out of the cartridge by introducing pressurized gas into the cartridge 4, e.g., by an air pump 43 pumping air into the cartridge 4 and forcing the beverage medium to exit via an outlet of the cartridge. Control of the system may be performed by control circuitry 5, which may include a programmed general purpose computer and/or other data processing device along with suitable software or other operating instructions, one or more memories (including non-transient storage media that may store software and/or other operating instructions),”, para. [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Stumjphauzer reference, to include an air pump in fluid communication with the chamber and the processor configured to control the air pump to pump air into the chamber to facilitate dispensing of the treated fluid, as suggested and taught by Gordon, for the purpose of providing expedient beverage dispersal via a dispersal outlet (Gorden: para. [0055]).
With regard to claim 2, Stumphauzer teaches the one or more vents include a first vent (46a) and a second vent (46b).
With regard to claim 3, Stumphauzer teaches a flow restrictor (47) configured to be in fluid communication with the first vent (46a); wherein the flow restrictor is not in fluid communication with the second vent (46b) (via specific arrangement 46b is fluidly restricted: “A three way normally closed valve 47 is operatively connected into the vent pipe 46 to provide the alternatives of being fully open through a full vent pipe 46a for complete venting of the tank 11, partially open for a restricted venting of the tank 11 through a restricted vent pipe 46b at approximately 40 to 80 psi (2.812 to 5.625 kg/cm2) or fully closed to seal the interior of the tank 11 from the atmosphere.”).
With regard to claim 4, Stumphauzer teaches the processor (19) is configured to control movement of the first vent (46a) and the second vent (46b) such that, in the first venting period (“restricted vent position”), venting of the chamber (11) occurs through the first vent (46a) and the flow restrictor, and in the second venting period, (“full vent position”), venting of the chamber (11) occurs through the second vent (46b) (“Simultaneously during this time the control circuit 19 sends a signal through the line 61 to cause the threeway valve 47 to move to the "full vent" position opening into the full vent line 46a to permit the water to rapidly enter the tank 11 and the normally open carbon dioxide supply valve 23 is turned off.”; “When the water reaches a desired level near the top of the tank 11 the high water sensor 17 sends a signal through line 18 to the control circuit which turns off the valve 13 thereby stopping the flow of water into the tank 11 and simultaneously moving the valve 47 to the "restricted vent" position in which it permits a flow of carbon dioxide out of the tank 11 through the restricted vent pipe 46b at a restricted vent pressure of 40 to 80 psi (2.812 to 5.625 kg/cm2).”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01(I)".
With regard to claim 5, Stumphauzer teaches in the first venting period (“restricted vent position”) venting of the chamber (11) does not occur through the second vent (46b); and in the second venting period (“full vent position”) venting of the chamber does not occur through the first vent (46a) or the flow restrictor (47) (“Simultaneously during this time the control circuit 19 sends a signal through the line 61 to cause the threeway valve 47 to move to the "full vent" position opening into the full vent line 46a to permit the water to rapidly enter the tank 11 and the normally open carbon dioxide supply valve 23 is turned off.”; “When the water reaches a desired level near the top of the tank 11 the high water sensor 17 sends a signal through line 18 to the control circuit which turns off the valve 13 thereby stopping the flow of water into the tank 11 and simultaneously moving the valve 47 to the "restricted vent" position in which it permits a flow of carbon dioxide out of the tank 11 through the restricted vent pipe 46b at a restricted vent pressure of 40 to 80 psi (2.812 to 5.625 kg/cm2).”).. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01(I)".
With regard to claim 6, Stumphauzer teaches venting of the chamber (11) is configured to occur through only one of the first and second vents (46a/46b) at a time (“Simultaneously during this time the control circuit 19 sends a signal through the line 61 to cause the threeway valve 47 to move to the "full vent" position opening into the full vent line 46a to permit the water to rapidly enter the tank 11 and the normally open carbon dioxide supply valve 23 is turned off.”; “When the water reaches a desired level near the top of the tank 11 the high water sensor 17 sends a signal through line 18 to the control circuit which turns off the valve 13 thereby stopping the flow of water into the tank 11 and simultaneously moving the valve 47 to the "restricted vent" position in which it permits a flow of carbon dioxide out of the tank 11 through the restricted vent pipe 46b at a restricted vent pressure of 40 to 80 psi (2.812 to 5.625 kg/cm2).”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01(I)".
With regard to claim 7, Stumphauzer teaches the one or more vents (46a/46b) include a single vent (inherently present as one vent is illustrated for each of 46a/46b in FIG. 1: “Simultaneously during this time the control circuit 19 sends a signal through the line 61 to cause the threeway valve 47 to move to the "full vent" position opening into the full vent line 46a to permit the water to rapidly enter the tank 11 and the normally open carbon dioxide supply valve 23 is turned off.”; “When the water reaches a desired level near the top of the tank 11 the high water sensor 17 sends a signal through line 18 to the control circuit which turns off the valve 13 thereby stopping the flow of water into the tank 11 and simultaneously moving the valve 47 to the "restricted vent" position in which it permits a flow of carbon dioxide out of the tank 11 through the restricted vent pipe 46b at a restricted vent pressure of 40 to 80 psi (2.812 to 5.625 kg/cm2).”)..
With regard to claim 8, Stumphauzer teaches the processor (19) is configured to control movement of the single vent (46a) such that, in the first venting period (“restricted vent position”), the single vent is repeatedly opened and closed, and in the second venting period (“full vent position”), the single vent remains open continuously. (“Simultaneously during this time the control circuit 19 sends a signal through the line 61 to cause the threeway valve 47 to move to the "full vent" position opening into the full vent line 46a to permit the water to rapidly enter the tank 11 and the normally open carbon dioxide supply valve 23 is turned off.”; “When the water reaches a desired level near the top of the tank 11 the high water sensor 17 sends a signal through line 18 to the control circuit which turns off the valve 13 thereby stopping the flow of water into the tank 11 and simultaneously moving the valve 47 to the "restricted vent" position in which it permits a flow of carbon dioxide out of the tank 11 through the restricted vent pipe 46b at a restricted vent pressure of 40 to 80 psi (2.812 to 5.625 kg/cm2).”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01(I)".
With regard to claim 9, Stumphauzer teaches the gas is carbon dioxide (“injecting carbon dioxide at a first pressure into the water with the pressure vessel”, cl. 1), and the treated fluid is a carbonated fluid (“continuing to inject carbon dioxide into the pressure vessel at the first pressure to maintain a pressure within the sealed pressure vessel which is sufficient to dispense carbonated water”, cl. 1).
With regard to claim 23, Stumphauzer teaches the at least one vent (46a/46b) comprises a first vent (46a) disposed in a first flow path (FIG. 1) and a second vent (46b) disposed in a second flow path (FIG. 1).
With regard to claim 25, Stumphauzer teaches a flow restrictor (47) in the first flow path in fluid communication with the first vent (46b).
With regard to claim 26, Stumphauzer teaches the restricted venting (via 47) during the first venting period (“restricted vent position”) is configured to occur along the first flow path via the first vent (46a) and the flow restrictor (47) (“Simultaneously during this time the control circuit 19 sends a signal through the line 61 to cause the threeway valve 47 to move to the "full vent" position opening into the full vent line 46a to permit the water to rapidly enter the tank 11 and the normally open carbon dioxide supply valve 23 is turned off.”; “When the water reaches a desired level near the top of the tank 11 the high water sensor 17 sends a signal through line 18 to the control circuit which turns off the valve 13 thereby stopping the flow of water into the tank 11 and simultaneously moving the valve 47 to the "restricted vent" position in which it permits a flow of carbon dioxide out of the tank 11 through the restricted vent pipe 46b at a restricted vent pressure of 40 to 80 psi (2.812 to 5.625 kg/cm2).”).. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01(I)".
With regard to claim 27, Stumphauzer teaches unrestricted venting during the second venting period (“full vent position”) is configured to occur along the second flow path via the second vent (46b) (“Simultaneously during this time the control circuit 19 sends a signal through the line 61 to cause the threeway valve 47 to move to the "full vent" position opening into the full vent line 46a to permit the water to rapidly enter the tank 11 and the normally open carbon dioxide supply valve 23 is turned off.”; “When the water reaches a desired level near the top of the tank 11 the high water sensor 17 sends a signal through line 18 to the control circuit which turns off the valve 13 thereby stopping the flow of water into the tank 11 and simultaneously moving the valve 47 to the "restricted vent" position in which it permits a flow of carbon dioxide out of the tank 11 through the restricted vent pipe 46b at a restricted vent pressure of 40 to 80 psi (2.812 to 5.625 kg/cm2).”).. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01(I)".
.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stumphauzer and Gorden et al. as detailed above, and further in view of Schnittger et al. (EP 3810469).
With regard to claim 22, Stumphauzer teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above; however, the citation does not teach the limitation of the at least one vent comprises a vent solenoid. However, Schnittger teaches the use of vent solenoids 21a and 22a operable with valve 40a to allow first and second venting arrangements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Stumphauzer reference, to include at least one vent comprises a vent solenoid, as suggested and taught by Schnittger, for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement for controlling the release of pressure through the vents. Wherein the solenoids allow for direct individual control of each vent.
With regard to claim 24, Schnittger teaches the first vent and the second vent each comprise a vent solenoid (Schnittger teaches the use of vent solenoids 21a and 22a operable with valve 40a to allow first and second venting arrangements).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the newly presented prior art rejection(s).
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 JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights