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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments filed 12/30/2025
The Amendment has been considered. Claims 5 and 25 are allowed as upheld from the previous Action. New claims 27-30 have been considered, and are seen to be further disclosed by Hasselberg as described in the prior art rejections below.
Applicant’s Arguments regarding original claims 1 and 20 are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Hasselberg is silent regarding the device “configured to operate at ambient temperature”.
The specification paragraphs elaborate on ambient temperature, but this is not seen to be a specific definition for ambient but rather an example. Even so, applicant’s temperature range is broad, ranging from near freezing (4 degrees C) to warm (32 degrees C). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is seen to merely require operability at the surrounding/environmental temperature, as long as the liquid does not freeze/boil, and the gas does not condensate.
While a specific temperature range is not explicitly stated, as Hasselberg discloses a beer carbonator (understood in the art to be operated at a preferred cold or chilled temperature) necessarily in an environment, the device reads on the limitation. If the applicant wishes to overcome Hasselberg using this concept, the claim can be amended to include a more specific condition and result, or include the proprietary structure that enables as such over Hasselberg. In light of the above, the rejections are upheld.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, 20-24, and 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasselberg (US 3397871).
Regarding claim 1, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “A system for carbonating a liquid, the system comprising:
a liquid source (T);
a carbon dioxide source (from 53; Col 3 lines 31-33); and
a contactor (system of A-H) for carbonating the liquid, the contactor comprising:
a first channel (C) in communication with the liquid source (see FIG 1), the first channel having a first inner diameter (diameter at 34), the first channel comprising a first end (left end), a second end (right end), and a first inlet (opening where H enters) defined in a sidewall (top of C) of the first channel;
a second channel (60) comprising a first end (left end) in fluid communication with the second end of the first channel, the second channel having a second inner diameter that is smaller than the first inner diameter (shown by 60 being located in 34); and
a sparge (H) disposed at least partially within the first channel and at least partially within the second channel (extends into the region where 32 and 60 overlap such that it is within both channels at that spot),
…
wherein the system is configured to operate at ambient temperature (it is understood, even if not ideal, that this system is capable of operating somewhere in the range of 4 to 32 degrees Celsius [like the applicant] as it is a closed system, and carbon dioxide is a gas and beer is a liquid at ambient temperature).”
Hasselberg is silent regarding “wherein the sparge is configured to generate bubbles having an average diameter of 100 µm or less…”
However, Hasselberg (Col 2 lines 13-17) does teach a different sparger in the same system with a porosity (analogous to “configured to generate bubbles”) in the range of 5, 10, 20, 35, 65 and 165 microns.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to utilize a sparge in the system of Hasselberg having a preferred pore size, in this case “wherein the sparge is configured to generate bubbles having an average diameter of 100 µm or less” as Hasselberg already utilizes a sparge, and choosing a desired sparge pore size to achieve the same expected result (sparging carbon dioxide into beer) would be within routine skill in the art.
Hasselberg is further silent regarding “wherein the sparge is configured to provide carbon dioxide to the second channel at a rate of 1 gram to 10 grams carbon dioxide per liter of the liquid flowing through the contactor…”.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to operate the carbonator system of Hasselberg to output a desired carbonation, in this case such that “wherein the sparge is configured to provide carbon dioxide to the second channel at a rate of 1 gram to 10 grams carbon dioxide per liter of the liquid flowing through the contactor”, as Hasselberg already carbonates beer, and choosing a desired carbonation to achieve the same expected result (carbonated beer) would be within routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “further comprising a restrictor (32, would restrict as flow area decreases) disposed at the second end of the first channel, the restrictor comprising a tapered inner surface (32 is inner tapered).”
Regarding claim 3, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the sparge comprises pores (understood that sparge has pores by definition) through which carbon dioxide flows (from F into 32; column 3 lines 43-55).”
Regarding claim 4, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the pores are disposed only on the portion of the sparge disposed in the second channel (only on the bottom part of H; such that CO2 does not leak outside of 34).”
Regarding claim 6, Hasselberg is further silent regarding “wherein the system is configured to carbonate the liquid to 3 grams to 8 grams carbon dioxide per liter of liquid.”
Like claim 1, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to operate the carbonator system of Hasselberg to output a desired carbonation, in this case such that “wherein the sparge is configured to provide carbon dioxide to the second channel at a rate of 1 gram to 10 grams carbon dioxide per liter of the liquid flowing through the contactor”, as Hasselberg already carbonates beer, and choosing a desired carbonation to achieve the same expected result (carbonated beer) would be within routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “wherein system is configured to carbonate at a temperature from about 4° C to about 32 °C (reiterated from claim 1: it is understood, even if not ideal, that this system is capable of operating somewhere in the range of 4 to 32 degrees Celsius [like the applicant] as it is a closed system, and carbon dioxide is a gas and beer is a liquid at ambient temperature).”.
Regarding claims 8 and 9 Hasselberg is further silent regarding “wherein the system is configured to carbonate 1 liter to 10 liters of the liquid per minute” or “wherein the system is configured to carbonate 200 liters to 2000 liters per minute”.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to operate the carbonator system of Hasselberg to output a volume of liquid, such as scaling the system up or down as desired, in this case such that “wherein the system is configured to carbonate 1 liter to 10 liters of the liquid per minute” or “wherein the system is configured to carbonate 200 liters to 2000 liters per minute”, as Hasselberg already forms carbonated liquid, and choosing a desired volume or scale of liquid to achieve the same expected result (carbonated beer) would be within routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the system is configured to carbonate the liquid without thermal treatment (there is no mention of thermal treatment).”
Regarding claim 11, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the liquid is one of cola, a carbonated soft drink, juice, coffee, tea, water, dairy, or a protein-based liquid (this limitation is seen as intended use; for scope purposes, the claim is only seen to require a drinking liquid, which is read by Hasselberg).
Regarding claim 12, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the sparge has an outer diameter that is less than the second inner diameter such that a sparge gap is formed between the sparge and the second channel (evidenced by bottom portion of sparge being located within the overlapping channels, such that a gap exists around that portion).”
Regarding claim 13, Hasselberg is further silent regarding “wherein the system has a height of about 2 meters, a length of about 1 meter, and a width of about 1 meter.”
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to design the carbonator system of Hasselberg to be a preferred size, such as scaling the system up or down as desired, in this case such that “wherein the system has a height of about 2 meters, a length of about 1 meter, and a width of about 1 meter”, as Hasselberg already has a carbonated liquid system, and choosing a desired scale of the system to achieve the same expected result (carbonated beer) would be within routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “A system for carbonating a liquid, the system comprising:
a contactor (system of A-H) for carbonating the liquid flowing through the contactor, the contactor comprising:
a first channel (C, 32-34) having a first inner diameter (at 34);
a second channel (60) in fluid communication with the first channel, the second channel having a second inner diameter (diameter within 60);
a sparge (H) disposed at least partially within the first channel and at least partially within the second channel (extends into the region where 32 and 60 overlap such that it is within both channels at that spot), …
wherein the system is configured to operate at ambient temperature (it is understood, even if not ideal, that this system is capable of operating somewhere in the range of 4 to 32 degrees Celsius [like the applicant] as it is a closed system, and carbon dioxide is a gas and beer is a liquid at ambient temperature).”
Hasselberg is silent regarding “the sparge configured to deliver bubbles of carbon dioxide to the liquid at a rate of at least 1 grams carbon dioxide per liter of the liquid flowing through the carbonator…”.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to operate the carbonator system of Hasselberg to output a desired carbonation, in this case such that “the sparge configured to deliver bubbles of carbon dioxide to the liquid at a rate of at least 1 grams carbon dioxide per liter of the liquid flowing through the carbonator”, as Hasselberg already carbonates beer, and choosing a desired carbonation to achieve the same expected result (carbonated beer) would be within routine skill in the art.
Hasselberg is further silent regarding “the bubbles having an average diameter of 100 µm or less…”
However, Hasselberg (Col 2 lines 13-17) does teach a different sparger in the same system with a porosity (analogous to “configured to generate bubbles”) in the range of 5, 10, 20, 35, 65 and 165 microns.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to utilize a sparge in the system of Hasselberg having a preferred pore size, in this case “the bubbles having an average diameter of 100 µm or less” as Hasselberg already utilizes a sparge, and choosing a desired sparge pore size to achieve the same expected result (sparging carbon dioxide into beer) would be within routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 21, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the second inner diameter is smaller than the first inner diameter (shown by 60 being located in 34).”
Regarding claim 22, Hasselberg is further silent regarding “wherein the system is configured to carbonate at least 1 liter to 2000 liters per minute”.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to operate the carbonator system of Hasselberg to output a volume of liquid, such as scaling the system up or down as desired, in this case such that “wherein the system is configured to carbonate at least 1 liter to 2000 liters per minute”, as Hasselberg already forms carbonated liquid, and choosing a desired volume or scale of liquid to achieve the same expected result (carbonated beer) would be within routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the sparge has an outer diameter that is less than the second inner diameter such that a sparge gap is formed between the sparge and the second channel (evidenced by bottom portion of sparge being located within the overlapping channels, such that a gap exists around that portion).”
Hasselberg is silent regarding “wherein the sparge gap is 0.75 mm to 10 mm.”
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to design the carbonator system of Hasselberg to be a preferred size, such as scaling the system up or down as desired, in this case such that “wherein the sparge gap is 0.75 mm to 10 mm”, as Hasselberg already has a carbonated liquid system, and choosing a desired scale of the system to achieve the same expected result (carbonated beer) would be within routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the sparge is coaxial with the first channel and coaxial with the second channel (portion at 32/34 is coaxial with 32/34).”
Regarding claim 26, Hasselberg (FIG 1) is silent regarding “wherein the sparge is a sintered sparge.”
However, Hasselberg does disclose a different sparge being made of sintered steel (claim 1). It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to design the sparge of in Hasselberg such that “wherein the sparge is a sintered sparge”, as choosing a known, accessible process for manufacturing the expected component would be within routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 27, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “further comprising a liquid inlet (right opening of 32) disposed in the first channel (see FIG 1) and a gas inlet (61) disposed in the first channel (see FIG 1).”
Regarding claim 28, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the liquid inlet (right end of 32, horizontal in drawing) is oriented perpendicular to the gas inlet (61, vertical in drawing).“
Regarding claim 29, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “further comprising a second inlet (right opening of 32) defined in the first end of the first channel.”
Regarding claim 30, Hasselberg (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the second inlet is coaxial with the sparge (it is coaxial with the sparge head).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 25 are allowed for the same Reasons as set forth in the previous Office Action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)431-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/PATRICK C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753