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 .
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, and 3-19 are pending in the current office action. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 17-19 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that 112b rejections are overcome due to claim amendments to claims 12 and 13.
Examiner agrees and 112b rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the actuating units 16, 18 of Kurzer are not distributed on an upper part of a basic unit as now claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kurzer teaches actuating units which can reasonably include levers 100 which are above the surface of the containers and can reasonably read on an upper part of the basic unit as the claim does not provide boundaries as to the interpretation of the basic unit. Further, see modified rejection below as well as 112b and 112a rejections due to newly amended limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, and 3-19 are 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 1 recites the limitation " a number of actuating units distributed on an upper surface of an upper part of the basic unit above all of the plurality of pressure container receptacles” in line 6. This limitation is unclear as the claim preamble recites, “the basic unit comprising” and later specifies that the number of actuating units are part of what is to be considered as the “basic unit”. The claim is unclear since the claim requires the actuating units to be distributed on an upper surface of an upper part of the basic unit, but the claim also states the actuating units are part of what is to be considered the basic unit. Thus, the basic unit itself cannot be distributed on an upper surface of itself. Examiner recommends applicant clearly define the basic unit and its relation to the actuating units.
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 1, and 3-19 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 1 has been amended to include the limitation, “each actuating unit of the number of actuating units provides a separate fluid connection between a respective one of the plurality of pressure container receptacles and the beverage container”. The specification does not provide support for this limitation. The specification does not describe the “separate” fluid connection.
Claim 1 has also been amended to include, " a number of actuating units distributed on an upper surface of an upper part of the basic unit above all of the plurality of pressure container receptacles”. The specification does not provide support for the actuating units being disposed on an upper surface of the basic unit. Figure 3 does not provide support for the actuating units 8 being “on an upper surface” of the basic unit 3.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kurzer (EP1224966A2 using machine translation) as evidenced by Danieli et al.(PGPub# US 2020/0360875 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kurzer teaches a beverage carbonator 1 having a basic unit, the basic unit comprising: a plurality of pressure container receptacles (8 and 12) for receiving a corresponding number of pressure containers (10 and 14), and a beverage container receptacle 4 for receiving a beverage container 6. (par. 32 and figure 1), a number of actuating units (16, 100, ansd 18, 100) distributed on an upper surface of an upper part of the basic unit above all of the plurality of pressure container receptacles (levers 100 are above the pressure containers), and each actuating unit of the number of actuating units provides a fluid connection between a respective one of the plurality of pressure container receptacles and the beverage container (figure 1, lines 20 and 22 converge into tee 24 to enter beverage container).
Kurzer does not explicitly teach the connections being separate.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement to include separate lines as opposed to the integral tee of Kurzer. Danieli provides evidence showing it is known in the art to have a single line system for pressuring a beverage container. (abstract, figure 1 and 9a) Making the lines separable or integral has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided. See MPEP 2144.04 V.
Regarding claim 3, Kurzer teaches wherein at least two pressure container receptacles 10, 14 are provided.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kurzer teaches wherein at least two pressure container receptacles 10, 14 are provided, but does not explicitly teach wherein at least three pressure container receptacles are provided (claim 4) or wherein at least four pressure container receptacles are provided (claim 5).
However, Kurzer teaches that the apparatus is designed with two gas sources in order to allow 2 different gases to independently be selected for enriching the beverage. (par. 8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the amount of pressure containers and corresponding hardware to allow of a larger variety of gases to be utilized with the beverage system. It would also have been obvious to have duplicated the pressure containers to simply allow for less frequent changes of the pressure containers. Further, Duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided. See MPEP 2144.04 VI
Regarding claim 7, Kurzer teaches wherein the basic unit has a protective screen 2 for at least partially closing a receiving space for the beverage container. (par. 32 and figure 1)
Regarding claim 8, Kurzer teaches wherein the basic unit has a base and an upper part, which are connected to one another via at least one support element. (figure 1: Base (bottom of housing 2) upper part (top of housing 2), support element (section of housing connecting bottom to top))
Regarding claim 9, Kurzer teaches wherein the pressure container receptacles and the beverage container receptacle are each formed or arranged in the upper part. (figure 1)
Regarding claim 10, Kurzer teaches wherein the basic unit comprises at least one cladding part 2 for closing a receiving space for the pressure containers.
Regarding claim 11, Kurzer does not explicitly teach wherein the beverage container receptacle comprises a thread for screwing in a corresponding beverage container connection thread arranged or formed on the beverage container.
However, Kurzer teaches that it is known in the art to provide a threaded connection for the pressure container. (par. 42) Kurzer additionally teaches that it is known to provide thread to the beverage container. (par. 33)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the threaded connection of Kurzer, for the non-threaded connection of Kurzer, are both are art recognized functionally equivalent mechanisms for connecting containers to a beverage carbonator. See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 12, Kurzer teaches wherein the respective pressure container receptacle has a thread for screwing in a corresponding pressure container connection thread, which is arranged or formed on the pressure container. (par. 42 and figure 2)
Regarding claim 13, Kurzer teaches wherein the respective pressure container receptacle has a snap-in receptacle 8 for engaging a corresponding pressure container connection thread which is formed or arranged on the pressure container. (par. 39 and figure 2)
Regarding claim 14, Kurzer teaches wherein the beverage container is arranged in the beverage container receptacle. (figure 1)
Regarding claim 15, Kurzer teaches wherein a respective pressure container is arranged in each pressure container receptacle. (figure 1)
Regarding claim 16, Kurzer teaches wherein the basic unit has an actuating unit (valves 16 and 18) (alternatively Kurzer teaches the actuating units can be pneumatic cylinders arranged with corresponding valve levers 100, par. 43), wherein each pressure container receptacle is assigned a specific actuation of this one actuation unit, wherein the actuation unit is configured for opening a fluidic connection between the pressure container arranged in the respective pressure container receptacle and the beverage container arranged in the beverage container receptacle upon performance of the respective specific actuation. (par. 43 teaches valves are opened one at a time and further teaches that pneumatic cylinders on the valves could be used to open the valves automatically.)
Regarding claims 17-19, Kurzer teaches the pressure container can contain several gas components such as CO2 and O2. Kurzer teaches that gas components can round off the taste of the beverage. (par. 6-8) Further, the apparatus of Kurzer is certainly capable of having any combination of gases/flavorings either the same or different depending on a user desired beverage makeup. The instant claim is directed to a material or article worked upon. "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). See MPEP 2115.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurzer (EP1224966A2 using machine translation) in view of Danieli et al.(PGPub# US 2020/0360875 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kurzer does not explicitly teach wherein the respective pressure container receptacle is pivotably coupled to the basic unit.
However, Daniele teaches a similar beverage carbonator. Daniele teaches a pivoting coupling 104 (hinges, levers) for connecting the pressure container 46 to a base unit. (par: 146-149 and figures 10a,b)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the pivotable coupling of Daniele, to the system of Kurzer, in order to provide a user with a simple and quick replacement of the pressure container as taught by Daniele. (par. 64)
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 IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights