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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims include the limitation of a “cf valve”. The specification defines the “cf valve” as “a regulating valve for maintaining a substantially constant flow of fluid from a variable pressure fluid supply to a fluid outlet”. (¶ [0050]) This definition also describes the well-known device in the art of a “pressure regulator”, “regulator” or “constant flow valve” and therefore, is interchangeable with regards to the examination of the claims in this Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues on pages 11 and 12 of the Remarks, regarding claims 19 and 28, that prior art Kleinrchert does not disclose the limitation of “an orifice with a membrane, where the membrane surrounds the orifice”, found in.
As explained in the previous and current Action, Kleinrchert provides evidence and motivation that it is well-known to incorporate a liquid/gas contactor membrane unit to infuse the
PNG
media_image1.png
699
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
beverage with N2 or CO2 to give the beverage a unique appearance and enhanced flavor and aroma.
Prior art Cambell teaches the actual structure of a liquid/gas contactor membrane unit (29 “micromembrane”) with an orifice (15+16+19) with a membrane (29) which infuses one or more gases (¶ [0003]: “carbon dioxide infused beverages nitrogen-infused beverages”), wherein the membrane surrounds the orifice (seen in Fig. 2: membrane 29 surrounds orifice).
The Applicant also argues on page 12 that Kleinrchert does not disclose the newly amended limitation to claims 19 and 28 of “an orifice with a first membrane which infuses a first gas and a second membrane which infuses a second gas
This new limitation lacks support in the disclosure as originally presented and is treated in this Action accordingly.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Specifically, amended claims 19 and 28 recite “an orifice with a first membrane which infuses a first gas and a second membrane which infuses a second gas.” Fig. 3 shows tube orifice (304) surrounded by only a single membrane (306). The drawings do not show a second membrane associated with the orifice and configured to infuse a second gas. Therefore, the second membrane which infuses the second gas must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claims 19 and 28. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 19 and 28 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.
Claims 19 and 28 have been amended to recite “an orifice with a first membrane which infuses a first gas and a second membrane which infuses a second gas.” The originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that Applicant as in possession of an orifice having first and second membranes respectively infusing first and second gases at the time the application was filed. The specification discloses, with respect to Fig. 3, a tube orifice (304) surrounded by a single membrane (306), wherein the membrane includes one or more elements (308), exemplified as N2, which enters the fluid passing by the membrane. The disclosure does not identify a second membrane associated with tube orifice (304), nor does it disclose first and second membranes respectively introducing different first and second gases. Accordingly, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of the presently claimed two-membrane arrangement.
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 19-25, 27-30 and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank (U.S. Pat. 6,625,993) in view of Newton (U.S. Pub. 2006/0267403), Campbell (U.S. Pub. 2016/0136590) and Kleinrchert (U.S. Pub. 2015/0329343).
Regarding claim 19, Frank discloses a dispensing device (Fig. 7) comprising: a syrup unit (14) configured to transmit via one or more orifices (connected to conduits, unlabeled); at least one or more syrups (250), one or more gases (25) , and water (21) to a dispensing block (34), the transmitting occurring via a pump (water pump 290, syrup pump 296); a syrup source (7A, 7B, 7C) coupled to the syrup unit configured to provide the one or more syrups to the syrup unit; a water source (9) configured to provide the water to at least one of the syrup unit and the dispensing block (30); and a cf valve (204) coupled to a first orifice upstream of a solenoid valve (242), wherein the cf valve inherently provides a range of pressures to the solenoid valve since the output pressure of a regulator linearly correlates to the input pressure to the regulator and as the input pressure decreases (due to usage and depletion of the supply, such as a pressurized CO2 bottle), the output pressure follows; wherein the first orifice is coupled to the dispensing block (34).
Frank discloses a cf valve (204) but does not specify its design; however, Newton discloses a constant flow (abstract) pressure regulator (10) including: a diaphragm chamber (seen in the figure) interposed between the inlet (28) and the outlet ports (31), the inlet port being separated from the diaphragm chamber by a barrier wall (22), the barrier wall having a first passageway (30) extending therethrough from an inner side facing the diaphragm chamber to an outer side facing the inlet port, where the inlet port is at a ninety degree angle from the outlet port.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Frank’s cf valve with Newton’s cf valve, since doing so would be a mere substitution of one known cf valve configuration for another known valve cf configuration with the expected results that the substituted valve would control flow (see MPEP 2143 I B).
The combination is silent in regards to an orifice with a membrane which infuses one or more gases.
Campbell discloses a liquid/gas contactor membrane unit (29 “micromembrane”) with an orifice (15+16+19) with a membrane (29) which infuses one or more gases (¶ [0003]: “carbon dioxide infused beverages nitrogen-infused beverages”), wherein the membrane surrounds the orifice (seen in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Campbell to incorporate a liquid/gas contactor membrane unit with an orifice to infuse the beverage with N2 or CO2 to give the beverage a unique appearance and enhanced flavor and aroma. (as evidenced by Kleinrchert: abstract)
Regarding the orifice having a second membrane infusing a second gas, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the number of liquid/gas contactor membrane unit, staging one after another, each with different gases, such as nitrogen as the first gas and carbon dioxide as the second gas, (Kleinrchert: ¶ [0005]), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Regarding claim 20, Frank discloses a check valve (52) adaptor coupled to the first orifice downstream of the solenoid valve (242 and others).
Regarding claim 21, Frank discloses that the water is carbonated water. (col. 7, lines 60)
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Frank in view of Newton discloses a solenoid valve and a cf valve which provides a range of pressure to the solenoid valve. The combination does not specify that a configuration of the solenoid valve is changed based on the cf valve; however, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to change a configuration of the valve, such as its size, in proportion to flow and pressures required by the cf valve. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding claim 25, the combination doesn’t specify if the orifice(s) are either fixed or adjustable; however, inherently they are either fixed or adjustable. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) MPEP 2144.04 V. D.
Regarding claim 27, Frank discloses that the at least one of the one or more syrups is configured to be selectable through controller (15).
Regarding claim 28, Frank discloses a dispensing device (Fig. 7) comprising: a syrup unit (14) configured to transmit via one or more orifices (connected to conduits, unlabeled); at least one or more syrups (250), one or more gases (25) , and water (21) to a dispensing block (34), the transmitting occurring via a pump (water pump 290, syrup pump 296); a syrup source (7A, 7B, 7C) coupled to the syrup unit configured to provide the one or more syrups to the syrup unit; a water source (9) configured to provide the water to at least one of the syrup unit and the dispensing block (30); and a cf valve (204) coupled to a first orifice upstream of a solenoid valve (242), wherein the cf valve inherently provides a range of pressures to the solenoid valve since the output pressure of a regulator linearly correlates to the input pressure to the regulator and as the input pressure decreases (due to usage and depletion of the supply, such as a pressurized CO2 bottle), the output pressure follows; wherein the first orifice is coupled to the dispensing block (34).
Frank discloses a cf valve (204) but does not specify its design; however, Newton discloses a constant flow (abstract) pressure regulator (10) including: a diaphragm chamber (seen in the figure) interposed between the inlet (28) and the outlet ports (31), the inlet port being separated from the diaphragm chamber by a barrier wall (22), the barrier wall having a first passageway (30) extending therethrough from an inner side facing the diaphragm chamber to an outer side facing the inlet port, where the inlet port is at a ninety degree angle from the outlet port.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Frank’s cf valve with Newton’s cf valve, since doing so would be a mere substitution of one known cf valve configuration for another known valve cf configuration with the expected results that the substituted valve would control flow (see MPEP 2143 I B).
Frank does not specify a second dispensing unit with a second syrup unit; however, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the necessary parts of Frank’s dispensing unit into a second dispensing unit, utilizing a second syrup unit including:
a second syrup supply configured to transmit via a second group of orifices (connected to conduits, unlabeled); at least one or more syrups (250), one or more gases (25) , and water (21) to a dispensing block (34);
a second water source (9) configured to provide the water to the second syrup unit and the dispensing block (30); and
a second solenoid valve (242) coupled to a second orifice, wherein the second orifice is coupled to the dispensing block;
to increase the capacity of the dispensing system and provide the user additional syrup choices.
The combination is silent in regards to an orifice with a membrane which infuses one or more gases.
Campbell discloses a liquid/gas contactor membrane unit (29 “micromembrane”) with an orifice (15+16+19) with a membrane (29) which infuses one or more gases (¶ [0003]: “carbon dioxide infused beverages nitrogen-infused beverages”), wherein the membrane surrounds the orifice (seen in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Campbell to incorporate a liquid/gas contactor membrane unit with an orifice to infuse the beverage with N2 or CO2 to give the beverage a unique appearance and enhanced flavor and aroma. (as evidenced by Kleinrchert: abstract)
Regarding the orifice having a second membrane infusing a second gas, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the number of liquid/gas contactor membrane unit, staging one after another, each with different gases, such as nitrogen as the first gas and carbon dioxide as the second gas, (Kleinrchert: ¶ [0005]), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Regarding claim 29, Frank discloses a check valve (52) adaptor coupled to the first orifice downstream of the solenoid valve (242 and others) of a syrup unit and it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate Frank’s check valve to a duplicated second orifice downstream of a second duplicated solenoid in the second dispensing unit from claim 28.
Regarding claim 30, Frank discloses that the water is carbonated water. (col. 7, lines 60)
Regarding claim 32, Frank, in view of Newton, discloses a cf valve (Frank: 204) coupled to a first orifice upstream of a solenoid valve (242) and it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the cf valve to a duplicated second orifice upstream of a second duplicated solenoid in the second dispensing unit from claim 28.
Regarding claim 33, Frank, in view of Newton, discloses a cf valve (Frank: 204) coupled to a first orifice upstream of a solenoid valve (242) of a syrup unit and it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate a third instance of the cf valve coupled to a duplicated third orifice upstream of a second duplicated solenoid in the second dispensing unit from claim 32.
Regarding claim 34, Frank, in view of Newton, discloses a cf valve (Frank: 204) coupled to a first orifice upstream of a solenoid valve (242) of a syrup unit and it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the cf valve coupled to a duplicated third orifice upstream of a second duplicated solenoid in the second dispensing unit from claim 28.
Regarding claim 35, Frank discloses a check valve (Frank: 52) adaptor coupled to the first orifice downstream of the solenoid valve (242 and others) and it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate Frank’s check valve to a duplicated second orifice downstream of a second duplicated solenoid in the second dispensing unit from claim 28.
Claim 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Kameyama (U.S. Pub. 2002/0060226).
Regarding claim 31, Frank discloses a solenoid valve (242) but is silent in regards to a needle valve coupled to the first orifice downstream of the solenoid valve; however, Kameyama discloses (Fig. 28B) a constant flow regulator (16) (cf valve) upstream of a solenoid valve (17) and a needle valve (90) downstream of the solenoid valve. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include a needle valve downstream of the solenoid valve so “when a liquid whose viscosity is considered to be low is delivered, the needle valve 90 may be preliminarily driven and the quantity of the opening of the syrup passing part may be limited, and further, the needle valve 90 may be manually operated not depending on the drive mechanism and the quantity of the opening of the syrup passing part may be limited.” (¶ [0224])
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 19-25 and 27-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,396,446 in view of Kleinrchert (U.S. Pub. 2015/0329343). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See table, below.
Instant Claims
Claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,396,446
Notes
19
1 and 9
Claim 1 of the patent discloses all of the limitations of the claim except for what is disclosed in claim 9 of the patent: cf valve is a regulating valve, including an inlet port, outlet port, the inlet port being separated from a diaphragm by a barrier wall, having a first passageway extending therethrough from an inner side facing the diaphragm chamber to an outer side facing the inlet port.
Further in view of Kleinrchert which discloses a liquid/gas contactor membrane unit (8) with an orifice (23) with a membrane (25) which infuses (¶ [0047]: “infuses into the beverage”) one or more gases (N2 or CO2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Kleinrchert to incorporate a liquid/gas contactor membrane unit with an orifice to infuse the beverage with N2 or CO2 to give the beverage a unique appearance and enhanced flavor and aroma. (abstract)
20
2
The patented claim discloses a check valve adaptor.
21
3
The patented claim discloses carbonated water
22
4
The patented claim discloses a needle valve.
23
1
The patented claim discloses the first cf valve is configured (changed) to provide a first range of pressures to the first solenoid valve.
24
9
The patented claim discloses that a size (size of control orifice) of the solenoid valve can be changed to maintain constant flow of fluid.
25
1
The patented claim discloses an orifice which can only be fixed or adjustable.
26
Cancelled
27
1
The patented claim discloses that the syrup unit is configured to transmit at least one of a first group of syrups.
28
1
The patented claim discloses all of the limitations of claim 28 except for the inlet port being at 90° angle from the outlet port; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to orient the ports relative to each other at any angle, such as 90° to simplify manufacture and assembly.
Further in view of Kleinrchert which discloses a liquid/gas contactor membrane unit (8) with an orifice (23) with a membrane (25) which infuses (¶ [0047]: “infuses into the beverage”) one or more gases (N2 or CO2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Kleinrchert to incorporate a liquid/gas contactor membrane unit with an orifice to infuse the beverage with N2 or CO2 to give the beverage a unique appearance and enhanced flavor and aroma. (abstract)
29
2
The patented claim discloses a check valve adaptor.
30
3
The patented claim discloses carbonated water.
31
4
The patented claim discloses a needle valve.
32
5
The patented claim discloses a second cf valve coupled to a second orifice upstream of the second solenoid valve.
33
6
The patented claim discloses a third cf valve coupled to a third orifice upstream of the concentrate bag, which is part of a syrup unit.
34
7
The patented claim discloses a second cf valve coupled to a third orifice upstream of the concentrate bag, which is part of a syrup unit.
35
8
The patented claim is identical.
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.
/MJM/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 18, 2026
