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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31 May 2026 has been entered.
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 31 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues on pages 11 and 12 of the Remarks that the prior art does not disclose the newly added limitation to claims 19 and 28 of “an orifice with a membrane which infuses one or more gases, where the membrane surrounds the orifice”. This new limitation is treated in this Action, below.
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 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 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL J. MELARAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights