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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Kingdom of Sweden on 11/11/2020.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 32-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/15/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 18-31 in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 22, 25 recite “moved to from”. It should be moved from. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
First locking member in claim 1, interpreted as protrusion as described in Fig. 4 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
Second locking member in claim 1, interpreted as ramp as described in Fig. 4 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 18-22, 25-29, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adolfsson et al., US 4342710 (hereafter Adolfsson) and further in view of Thomson et al., US 7975988 (hereafter Thomson).
Regarding claim 1,
A carbonator for carbonating a beverage in a beverage container (Fig. 1) , the carbonator comprising: a carbonating head (15) comprising a dissolver nozzle (9) for introducing carbonating medium into the beverage container;
a support part (stand 2) for movably supporting the carbonating head between a vertically highest position and a vertically lowest position; (Fig. 1 and 2)
…wherein in the locked state the carbonating head is retained in the vertically lowest position; ( column 3, lines 25-30 teaches a resilient tongue 28 is arranged to co-operate with openings in the rear wall of the bursting protection 15, as shown in FIG. 2, and thereby to maintain the bursting protection in its lower position.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
681
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Adolfsson
and a base part connected to the support part and comprising a beverage container stand (5) for the beverage container (4),
PNG
media_image2.png
683
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Adolfsson
Primary combination of references is silent about a locking mechanism operable between an unlocked state and a locked state, ….wherein the carbonator is configured such that movement of the carbonating head to the vertically lowest position sets the locking mechanism in the locked state, and wherein the locking mechanism comprises a first locking member that is arranged on the carbonating head and a second locking member that is arranged on the base part.
Thomson teaches a locking mechanism operable between an unlocked state and a locked state, (filling head 30 and flask 20 locked in Fig. 2a and unlocked in Fig. 2b)
PNG
media_image3.png
638
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2a in Thomson
PNG
media_image4.png
556
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2b in Thomson
wherein the carbonator is configured such that movement of the carbonating head to the vertically lowest position sets the locking mechanism in the locked state, ( Fig. 2a implies that filling head is locked to flask 20 when filling head 30 is at its lowest position.)
and wherein the locking mechanism comprises a first locking member that is arranged on the carbonating head (Column 5, lines 58-61 teaches filling head 30 comprises pins 33 of a bayonet connection.)
and a second locking member that is arranged on the base part. (Column 5, lines 60-63 teaches “The pins 33 can be engaged with grooves 23 (see FIG. 3a to 3c) arranged on the receiving flask 20.”)
PNG
media_image5.png
348
465
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Thomson
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the pin and grooves for bayonet connection as taught in Thomson to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the flask can be mounted rotatably around an axis which is substantially parallel to the movement direction of the flask and/or of the filling head. With such a design, a bayonet closure can be easily used. Engagement or disengagement between a bayonet element on the receiving flask and a bayonet element on the filling head can be achieved by simply rotating the receiving flask” as taught in column 3, lines 1-8 in Thomson.
Regarding claim 18,
The carbonator of Claim 1, further comprising a venting valve arrangement for relieving an overpressure within the beverage container, (Fig. 1 in Adolfsson teaches pressure relief valve 31 and safety valve 33)
wherein the carbonator is configured to successively open and close the venting valve arrangement when the locking mechanism is set from the unlocked state to the locked state. (Adolfsson is silent about this. The claim is interpreted as safety valves are checked before carbonation.
Thomson teaches “The device can be further provided with tripping means for tripping safety valves each time the filling head is lowered and/or raised. In a preferred embodiment, tripping is made each time the filling head is lowered. By this, it is made sure before each carbonating step that safety valves are not blocked. This can be especially achieved by a cam mechanism actuating valve plungers during lowering of the filling head” in column 4, lines 50-57.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the tripping means as taught in Thomson to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “By this, it is made sure before each carbonating step that safety valves are not blocked” as taught in column 4, lines 50-57 in Thomson.
Regarding claim 19,
The carbonator of Claim 1, further comprising a venting valve arrangement for relieving an overpressure within the beverage container and a release manipulator operable between a vertically highest position and a vertically lowest position, (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Thomson teaches venting valve 62 and dump lever 51 in Fig. 4 and Fig. 7. It is implied that a lever operates between high and low positions.)
wherein the carbonator is configured such that movement of the release manipulator from the vertically highest position to the vertically lowest position successively opens the venting valve arrangement( Thomson teaches in column 7, lines 20-23 “actuating the dump lever 51 and thus the transmission ring 52, the vent pin 57 is opened such as to allow release of pressure through the release element 50.”)
and sets the locking mechanism from the locked state to the unlocked state. (Column 3, lines 37-45 teaches “the interlocking engagement between the flask and the filling head is designed in such a way that it can be opened or disengaged only after the pressure within the cavity and/or the bottle has been released.” Column 3, lines 50-55 teaches “It would e.g. be possible to block mechanically the rotation of a flask until the release lever has been actuated.” Thus, it is understood that the interlocking mechanism is disengaged only after pressure is released by release manipulator.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the release manipulator and valve as taught in Thomson to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide safety mechanism as taught in column 3, lines 50-51.
Regarding claim 20,
The carbonator of Claim 1, wherein the locking mechanism is configured such that the first and second locking members are configured to engage in a form- fit manner. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Thomson teaches bayonet connection for interlocking in column 2, lines 39-43. It is understood that bayonet connection is form-fitting.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the pin and grooves for bayonet connection as taught in Thomson to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the flask can be mounted rotatably around an axis which is substantially parallel to the movement direction of the flask and/or of the filling head. With such a design, a bayonet closure can be easily used. Engagement or disengagement between a bayonet element on the receiving flask and a bayonet element on the filling head can be achieved by simply rotating the receiving flask” as taught in column 3, lines 1-8 in Thomson.
Regarding claim 21,
The carbonator of Claim 1, wherein the first locking member is rotatably journalled on the carbonating head. (The claim is interpreted as first member rotates along vertical axis.
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Thomson teaches “Engagement or disengagement between a bayonet element on the receiving flask and a bayonet element on the filling head can be achieved by simply rotating the receiving flask” in column 3, lines 5-8.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the pin and grooves for bayonet connection as taught in Thomson to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the flask can be mounted rotatably around an axis which is substantially parallel to the movement direction of the flask and/or of the filling head. With such a design, a bayonet closure can be easily used. Engagement or disengagement between a bayonet element on the receiving flask and a bayonet element on the filling head can be achieved by simply rotating the receiving flask” as taught in column 3, lines 1-8 in Thomson.
Regarding claim 22,
The carbonator of Claim 21, wherein the second locking member comprises a guide means for translating a translatory movement of the carbonating head into a rotative movement of the first locking member when the carbonating head is moved to from the vertically highest position to the vertically lowest position. (Pages 14-15 of the original disclosure describes “As is illustrated in figure 4, each protrusion receiver 22 comprises an inclined guide surface 23. As the respective locking protrusion 21 slides along the respective guide surface 23, the locking sleeve 20 is rotated counter clockwise, as seen from above. The guide surface 23 thus translates a vertical movement into a horizontal movement.” Based on this, guide means is interpreted as ramped surface.
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Thomson teaches in column 7, lines 3-8 “The groove 23 of the bayonet connection is further provided with an engagement surface formed as a ramp 24 (see FIG. 3c). The ramp 24 prevents rotation of the receiving flask 20 as long as there is an axial force between the pin 33 and the ramp surface 24.” )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the ramp surface in grooves for bayonet connection as taught in Thomson to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The ramp 24 prevents rotation of the receiving flask 20 as long as there is an axial force between the pin 33 and the ramp surface 24” as taught in column 7, lines 5-8 in Thomson.
Regarding claim 25,
The carbonator of Claim 21, further comprising a release member that is rotatably journalled on the carbonating head, wherein the release member and the first locking member comprise abutment means for causing the release member to rotate along with the first locking member when the carbonating head is moved to from the vertically highest position to the vertically lowest position. (The claim is interpreted as release member comprises projection 33 as described in Fig. 5b and page 16 of the original disclosure.
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Thomson teaches in column 5, lines 60-65 “The filling head 30 further is provided with a contact surface 32 which is adapted to get into substantially sealing contact with the contact surface 21 of the receiving flasks 20.” Here contact surface 32 corresponds to the projection.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the contact surface as taught in Thomson to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The filling head 30 further is provided with a contact surface 32 which is adapted to get into substantially sealing contact with the contact surface 21 of the receiving flasks 20. Sealing contact is made in such a way, that no glass particles can leave the cavity 9 (see. FIG. 2a) formed by the receiving flasks 20 and the filling head 30” as taught in column 5, line 63 – column 6, line 1 in Thomson.
Regarding claim 26,
The carbonator of Claim 25, further comprising a release manipulator operable between a vertically highest position and a vertically lowest position, wherein the carbonator is configured such that movement of the release manipulator from the vertically highest position to the vertically lowest position causes a rotative movement of the first locking member. (The claim is interpreted as the release manipulator is a lever as described in Fig. 5 and page 10 of the original disclosure. Page 10 of the original disclosure describes “In a fourth step D, the user moves a release manipulator 10 of the carbonating head 3 downwards until the overpressure within the bottle has been completely relieved, by the venting valve arrangement 8 opening, and subsequently the locking mechanism 5 has been unlocked.”
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Thomson teaches in column 7, lines 20-23 “actuating the dump lever 51 and thus the transmission ring 52, the vent pin 57 is opened such as to allow release of pressure through the release element 50.” It is understood that a lever operates between high and low positions.
Column 3, lines 37-45 teaches “the interlocking engagement between the flask and the filling head is designed in such a way that it can be opened or disengaged only after the pressure within the cavity and/or the bottle has been released.” It is implied that after lever 51 is pressed, pressure is released, and bayonet connection between head and flask is unlocked by rotation.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the release manipulator as taught in Thomson to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide safety mechanism as taught in column 3, lines 50-51.
Regarding claim 27,
The carbonator of Claim 26, wherein the carbonator is configured such that movement of the release manipulator from the vertically highest position to the vertically lowest position causes a rotative movement of the release member. (The claim is interpreted as carbonator comprises a lever to unlock the locking member as described in Fig. 5 of the original disclosure.
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Thomson teaches in column 7, lines 20-23 “actuating the dump lever 51 and thus the transmission ring 52, the vent pin 57 is opened such as to allow release of pressure through the release element 50.” It is understood that a lever operates between high and low positions.
Column 3, lines 37-45 teaches “the interlocking engagement between the flask and the filling head is designed in such a way that it can be opened or disengaged only after the pressure within the cavity and/or the bottle has been released.” It is implied that after lever 51 is pressed, pressure is released, and bayonet connection between head and flask is unlocked by rotation.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the release manipulator as taught in Thomson to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide safety mechanism as taught in column 3, lines 50-51.
Regarding claim 28,
The carbonator of Claim 27, wherein the abutment means is adapted to cause the first locking member to rotate along with the release member when the release member is caused to rotate by the release manipulator. (The claim is interpreted as projection 33 and locking member 21 rotate together as described in Fig. 5c of the original disclosure.
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Fig. 2b and Fig. 4 in Thomson teach that bayonet pins 33 are positioned on contact surface 32, hence they rotate together.)
PNG
media_image6.png
594
347
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in Thomson
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the contact surface and pins as taught in Thomson to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The filling head 30 further is provided with a contact surface 32 which is adapted to get into substantially sealing contact with the contact surface 21 of the receiving flasks 20. Sealing contact is made in such a way, that no glass particles can leave the cavity 9 (see. FIG. 2a) formed by the receiving flasks 20 and the filling head 30” as taught in column 5, line 63 – column 6, line 1 in Thomson.
Regarding claim 29,
The carbonator of claim 28, wherein the abutment means is configured such that the first locking member rotates along with the release member after a predetermined rotation of the release member. (The claim is interpreted as projection 33 and locking member 21 rotate together as described in Fig. 5c of the original disclosure.
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Fig. 2b and Fig. 4 in Thomson teach that bayonet pins 33 are positioned on contact surface 32, hence they rotate together.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the contact surface and pins as taught in Thomson to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The filling head 30 further is provided with a contact surface 32 which is adapted to get into substantially sealing contact with the contact surface 21 of the receiving flasks 20. Sealing contact is made in such a way, that no glass particles can leave the cavity 9 (see. FIG. 2a) formed by the receiving flasks 20 and the filling head 30” as taught in column 5, line 63 – column 6, line 1 in Thomson.
Regarding claim 31,
The carbonator of Claim 18, wherein the venting valve arrangement comprises a first venting valve configured to open at a first predetermined pressure and a second venting valve configured to open at a second predetermined pressure that is higher than the first predetermined pressure. (Adolfsson teaches in column 3, lines 34-40 “The pipe 9 communicates, besides with the cylinder 14, with a pressure relief valve 31 via a hose 32. On said hose 32 preferably a safety valve 33 is provided which is intended to open at a definite pressure, preferably 15 to 20 bar. The pressure relief valve 31 is intended to open at a lower pressure, preferably 10 to 12 bar, which is achieved when the liquid in the glass bottle is aerated.”)
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adolfsson, Thomson as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of White, US 5231960 (hereafter White).
Regarding claim 23,
The carbonator of Claim 21, further comprising a venting valve arrangement and a valve actuating means for actuating the venting valve arrangement,
the valve actuating means being actuated by a rotation of the first locking member. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
White teaches “During the 90-degree rotation of the cam 14 that opens and closes a valve, a point on the lower portion of the cam follower 40 is engaged by the lifting ramp 22, nose 24 and lowering ramp 26 of the cam lobe 20. The intake and exhaust valve typically consists of a valve head and a valve stem. Translational motion is imparted to the valve either by direct action upon the valve stem or by movement of a push rod which in turn imparts motion to the valve through a linkage.” in column 4, lines 25-35.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the cam, cam follower, and push rod as taught in White to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to have “a means for controlling valve overlap” as taught in column 1, line 41-44 in White.
Regarding claim 24,
The carbonator of Claim 23, configured such that the movement of the carbonating head from the vertically highest position to the vertically lowest position actuates the venting valve arrangement and effects locking of the carbonating head to the base part. (Adolfsson is silent about this.
Thomson teaches “The device can be further provided with tripping means for tripping safety valves each time the filling head is lowered and/or raised. In a preferred embodiment, tripping is made each time the filling head is lowered. By this, it is made sure before each carbonating step that safety valves are not blocked. This can be especially achieved by a cam mechanism actuating valve plungers during lowering of the filling head” in column 4, lines 50-57. It is implied that carbonation proceeds if safety valves are not blocked.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the tripping means as taught in Thomson to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “By this, it is made sure before each carbonating step that safety valves are not blocked” as taught in column 4, lines 50-57 in Thomson.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adolfsson, Thomson as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of White and Campbell et al., US 5076782 (hereafter Campbell).
The carbonator of Claim 27, wherein the release member comprises a release cam surface for translating the movement of the release manipulator from the vertically highest position to the vertically lowest position into the rotative movement of the release member, (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Campbell teaches “a cam 60 which rotates on the clamp 58, and an operating arm 62 which is attached to the cam 60. The operating arm 62 is connected to the valve rod 34 such that translation of the rod 34 imparts rotation to the cam 60” in column 4, lines 30-35.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the release cam surface as taught in Campbell to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The control device provides a camming surface over which a follower rides, and the follower operates a fuel valve” as taught in column 2, lines 13-15.
and wherein the release member comprises an actuator cam surface for translating the rotative movement of the release member into a translatory movement for actuating a venting valve arrangement. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
White teaches “During the 90-degree rotation of the cam 14 that opens and closes a valve, a point on the lower portion of the cam follower 40 is engaged by the lifting ramp 22, nose 24 and lowering ramp 26 of the cam lobe 20. The intake and exhaust valve typically consists of a valve head and a valve stem. Translational motion is imparted to the valve either by direct action upon the valve stem or by movement of a push rod which in turn imparts motion to the valve through a linkage.” in column 4, lines 25-35.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the actuator cam surface as taught in White to the carbonator in Adolfsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to have “a means for controlling valve overlap” as taught in column 1, line 41-44 in White.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights