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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15, 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/12/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 18 . When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Storz (FR 2259901A1).
Storz FR 2259901A1 discloses in reference to claim:
1. (INDEPENDENT) An apparatus (1) for preserving beverages (see page 3, paragraph 2 - page 4, paragraph 2; figure 1; page 5, paragraph 3 - page 7, last paragraph), having a measuring device (1) which is suitable and intended for determining a flow rate of a liquid flowing through a beverage line (2), and having a pump device (8) which conveys a preserving agent (sulfur oxide), into the beverage line (2), wherein a delivery line (15) is provided which opens into the beverage line (2) and the pump device (8) delivers the preservative through this delivery line and wherein the pump device (8) can be controlled as a function of a flow rate determined by the measuring device (1), characterized in that wherein the pump device (8) is constructed as a reciprocating piston pump.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
927
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FR 2259901A1 discloses (see page 3, paragraph 2 - page 4, paragraph 2; figure 1; page 5, paragraph 3 - page 7, last paragraph) an apparatus for preserving drinks comprising a measurement means (Flowmeter 1) suitable and adapted for determining a flow rate of a liquid flowing through a drinks conduit (2) and comprising a variable pump means (8) which conveys a preservative (sulfur oxide) into the drinks conduit (2, 3, 17, 4), wherein a conveying conduit (15) is provided which opens into the drinks conduit (2, 3, 17, 4) and the pump means (8) conveys the preservative through this conveying conduit and wherein the pump means (8) is controllable according to a flow rate determined by the measurement means (1), wherein the pump is preferably in the form of a reciprocating piston pump (see page 3, paragraph 2 - page 4, paragraph 2) and wherein the measurement means is upstream of the position where the preservative is supplied. The apparatus further comprises a nozzle means (16) comprising an opening mechanism (11, 12, 14) controllable via a supply pressure of the preservative and a reservoir (14) for accommodating the preservative. To ensure a supply of sulfur dioxide proportional to the flow, it has been provided, in another embodiment of the invention, that the sulfur dioxide is introduced in a constant and intermittent amount at the entry point, following a rate that is inversely proportional to the flow, using a pump, preferably a piston pump or a diaphragm pump.
The device, very schematically shown in the drawing, comprises as an essential element a flowmeter 1, which is connected with its 'inlet tube' 2 and its outlet tube 3 into a transport pipe 4, which is used to convey grape juice from a receiving tank 5, for example to a press not shown, into a storage tank 6 using a transfer pump 7 shown in dashed lines. 35 The device, which can otherwise be connected to any other piping for a working phase such as, for example, pouring, filtration, or processing, also includes a dosing pump 8 whose operation is due to a magnetic winding 9. The magnetic dosing pump 8, which can also consist of a plunger with adjustment control, delivers a quantity with each piston stroke that remains constant during the sulfiting process and can, however, be gradually adjusted, either manually or using a known stroke-adjustment device to a desired value. On the suction side, pump 8 is connected via a pipe 11 and a pressure reduction valve 12 to a steel bottle 14 containing liquefied sulfur dioxide (SO2) under pressure. On the discharge side, pump 8 is connected by a pipe 15 to a nozzle head 16. This is radially associated with a piping element 17 that carries the must to be sulfited and which is inserted between piping element 3 of the flow meter and the circulation pipe 4. The nozzle head contains a nozzle, not shown in detail, or a spraying device of another type, whose opening pressure is noticeably higher than that of the liquefied gas prevailing in the pipe 11. The injection nozzle is kept closed by a closure spring, not shown, as long as pump 8 is stopped. This ensures that the sulfur dioxide remains in liquid phase until it exits at the nozzle head. However, as soon as the dosing pump starts operating, the injector is opened by the discharge pressure, so that immediately behind the opening of the nozzle the sulfur dioxide passes into the gaseous state and can be mixed in finely divided form with the flowing material. To achieve the desired dosing, proportional to the flow, of sulfur dioxide, a signal generator 25 not shown has been coupled to flowmeter 1, which, after each predetermined partial quantity of material, sends an electric pulse to the magnetic winding and causes it to perform a cycle of pump 8. Although flowmeter 1 can commonly be used for inductive measurement, or be made of a rotary piston meter or equivalent, it must nevertheless, for the operation intended in the invention, be associated with a pulse generator that delivers control pulses at a rate corresponding to the flow, for actuating dosing pump 8. The device of the invention makes it possible to dose sulfur dioxide proportionally to the flow, ensuring that the SO2 is introduced uniformly and already in the gaseous state at the head the nozzle head 16. The accuracy with which each quantity of SO2 is measured comes from the fact that the liquid phase is maintained all the way to the spray nozzle in the nozzle head 16. The fact that the injection nozzle only opens under a pressure that is noticeably higher than that of bottle 14 certainly prevents any unexpected release of gas or uncontrolled flow. With the process of the invention and the described device, it is possible to sulfite, exactly proportional to the flow, with the calculated necessary amounts, not only the must or grape juice, but also the wine and other products capable of flowing, for example, products from the canning industry. Due to the association according to the invention between the flow meter and the dosing pump, accuracy of dosing is achieved even when the processing capacity and, with it, the flow of liquid to be sulfited, increases increase significantly. Of course, various modifications can be made by the skilled person to the device or process just described solely as a non-limiting example without departing from the scope of the invention.
2. The apparatus according to claim 1, characterized in that wherein the apparatus (1) has a nozzle device (16) which conveys the preservatives into the beverage line (2), wherein this nozzle device (16) being a heatable (capable of being heated) nozzle device.
3. The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the nozzle device (16) has an opening mechanism controllable by a pre- pressure of the preservative.
On the suction side, pump 8 is connected via a pipe 11 and a pressure reduction valve 12 to a steel bottle 14 containing liquefied sulfur dioxide (SO2) under pressure. On the discharge side, pump 8 is connected by a pipe 15 to a nozzle head 16. However, as soon as the dosing pump starts operating, the injector is opened by the discharge pressure, so that immediately behind the opening of the nozzle the sulfur dioxide passes into the gaseous state and can be mixed in finely divided form with the flowing material.
4. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the pump device (piston 8) is arranged within a chamber (piston cylinder).
5. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises an inactivation device ( valve 12) for treating preservative vapors, wherein this inactivation device (12) comprising a valve (which can be considered an air circulation device –in that is allows or limits circulation and/or a filter device—in that the exit from the valve filters the passing fluid volume at least with the exit orifice).
6. (Currently Amended) The apparatus (1) according to claim 1, wherein the delivery line 15 opens into a curved section (top of rounded piping) of the beverage line (2).
7. (Currently Amended) The apparatus (1) according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus (1) comprises a storage container 14 for receiving the preserving agent [ the intended us of the storage container for dialkyl dicarbonates is not distinguishing from container 14].
8. (Currently Amended) The apparatus (1) according to claim 1, wherein the measuring device 1 is arranged in a flow direction of the beverage upstream of the position of the supply of the preservative agent [dialkyl dicarbonates] into the beverage line. See figure above.
9. (Currently Amended) The apparatus (1) according to claim 1, wherein the pump device (4) has a variable delivery rate.
To achieve the desired dosing, proportional to the flow, of sulfur dioxide, a signal generator 25 not shown has been coupled to flowmeter 1, which, after each predetermined partial quantity of material, sends an electric pulse to the magnetic winding and causes it to perform a cycle of pump 8. Although flowmeter 1 can commonly be used for inductive measurement, or be made of a rotary piston meter or equivalent, it must nevertheless, for the operation intended in the invention, be associated with a pulse generator that delivers control pulses at a rate corresponding to the flow, for actuating dosing pump 8.
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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storz FR 2259901A1 in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2012/0021117A1)
Storz FR 2259901A1 discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
16. (New) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the preserving agent is dialkyl dicarbonate.
18/19. (New) The apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the treating preservative vapors are dialkyl dicarbonate vapors.
Regarding the specific use of dialkyl dicarbonate as the preserving agent, Hoffman describes a method for preserving drinks comprising nozzles for treatment of drinks with dialkyl dicarbonates. On the basis of Hoffmann, a person skilled in the art would therefore have used a preservative other than sulfur dioxide, such as for example the dialkyl carbonates used with the apparatus of FR 2259901A1.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storz FR 2259901A1 in view of Beavis et al. (US 2013/0292407A1).
Storz FR 2259901A1 discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claim:
10. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises monitoring device suitable and intended for detecting leakages of the pump means.
Beavis teaches a fluid/beverage delivery system wherein there is provided a means for detecting leakages of the pump means such that appropriate action can be taken by the device or user upon a leak being detected. One of skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the Storz device to include such a means for detecting leakages of the pump means such that appropriate action can be taken by the device or user upon a leak being detected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc